I'm getting kind of tired of the "le drumpf" shit that's crashing this board, so I'll ask a few questions. A few hours ago, there was a thread about determinism. It was kind of a black-white bait false dichotomy in order to get replies, but the gist of it was: either all actions are pre-determined, therefore free will doesn't exist, or all of our actions are random, so free will still doesn't exist.
This does play a bit into the mind-body problem (which is: is consciousness/the mind part of the corporeal world, or is it part of some transcendent realm beyond our reality). My take on the issue is that there are chemicals which directly influence our brain, not some indescribable force (that is to say, our consciousness can be explained in the context of the reality we experience, hormones create the experiences, etc.). I am not so sure about what 'animates' our bodies, especially in regards to spirits having some 'weight' to them, but the moral spirit is something each individual possesses (not a corporeal 'thing', by definition). I am not opposed to the spirit (but that has nothing to do with consciousness), but I don't believe it is like some current that makes us be (that is just the result of all of our bodies' mechanisms falling into place as they do).
I'm getting kind of tired of the "le drumpf" shit that's crashing this board, so I'll ask a few questions...
Personally, I am of the belief that citizens in a society should be held accountable for their actions, and that the agency of the individual cannot be pawned off as some cosmic force doing it for them (oops it wasn't me).
Just a quick tangent: I am not opposed to a creator; I believe that it is more logical to assume creation is the natural consequence of existence, as opposed to claim that the Universe has always existed/without creation, because if that is true, then why does the Universe expand? Shouldn't the eternal everythingness of the Universe already encompass all of "existence"? If it is expanding, then there are regions that are 'nothing' (if we define existence as what is within the Universe). I'm not too fond of doing away with the concept of creation altogether, claiming that it has always just existed (as there are some pitfalls, like that expansion should not occur for a 'thing' that has always been).
That being said, I am not opposed to such a creator having the knowledge of what will become (perhaps time operates differently for this creator), but I do not think that this creator plays an active hand in determining the future (rather, acts passively). Or maybe this great manuscript of all things is changing every umpteenth second: my point being, that these changes might as well be decided by ourselves (or that the manuscript, in the context of the knowledge of the creator which may/may not experience time differently than humans, is dependent upon our action).
What are your thoughts on free will, existence with/without creation, the concept of spirits, and the logistics behind our consciousness?
noice
kek willed it
>spirits
Everything is of a physical nature. What you call spirit is just the consciousness that has emerged from very complex physical activities. There is no separate "spirit reality", it's all encompassed in the physical reality which hosts our bodies. The pictures on your computer are real, there's nothing magical about it, and the same applies to the images produced by your brain.
But there are still a lot of mysteries concerning our consciousness, the workings of our brains and so on. There may also be untapped potential in terms of emitting/receiving telepathic messages. Basically, stuff like WiFi and radio waves exist, though on a frequency which our bodies haven't evolved to interpret. Radioactivity exists, but we cannot feel it. The same may be true for "mind waves". But it's just a matter of time until science uncovers these things.
>Everything is of a physical nature. What you call spirit is just the consciousness that has emerged from very complex physical activities. There is no separate "spirit reality", it's all encompassed in the physical reality which hosts our bodies. The pictures on your computer are real, there's nothing magical about it, and the same applies to the images produced by your brain.
That's kind of what I am referring to, the consciousness is obviously describable and within reality, but there is some moral spirit each individual possesses (defined by their actions, which, again, stresses the importance of maintaining agency). I'm not saying that the spirit is like some current that animates the body and bam, we live like Frankenstein's monster or something. I think it is that moral spirit which is judged when you die.
On that topic, I do believe that there should be some judgement for conscious beings, such as humans. For example, in context our our moral laws we have set forth (no murder, stealing, rape, etc.), the guilty are punished and the virtuous are rewarded. There is an incentive to be morally virtuous outside of rewards/punishment, but there are also many people who just live like hedonists and do whatever they please because they do not believe that their actions have ramifications, especially once they die (we are all equally screwed during death). It does act as an incentive to be morally wholesome, for some portion of the population.
The mind waves stuff is interesting, I can't wait to see what technological advances reveal about our bodies.
there are multiple subspecies of humans that "coexist" in this planet. i only think 3 have free will and the others are to driven by instinct to have free will typically
there would be some blacks that have free will for instance but some where along the way more that dont survived and reproduced
for the record i think blacks , arabs and abos dont have free will on average .dont give me any shit about arab not being a race since it was on official government paper work up until like 2007 and abos dont have flat hair follicle type like blacks do
This is straight Sam Harris determinism.
