/lit/ - Literature

*leaps over*

>>10441872
Hey Ben I loved you in Night of the Museum 3

steven pinker is a fraud

*oughts your is*

*teleports behind you*

heh nothing PERSONAL kid

>>10441872
>teleports behind Stiller
>unsheathes blade
Psshh... I never had free will to begin with... kid

>when your arguments are so reasoned, intellectually honest and well thought out that only "criticism" is a strawman

unlucky /lit/

cry more

>>10441872

>swimming pools kill children too but we don't ban them like we do guns

How can you argue with this epitome of human intellect?

>>10443379
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

>>10443154
free ill is not real but sam harriss is a fucking hack and argues dishonestly, constantly shifting the frame via metaphors

>>10443477
>argues dishonestly, constantly shifting the frame via metaphors

Give an example. Oh, what's that? You don't ''feel'' like finding an example suddenly? Ha. Yeah, that's what we thought.

>>10443154
>when your arguments are so laughable there's usually no attempt to counter them seriously even in a place such as this, everyone just makes fun of them through memes
ftfy

are you one of The Brights, by any chance? :^)

>>10443546
during his peterson podcasts he keeps using broad induction claims to try and invalidate the fact that deduction identifies errors in induction

harris constantly constantly commits berksonian error discussing stats. I've seen him commit it MORE than he doesnt commit it

He doesn't say much that is original, but I find him to be perfectly reasonable and I agree with most of what he says. /lit/ just hates anyone popular.

>>10441872
IT'S TIME TO BATTLE!
I CHOOSE YOU,.......

>>10443581
pareto dist nearly guarantee anyone popular is not very good. sometimes good people are popular but it is rare because of lcd dynamics

>>10443596
...René Descartes!
use Cogito Ergo Sum!

>>10443563
describe said errors to me, im not the baiting “harris acolyte” so humor me. im bored with nothing to do at mommy and daddy’s for the holiday.

>>10443607
it is extremely painful (for him)

>>10441872
>nature is like a machine
>therefore, nature is a machine
kek

>>10443604
is that PURE PHOENICIAN BLOOD I hear speaking?

>>10443615
berksonian sampling error

you sample only a corner of the distribution (compressed therefore little deviation) and then declare the variable has no predictive ability

he is too smart to be doing this mistakenly. he is doing it deliberately

go to any talk of his, if he talks to someone bout something related to sampling or math, he does this. it makes me feel like punchign him repeatedly

e.g. he thinks genetic machinery deprives you of choice via genetic mechanism determining your range of functionality, but genetic machinery doesnt set your intelligence (range of functionality). uh....

he honestly needs to be hanged

>>10441872
Does the experience of free will really not count? Everyone experiences making decisions. I don't see why anyone would think that's fake unless you adhere to strict materialist presuppositions and force an explanation onto the phenomena.

>>10443640
you feel consiousness, not freedom. big difference

quintessential backpfeifengesicht

>>10441885
*is your oughts*

>>10443660
But what about my deciding which option to choose? Does he just deny that the "I" chooses? That doesn't fit with what my experience. I experience a decision being contemplated and chosen, like just recently at the store.

But which God are you talking about?

Heh, nothing personal kid.

>>10443864
harris is a dishonest nigger. but the honestly made case against your case is that your choices are inherently limited to your intelligence, your patience, your capacity to adapt, and your discounting of time. these are all measurable vectors, and they ll have strict limits.

the option you "choose" is going to be a reasonably predictable vector of a negotiation of the above factors.

e.g. if you define your utility function as " get food, feed female, reproduce" there is going to be an optimal method of doing so. you are TRYING to do the optimal method, your "choice" never has other options, the only option to you, is the one that seems best.

you only have one choice, (limited by your options and goal) andyou make that choice 100% of the time. You choose, but it is not free. it can be defined and predicted.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HFS5kJF9gA

e.g. the utility function can be changed by electrodes in the brain. the mouse calculates nd chooses, but not freely

>>10441872
Free will doesn't even make sense as a concept. Assuming humans are born of the universe, doesn't it follow that we're completely governed by its laws? Where is there any room for freedom?