Harris' book "Free Will"
ISBN-10: 1451683405
Determinism doesn't absolve responsibility, it merely alters the prescription for it. You don't get mad at a bear for acting like a bear, why get mad at a criminal for acting like a criminal? Either quarantine it or rehabilitate it, but don't waste energy pretending some ghost has it out for you. The driving force behind pretending people have free will is the same as the early origins of religion. Animism was a primitive attempt to explain natural phenomenon, and free will is the modern day equivalent of sun and water and mountain worship.
>there are multiple subspecies of humans that "coexist" in this planet. i only think 3 have free will and the others are to driven by instinct to have free will typically
3 including us? What are the others?
>for the record i think blacks , arabs and abos dont have free will on average
Well, I don't think that the nigger is absolved of his actions because he is a feral beast. The guilt is on the shoulders of white Western nations for associating with such feral beasts to begin with. A good quote:
Since the dawn of history the Negro has owned the continent of Africa – rich beyond the dream of poet’s fancy, crunching acres of diamonds beneath his bare black feet and yet he never picked one up from the dust until a white man showed to him its glittering light.
His land swarmed with powerful and docile animals, yet he never dreamed a harness, cart, or sled.
A hunter by necessity, he never made an axe, spear, or arrowhead worth preserving beyond the moment of its use. He lived as an ox, content to graze for an hour.
In a land of stone and timber he never sawed a foot of lumber, carved a block, or built a house save of broken sticks and mud.
With league on league of ocean strand and miles of inland seas, for four thousand years he watched their surface ripple under the wind, heard the thunder of the surf on his beach, the howl of the storm over his head, gazed on the dim blue horizon calling him to worlds that lie beyond, and yet he never dreamed a sail.
I haven't read a lot about the guy, all I know is that he was #WithHer. That's besides the point.
>Determinism doesn't absolve responsibility, it merely alters the prescription for it
What does that mean, so free will doesn't exist? He goes on to say "pretending people have free will", so obviously. In what way does it alter the prescription for responsibility? He says not to be surprised that bears act like bears, so is he saying that there are roles which are pre-determined, and that all those things within that category are doomed to act within the parameters of the definitions set forth (i.e. bears exist to always act like bears). Isn't there some specific cases where the bear can make decisions for himself, to hunt for salmon or to gather berries?
For clarity, the arguments were my paraphrasings of some of the book, not his explicit arguments.
The book argues that free will is an illusion, yes. The actions of an organism is a function of the stimuli it receives and the reactions it's capable of, instinctive, learned or otherwise. When a person, or a bear, is faced with what we would call a choice, the process of thinking is similar to a computer calculating a complex equation. There is a learned or instinctual program that takes the input and the stored data and synthesizes a conclusion. The reasons that go into a decision may be trivial or profound, but you can't choose not to choose. Inaction is also a choice and also a product of the above process. In this sense, all choice and all action are involuntary.
You can illustrate this view by considering various special cases. For example, consider a selection of criminals we are invited to consider. One, we find, has a brain tumor that pushed on their aggression center and directly caused their violent behavior. Another was taught by a parent to be a criminal, and that violent behavior was appropriate. We assign less blame to these kinds of criminals than we would to a criminal without these 'excuses'. But why should that be? Does it matter whether criminal behavior is innate, learned or medically generated? The outcome is the same.
Consider another example. If you were napping in a park and our friend the bear came upon you and injured you before being subdued, would you feel the same way as if a person with an axe injured you in the same way? You might visit the bear in the zoo, show it do your friends and say "that's the bastard that almost got me". The criminal, however, would probably arouse real and deep hatred. You might fantasize about retaliatory punishment or even wish him dead. Why are these different?
If you want to hear it directly, this is a decent summary of the book arguments.
youtu.be
>The actions of an organism is a function of the stimuli it receives and the reactions it's capable of, instinctive, learned or otherwise. When a person, or a bear, is faced with what we would call a choice, the process of thinking is similar to a computer calculating a complex equation. There is a learned or instinctual program that takes the input and the stored data and synthesizes a conclusion. The reasons that go into a decision may be trivial or profound, but you can't choose not to choose. Inaction is also a choice and also a product of the above process. In this sense, all choice and all action are involuntary.
But I'm not talking about choice which deviates from instinct, but choice that is within instinctual desires. For example, the bear wishes to survive, and, therefore, must hunt for nutrients to keep its body running optimally. It has the choice to hunt for berries, or go up the creek searching for salmon, does it not? You are correct, it is reacting to stimuli of its environment (and its body reacting to the environment, especially the instinctual desires).
>For example, consider a selection of criminals we are invited to consider. One, we find, has a brain tumor that pushed on their aggression center and directly caused their violent behavior. Another was taught by a parent to be a criminal, and that violent behavior was appropriate. We assign less blame to these kinds of criminals than we would to a criminal without these 'excuses'. But why should that be?
So the category is 'murderer', but the agent only fulfils the definitions set forth by the category once they act murderously, they cannot fulfil the definition until they fulfil the definition. If that wasn't the case, we would all be murderers-in-waiting. The guy with the tumour is less to blame because he is not directly acting (technically, he is, but in regards to the standard person, he has a disadvantage, he is mentally disabled). The other person chooses to do so...
... I don't believe in absolving agency and not examining the specific context just because the outcome is the same: dead bodies at the hands of murderers.
>If you were napping in a park and our friend the bear came upon you and injured you before being subdued, would you feel the same way as if a person with an axe injured you in the same way?
Human beings are not bound by the same instinctual drives as a bear is (at least, in urban settings, we do not need to hunt. Humans ought not hunt their own species, I've read of some brain damages that arise from cannibalism. Not too sure, though, but the human is acting out of wanton malice, I did not aggress him, and I should not be a meal for him).
This is assuming we are all rational agents, and that sociopaths don't exist who act purely out of wanton malice. The context does bring up some differences, but you are right, I almost died at the end of both of them.
>But I'm not talking about choice which deviates from instinct, but choice that is within instinctual desires.
This is a difference of scale, not kind. We can describe any decision, from basic head movement to profound life choices, as an inherently mechanical process which we have varying understanding of. I see something coming for me and I use my left hand to catch it instead of my right hand. Why? I could have done either, but I've played baseball and I'm used to catching with my glove hand. I have a fridge full of food and have to decide what to eat. I can't construct a narrative for why I chose one food over another, but this doesn't create some animus called free will, it just means my self-knowledge is incomplete.
>The guy with the tumor is less to blame because he is not directly acting (technically, he is, but in regards to the standard person, he has a disadvantage, he is mentally disabled). The other person chooses to do so...
The concept 'person' is a shorthand for a specific amount and configuration of chemicals, not an irreducible unit. Tumor criminal and non-tumor criminal are two slightly different patterns, but our ignorance of why non-tumor criminal became violent does not justify our supposition of free will any more than our ancestors ignorance of chemistry justified the supposition of water gods. All these kinds of arguments for free will are arguments from ignorance, and inherently flawed because of it.
>I don't believe in absolving agency and not examining the specific context just because the outcome is the same: dead bodies at the hands of murderers.
There's a mass effect quote that gets used in other contexts that I think is relevant here. "Stand in the ashes of a trillion dead souls and ask the ghosts if honor matters. The silence is your answer" Outcomes are the only things that ultimately matter. There's a utilitarian case for having more fear of a random animal attack than a human attack. Humans are smarter and less predictable, which makes them more dangerous. But this is a matter of means to preventing an end. Human beings are driven by more complex instincts than bears, but again this is a difference of scale, not kind. The concept of free will causes real and unnecessary mental suffering because we invent this animistic concept of free will after a certain threshold of complexity. We should think of criminals more like bears or landslides, something to be avoided and mitigated, but not hated. To be a criminal is to be a profoundly unlucky kind of person, and if you swapped bodies with a criminal, atom for atom, there is nothing extra in your identity that would prevent you from acting the same way they do. It makes practical sense to contain and rehabilitate criminals and to support and encourage heroes. But never forget that heroes are lucky to be born in their circumstances, and criminals are merely the inverse.
Consider another angle. Think of all the people who are essentially good, but lack willpower to achieve their goals. Someone who wants to diet but lacks motivation, are they not unlucky? Does it matter if they have the physical capacity if no one teaches them how to use it? When leftists prattle about white privilege, they are making the same error of seeing only the rich white man and not the poor one. Luck is decisive.
*more fear of a random human attack than a animal attack.
typo, my bad
>This is a difference of scale, not kind.
But you still make choice. The catching analogy is instantaneous, you would use your dominant hand, and I think that has more to do with environment (I don't think it's genetic, is it?). However, the fridge analogy is different. Of course, the instinctual drive is always the main cause, but you have choice within the parameters. Just because it is within a category, such as instincts, does not mean you can't decide to choose x meal over y.
>Tumor criminal and non-tumor criminal are two slightly different patterns
One is mentally delayed/damaged, the other is not (unless you want to get into the "warrior gene" stuff, but let's save that for another time). There is a difference if the tumour is pressing on an area that would make the individual more prone to violent outbursts.
>but our ignorance of why non-tumor criminal became violent
Well, we do know. You said the childhood upbringing, which is a very good argument. Single fatherhood is a huge case, just look at black neighbourhoods and single fathers. Still, the individual is responsible for his own actions, just because he had a bad upbringing doesn't mean he ought to be a criminal. Also, he does not fit within the parameters of becoming a murderer until he fulfils the definition, like I said above.
>"Stand in the ashes of a trillion dead souls and ask the ghosts if honor matters. The silence is your answer"
I agree, there are no morals in wartime, taking the high road means you lose. Fight tooth and nail, no rules. Ideally, that would not be the case (as in brotherly wars), but that is not so. I do not contest this whatsoever (so, I agree with nuking the nips and all the other stuff). Fight to kill or don't fight at all. However, in civilized society, honour speaks volumes, it defines the character of the individual, to a degree.
>Outcomes are the only things that ultimately matter.
What is the outcome is baseless? For example, Lenin promises bread and whatever to all the masses, and will get it to the people (away from the capitalists) at all costs: is it worth it to fight for his utopia? I believe one should analyze the merits of the method, and if it is even viable. Otherwise, in some cases, yes. Nowadays, not so much (foods stamps and welfare to eliminate poverty is a noble endgame, but cannot work).
>Humans are smarter and less predictable, which makes them more dangerous.
Let's look at which groups are more prone to criminal activity...
>The concept of free will causes real and unnecessary mental suffering because we invent this animistic concept of free will after a certain threshold of complexity.
What suffering? Elaborate. Compared to what you say after this, I'd take that 'suffering'.
>something to be avoided and mitigated, but not hated.
You hate those that break the boundaries of what is deemed morally permissible in a society because they have betrayed a sacred bond between all people. Criminals are lowlife scum who deserve to be punished, you have one chance. There is no excuse for crime, at all. They only fulfil the definition of becoming criminals when they commit crime (otherwise, outside of this, you can only call them delinquents, nothing more).
>To be a criminal is to be a profoundly unlucky kind of person
It has nothing to do with luck, you choose to pull the trigger. You have the choice to commit crime, or not to. But by your (Harris') claim, the criminal is just a category of humans which are bound by the parameters of that definition. I'm not so sure I agree with that, does this mean that a lawyer will only/always do/act as a lawyer would do? Same issue with criminals, they fulfil the definition of becoming a lawyer once they become a lawyer, not before that. What can be said of their actions prior to this? What causes the transition to being a lawyer?
>this entire thread
nerds
>But you still make choice.
I haven't been arguing that we don't make choices, I'm arguing about the origin of all choices being fundamentally mysterious to us. We create explanations after the fact to the best of our ability, but we don't decide our thoughts ahead of time. Our thoughts appear, and we act on them.
>One is mentally delayed/damaged, the other is not (unless you want to get into the "warrior gene" stuff, but let's save that for another time).
Well, conceptually the warrior gene thing is closer to what I'm trying to argue. I would say that both men are sick, but one of them is sick in a way that obviously explains their behavior, and one of them is sick in a not-yet-understood way.
>Well, we do know. You said the childhood upbringing, which is a very good argument.
I was referring to the 3rd case, which was no-tumor and no-child abuse. Just because we don't have an easy explanation now doesn't justify saying he did it of his own free will.
>and if you swapped bodies with a criminal, atom for atom, there is nothing extra in your identity that would prevent you from acting the same way they do.
Do I retain my psyche? If you are just talking about becoming a murderer, then yes, when I am transferred into a murderer, I am a murderer. Otherwise, no, if I am transferred into the body prior to the murder, I choose not to fulfil the definition of what it means to be a murderer.
>But never forget that heroes are lucky to be born in their circumstances, and criminals are merely the inverse.
But how can you know that they are heroes/criminals before they fulfil the definition of what it means to be a criminal? You get what I'm trying to say, there must be some transition to becoming a hero (to fall into the category of "x"), and that is dependent upon choice, not by nature. There are people who are more prone to certain behaviours, but this does not mean that they will necessarily act in that manner. I am more prone to keep up smoking (according to my DNA testing kit thing I did a while back), but this does not mean I will smoke (in reality, I do not actually smoke). I am not within the category of a smoker, even though I got the rough end of the straw (more addicted to cigarettes).
>Someone who wants to diet but lacks motivation, are they not unlucky?
No, they are not determined enough, that's all.
>Does it matter if they have the physical capacity if no one teaches them how to use it?
These days, one can teach themselves. Is this not also an argument for ignorance?
why bother to even bump it if you want it do die (for being text-intensive)?
What do you think on the topics at-hand?
>I'm arguing about the origin of all choices being fundamentally mysterious to us. We create explanations after the fact to the best of our ability
Well, yeah. That's the definition of a definition. It's just a term we made to accurately describe the world around us. It's like faggots whining that sexuality is a social construct, no shit it is, but that does nothing to eliminate the objective reality behind the concept.
>Our thoughts appear, and we act on them.
Now I don't know about that, couldn't it be said that hormones arise to affect our thought processes accordingly, not some random arbitrary spike every so often?
>I would say that both men are sick, but one of them is sick in a way that obviously explains their behavior, and one of them is sick in a not-yet-understood way.
Fair point. Until then, I say execute all murderers. My stance on crime is that murderers, rapists (and pedophiles), and other anomalies (cases that are really heinous) deserve death by firing squad, like the old days. Try them, convict them, and then kill them. I've heard the claims that we should rehabilitate, but that's bs because we each get once chance. You spurn it, tough shit. Or that we should wait because there might be other pieces of evidence which acquit the individual. But that argument is rooted in waiting on hypotheticals, which isn't great, as the taxpayer money is just wasted while we wait to see if Tyrone is guilty of murder. Keeping them in some prison costs too much, but a bullet costs less. Everything else should have some manual labour charges paired with it, as I believe hard work builds character, and work makes you free. Show them wha an honest day's work looks like, and they will smarten up.
>What is the outcome is baseless?
A promised outcome and an actual outcome are completely separate.
>Let's look at which groups are more prone to criminal activity...
Trends exist, but no race is immune to criminality.
>What suffering? Elaborate. Compared to what you say after this, I'd take that 'suffering'.
The hatred I referenced earlier. Later in your post here you reference to criminals being lowlife scum. Hatred isn't a pleasant emotion, and it's completely pointless. If you shift your viewpoint to one that sees the existence of criminals as pointless accidents instead of malicious demons out to get you, life becomes more pleasant and less scary. Dispassionate justice is the preferable response to evil. Salvage what you can and excise the rest.
>There is no excuse for crime
This is not universally true. If you acted on the same hatred of criminals you displayed, you could potentially run afoul of the same 'sacred bond' you reference in a fit of rage.
>It has nothing to do with luck, you choose to pull the trigger.
What circumstances lead you to that choice? How does someone end up in a ski mask and behind the barrel of a gun. We dont control when or where we're born, we dont control who is or isnt a part of our life, we dont control what is taught or not taught to us. We do our best to live with what we're given, both physically and mentally. Everything else is either fate or chaos, and we control neither.
You guys should just email eachother at this point. Or at least kiss already ffs
Read some rigorous philosophy, all discussion you present and will find here are hand wavey layman versions of what has already been discussed by people decades, centuries ago.
Can you recommend some works?
>Do I retain my psyche?
This is the heart of it. If you think there is some non-physical soul stuff that is attached to your body then so be it, that's a metaphysical impasse. I would only say that our best science of the mind thus far does not point in this direction, and the origin of such notions is firmly rooted in conjectural mysticism. If you think, as I do, that your identity is just a shorthand way of saying "all the stuff that's a part of my body and all the patterns of behavior that arise from my brain chemistry, hormones, and limbic system", then swapping places with anyone, atom for atom, makes you that person, and thus makes you act and believe and feel exactly as they would.
>But how can you know that they are heroes/criminals before they fulfil the definition of what it means to be a criminal?
I might not have established context sufficiently. The determinist view includes the idea that there is only one past and one future. Everything that has happened or will happen is an unbroken chain of cause and effect from whatever arbitrary start point to whatever arbitrary end point you set. On this view, any one person's past and future is set, and our consciousness is just watching things play out. Because we have such intimate access to our own thoughts but no one else, we identify strongly with our bodies, and from this constant focus on our day to day experience, we create this concept of 'me', and thus, free will.
>No, they are not determined enough, that's all.
We don't choose what capacity of determination we have, do we? I can't will myself to have more willpower, otherwise I wouldn't need more willpower in the first place.
>These days, one can teach themselves. Is this not also an argument for ignorance?
This assumes resources not everyone has. Information is easier to get, but so is disinformation. Does a jungle savage have the 'free will' to discover cutting edge physics or chemistry? What if you are born to a Luddite family?
Because since I find this boring, everyone else wil too, rite? We're the only two philosophers on the whooooooooole board.
>A promised outcome and an actual outcome are completely separate.
How can you differentiate if, in our modern times, they are shilled off as being the same? How can you ascertain which is legitimate and which is baseless?
>Trends exist, but no race is immune to criminality.
Never claimed that, but ethno-centric (i.e. racially homogenous) heterosexually monogamous communities breed less crime than drug-riddled, fatherless (((diversity))) shitfests.
>Later in your post here you reference to criminals being lowlife scum.
Do you contest this? You are sounding increasingly like pic related.
>Hatred isn't a pleasant emotion, and it's completely pointless.
If there is a breach of boundaries, then the hatred arises. If it is justified, yes. I am not just walking around hating things for the sake of hating things, that is equivalent to the lefties saying there is hatred against blacks because of their skin colour.
>This is not universally true. If you acted on the same hatred of criminals you displayed, you could potentially run afoul of the same 'sacred bond' you reference in a fit of rage.
Executing criminals is the apex point of my hatred, because that is where it ends, once justice is served. Elaborate, when is crime permissible. In ideal circumstances, never. Even the whole "stealing food to pay for starving family" is a shit argument. Why is the man unemployed? Why start a family in a large city you cannot afford to live in? One cannot forget the link between homelessness and alcohol/drug abuse.
>What circumstances lead you to that choice? How does someone end up in a ski mask and behind the barrel of a gun.
Let's say somebody robs a bank, they do so because they value assets they cannot earn themselves. They wish to access a better life the easy way, so they commit crimes and breach the sacred bond I was talking about earlier.
>we dont control who is or isnt a part of our life
We can remove people from our lives, or move to a different country.
>This is the heart of it. If you think there is some non-physical soul stuff that is attached to your body then so be it, that's a metaphysical impasse.
Well, then let's say I don't retain the matter which is the building blocks for the gray matter in my brain, because I am transferring over to his being (i.e. I experience his life). So that means I will always be a murderer, if I am simply experiencing the man's life (and we know he will become a murderer, and there is nothing I can do to stop it because I am no longer me, but him).
>If you think, as I do, that your identity is just a shorthand way of saying "all the stuff that's a part of my body and all the patterns of behavior that arise from my brain chemistry, hormones, and limbic system", then swapping places with anyone, atom for atom, makes you that person, and thus makes you act and believe and feel exactly as they would.
I get this. I don't think that a spirit is like some electrical current that animates you, but I do think each person has a moral spirit that is judged when we die in the context of our existence. I am a moral "rightist"; by this, I mean that there is a right and wrong way to do things. Being a degenerate won't get you far in life, and those people will be punished because they have spurned their lives for the folly of individualism.
>The determinist view includes the idea that there is only one past and one future.
So somewhere along the timeline, the murderer commits murder and realizes that his destiny was to commit murder. Okay, I get that, I just don't think that there IS one past/future. I think the Universe and its inner machinations are more malleable than that, such rigidity isn't to be expected IMO. I think it is much more dynamic that you set it out as being. I think of it kind of like thunder, crackling in many directions, rooting/branching out until it makes contact with the ground.
>We don't choose what capacity of determination we have, do we? I can't will myself to have more willpower, otherwise I wouldn't need more willpower in the first place.
Well, that's what you coach means when he says "give it over 100%". Willpower isn't measurable, you either have it, or you don't. Your coach doesn't literally mean "100%", he's saying to give it more than what you are giving it now until you complete the task. You either have enough willpower to complete the task, or you don't. If you can't push yourself to finish it, then you can't finish it.
>This assumes resources not everyone has. Information is easier to get, but so is disinformation. Does a jungle savage have the 'free will' to discover cutting edge physics or chemistry? What if you are born to a Luddite family?
Well, the example was weight loss/dieting. This is usually a first-world issue (some jungle savage woman doesn't really care about her figure). There are many, many resources in the first world for women/men who are dissatisfied with their figure.
The metaphysics of the picture is correct, but the politics are fucked. Being a black youth and being brainwashed by the voting plantation owners and (((them))) to be a thug and waste the scant genetic resources you were given is a fucked up life to be born into. But there's no way I can see that I would be any different if I was born into that life. Just about the only valid concept SJW's come up with is privilege, but whereas they leverage it into guilt, I don't. Miscegenation is objectively bad for everyone, racism of lowered expectations is bad for everyone. Globalism/communism is demonstrably bullshit. But people are born into differently able bodies, and some are crippled while others get the magic combination of ambition, opportunity, and safety to raise our species to new heights. We don't improve society by wasting human capital indulging in hatred, otherwise, Islam would be the dominant ideology instead of, well, Islam. If we had a pill to cure criminality, would it make sense to withhold it from criminals as a punishment? Isn't the whole point of a judicial system to protect the productive citizens from incurably dangerous people?
NOT YOUR BLOG
It's easy to start your own focused path of interest: Something like IEP (iep.utm.edu) > your topic e.g. free will, determinism, compatibilism,... > wellknown argument overviews > read the actual works or relevant secondary works if you want more details
>Being a black youth and being brainwashed by the voting plantation owners and (((them))) to be a thug and waste the scant genetic resources you were given is a fucked up life to be born into.
You choose to allow yourself to falter. That is why I am reminded of what Cicero has to say of traitors: “A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.”
You allow the subversive brainwashing to contaminate your mind.
Also: newobserveronline.com
youtube.com
Nothing to do with poverty/being "black".
>I think of it kind of like thunder, crackling in many directions, rooting/branching out until it makes contact with the ground.
Theoretically that hasn't been disproven, but you don't get to 'reload a save' and choose a different timeline, voluntarily or otherwise. As far as we know, life starts, you do some stuff, and then you die. Even if you live forever your stream of consciousness is inherently unitary. You can't live two different forks of life simultaneously and experience both. The perception of having choices only appears when you feel uncertain. If you were presented with an obvious good choice or an obvious bad choice, can you really say that there's a choice at all?
Jesus Christ. I thought this board was just for shitposting. Nigger, you care way too much.
>If we had a pill to cure criminality, would it make sense to withhold it from criminals as a punishment?
Of course not, the punishment is a deterrent, more so than cushy taxpayer prison (what greater deterrent is there than death). If there is some pill, then use it, by all means.
>Just about the only valid concept SJW's come up with is privilege, but whereas they leverage it into guilt, I don't.
Woah buddy, you don't get off that easily. Elaborate with specific examples. Define the term and explain its relevance to your examples.
>But people are born into differently able bodies, and some are crippled while others get the magic combination of ambition, opportunity, and safety to raise our species to new heights.
You are still bound by hyper-egalitarian subversion. Hierarchies arise because of talent, not 'privilege'. White nations left everybody else in the dust not because they were handed it on a silver platter; they were just better. The whole "slavery, injun" nonsense guilt arises because whites were the best at their craft.
I agree with the first half. On the choice half: yes, it is still a choice, by definition.
If we accept that example as a 'choice' then we can literally call every single action and every single thought a choice, and then the concept has no meaning, since nothing we do isn't a choice.
>17 posts by this ID
>12 posts by this ID
BUT WHY
>Elaborate with specific examples.
I'm using luck and privilege interchangeably. Privilege is favorable luck, non-privelage is bad luck.
>You are still bound by hyper-egalitarian subversion. Hierarchies arise because of talent, not 'privilege'.
Having talent is lucky. That doesn't mean it's not valuable, but you don't get credit for being born with it. It doesn't matter if whites started better or just started with better tools or started with the same tools but used them better, the outcome is the same, which dovetails to my earlier comments about outcome being everything.
Either it interests you, in which case, you're welcome, or it doesn't, in which case, why are you still here?
Well, choice is defined as: an act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities.
There are two possibilities, and, like you state, there are deranged sociopaths who exist, which means they might pick the objectively bad choice. Let's say it was the choice not to get punched in the balls. A normal, rational agent chooses to not get punched, but the sex freak degenerate chooses TO get punched. There are two possibilities, so by definition, you are choosing between them. Not seeing how the concept is eroded in this case.
For those digits, that's why you fucking doublenigger.
How do you spell privilege right the first two times, but incorrectly on the third time? How weird.
>I'm using luck and privilege interchangeably. Privilege is favorable luck, non-privelage is bad luck.
Well, give me an example of both, I still don't see your stance.
>Having talent is lucky. That doesn't mean it's not valuable, but you don't get credit for being born with it.
You kind of do. There's this one hormone which, when pronounced at higher rates than the average person, gives the individual the ability to gain muscle mass easier. I forget its name, but you literally do get points for being born with it. Favourable genes being valued around over inferior ones is very beneficial for a population, if that population wishes to thrive.
>the outcome is the same
So they are superior, for having created the world as we know it.
>Well, choice is defined as: an act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities.
a pair of possibilities would assume equal or near equal likelihood of the desired outcome. You wouldn't say it's equally possible to live by drinking juice or drinking cyanide.
>a pair of possibilities would assume equal or near equal likelihood of the desired outcome.
No, it doesn't, at least not by the definition. Even your example leaves a choice: juice and cyanide are not the same thing, so choosing between the two still means you have a choice, even if you pick the wrong/right one. It's all about the distinction, that's why when somebody is faced with a situation where both of the choices are literally the same, just phrased differently, the joke is that the guy has "no real choice". The outcome is never discussed in the definition, only the distinction between the objects/things/scenarios.
Sure, but the same phrase would apply in my example. You could also say someone has 'no real choice' if you're given an obvious good option and an obvious bad option.
Let's consider another thought experiment. Pretend someone is omniscient. They know every choice they could possibly make, and they know the exact outcome of all of those choices. Assuming the also know exactly what they want in life, do they have free will in any meaningful way? If you know all the answers and you want to be right, there's no logical reason to deviate. Does this being have free will to knowingly, intentionally and willfully be wrong?
>You could also say someone has 'no real choice' if you're given an obvious good option and an obvious bad option.
The definition does nothing to analyze how rational the agents making the choice are. It just assumes some arbitrary choice, it might as well be a computer flipping a digital coin to decide. It's all about distinction.
>They know every choice they could possibly make, and they know the exact outcome of all of those choices.
Well, they are still free. Again, it does nothing to examine the rational nature of the agent. The guy could know to bet it all on black, but might wish to follow another path for the sake of following another path, and nothing more (i.e. ignoring the omniscient judgement).
>If you know all the answers and you want to be right, there's no logical reason to deviate
If they are rational. Ideally speaking, yes, the person goes on to become the greatest individual to ever live. Infinity steps ahead of everybody. They are still free to make the choice; that is to say, the person knows to bet it all on black, and the choice between red and black still exists. Just because he knows which is best prior to the bet, does not mean the freedom of the choice is abolished. It does make life more boring, if that's what you mean. Or maybe I'm bitter.
bump for no die yet
The point I'm trying to make is that the idea of choice either disappears or becomes meaningless as you become more certain about what you want and how to get it. Uncertainty gives the illusion of choice.
This was all written from work and I have to leave soon. Check out the harris video I linked earlier for a professional treatment of my side of the topic. Leave a form of contact if you want to chat off-board.
>The point I'm trying to make is that the idea of choice either disappears or becomes meaningless as you become more certain about what you want and how to get it.
If I show you a gun and tell you I can either shoot you or not shoot you, you obviously pick the former. But by the definition of a choice, it is still a 'choice'. I understand your claim, but it does not align with the definition, as the definition is focused on distinction, it might as well be made by a computer flipping a digital coin.
I'll check out the video, thanks for the chat m8.
bump
what do you think about the topics?
> the moral spirit is something each individual possesses (not a corporeal 'thing', by definition)
This an unsubstantiated a priori statement.
However, even if we were to assume that there existed such a thing as a "moral spirit," what role could we possibly play in choosing the properties of its composition? In other words, if there does exist an incorporeal factor which drives us toward moral action, then why do many people act immorally? Are we to assume that their moral spirit is somehow lacking the quality? How could one choose to refine their ethereal moral spirit, if their decision to undertake such a task was dependent upon their moral drive to so? Ultimately, the argument that there exists an incorporeal moral guidance system inherent in the human condition leaves man just as powerless to make his own decisions as human neurology does.
I do not ascribe to the belief that anything exists beyond the atoms and void of the material world (at least I shall assume this is the case for the purposes of arguing from an Occam's razor viewpoint)
Julien La Mettrie wrote an essay called "Man a Machine" in which he argues (though reluctantly) in favor of a deterministic view of the universe not based upon religious or cosmic determinism but that of materialistic viewpoint. As far as we can be immediately concerned, man's decisions are based upon facticity or circumstance, which from his birth has been beyond his control.
youtube.com
There's the free-will/determinism bit.
youtube.com
There's the consciousness bit. About people sitting around and pondering, near the end of the video.
>tfw you love these conversations and yet are tired of them
above me
haven't finished reading but free will vs predetermined actions is ahead of anything on Sup Forums right now
It isn't a material object, or some electrical current which animates a being, but a described trait to each person. It is simply the weight of our actions, from a moral perspective. I might as well have said a character of a person.
> what role could we possibly play in choosing the properties of its composition?
that's the point of this, to show that the choices people make shape their character, and that they make those choices.
>In other words, if there does exist an incorporeal factor which drives us toward moral action, then why do many people act immorally?
Nah mate, you misunderstand me. It isn't a cosmic force or anything. It isn't a driving factor, the individual is the agent who makes the choices.
>Are we to assume that their moral spirit is somehow lacking the quality?
Did you mean in quality? Not all characters are shaped equally.
>How could one choose to refine their ethereal moral spirit
Just because you make some choices, does not mean you can make others which counter-act them. People are not always in one single direction, there is a dynamic which exists, a change of character (not all the time, but occasionally).
>Ultimately, the argument that there exists an incorporeal moral guidance system
The individual makes the decisions and shapes their moral spirit/character, which is judged accordingly.
Nu-Sup Forums is just all bait, what do you expect.
The world is the totality of facts; not of things. Free will is an ethical question tied to our concepts of justice and behavioral medicine (a sort or offshoot of the criminal justices really) ; so in my opinion it can only be relevant in questions pertaining to agency and really it is even more nebulous since we are then talking about "responsibility". Responsibility does not require free will; a crime may be assigned to you based on the circumstances of your involvement. Ultimately a lot of our confusion over free will is drawn from Religious concepts of sin and punishment. These same issues are occuring in secular society because prisons etc. cannot shake their religious roots. I think.
bump
>what circumstances lead you to that choice?
>incomplete self knowledge
>we don't control what is taught or not taught to us
>any one person's past and future is set, and our consciousness is just watching things play out.
>Because we have such intimate access to our own thoughts but no one else, we identify strongly with our bodies, and from this constant focus on our day to day experience, we create this concept of 'me', and thus, free will.
>The perception of having choices only appears when you feel uncertain.
>If you were presented with an obvious good choice or an obvious bad choice, can you really say that there's a choice at all?
>If we accept that example as a 'choice' then we can literally call every single action and every single thought a choice, and then the concept has no meaning, since nothing we do isn't a choice.
>distinction of the right and the wrong option
>the idea of choice either disappears or becomes meaningless as you become more certain about what you want and how to get it. Uncertainty gives the illusion of choice.
underrated thread
thank you 2zKMhtjy and q2n/vCEl