>>10443909
>>10443909
chinese and japanese attribute this to our language

free choice doesnt have a translation in chinese/japanese. you can say "to do something free of constraint" and this is the translation given for translations, but the concept is naturally nonsensical

it is like the term racism. the translation in cn/jp is "clan distinguishment" or "recognition of difference" so if a european starts crying that racism is privilege and poer, the chinks look at them (correctly) like they're fucking insane.

the idea of freedom of choice or ill has, baked into it, a hidden definition that is nonsensical. kind of like al ghasali baking into the definition of cloth burning the lack of causality.

the very idea itself destroys logic

>>10443894
But what about things done out of spite? What utility is there in that? You can also choose certain things over others, even when there is evidence that the other option is better, because of some feeling that you have, some sentimentality or something.

>>10443926
No wonder the Buddhist and Taoist texts I've read have made so much sense.

>>10443909
So you don't experience choice?

>>10443943
No, thoughts just arise out of the impenetrable subconscious.

>>10443932
spite is a utility function to punish social cheaters or to destroy competitors in mating markets

havent you even read basic psych?

>>10443933
to be clear, buddhism and taoism have their terms that have hidden meanings baked in. the dao itself is such a term, but the dao has been largely discarded as a relic of 1k year old mental trickery, the fruit, if any, is taken GIVEN the fact it is a verbal trick in the first place

euros never figured out that our philosophy of mind is filled to the brim full of these verbal sleight of hands. so like the arabs our discourse is full of fucking nonsense and arguing over the definitions of imaginary things and rying to pin our enemy ith one of the "evil" definitions so he can be beheaded/fired

>take a vague, undefinable concept such as "free will"
>define it for yourself using willy-nilly criteria that fits your agenda
>write over 9000 books
>build a career catering to edgy atheists and alt-right kids
whoa...

>>10441872
>Hey I told you it's past your bedtime kid!

>>10443894
Almost sounds like he is unhappy with the idea that he will never do anything 'original'.

>>10443943
just the illusion of it
When you flip a coin it can be seen as random, or treated as such, only because you're ignorant to the inputs (force of the flip, wind resistance, distribution of weight) but with complete knowledge of conditions then the outcome is predictable with certainty (non-random)
likewise, the human neuron with it's synapses governed by the same fundamental laws as every other object, could have their individual action potential triggers predicted if one were to know the prior conditions

but we can't predict these things because we have generally incomplete knowledge, and the gathering of the knowledge for each prediction is a real hassle lemme tell ya

>>10444012
I hope he dies soon

first of all a coin flip is a lot different than free will in general

second you build in the assumption that free will is encapsulated within "complete knowledge"

what if within hitherto (in) complete knowledge is not something merely unknown but rather "unknowable"

that is what we call free will

in other words, you've only succeeded in begging the question of free will

>>1044439
Wrong

>>10444028
harris? could be. I never psychoanalysed him. he could be a sociopath obsessed by status. but he is so fucking dishonest about even basic math (that is not hard math for a phd) that it makes my blood boil

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENtlW-LEqu8

I don't see how anyone can trust him after this. He made this mistake after writing a Letter to a Christian nation, a book that he presumably did research for.

>>10443985
What about things done in spite to loved ones? Your explanations don't cover the phenomena or the experience of it completely.

>>10444078
With materialist presuppositions I suppose you could get there, but I don't believe that the material world is solely what is.

>>10443926
>thinly veiled pol psyops
not falling for it

>>10444078
>determinism
>year of our lord and on his birthday 2017
quantum physics says hello

>>10444775
loved ones sometimes cheat in social systems. are you young? none of the things I'm saying are controversial unless you are a ascientific indian pagan that prays to vishnu nd disbelieves in the concrete universe

you are not sufficiently read. of course my 300 character post doesnt cover every single thing. read a book if you're curious. don't be ridiculous

>>10444808
but its true. if you have a substantive objection, voice it.

>>10444823
I'm just saying that the purely economic/society control explanation explains away more than it seems to explain certain human phenomena. I am young and not well read, but the claims I hear in threads give me some questions to ask, and so I ask.

>>10444834
you might start reading about evopsych

>>10444823
>but its true. if you have a substantive objection, voice it.
Only that I doubt it's true, anyone can claim to be an expert and then suggest this backs their political views. You're not exactly convincing when you haven't even mastered capital letters, you know?

>>10444892
you claim that terms cannot have embedded/biased meanings?

you claim that free volition is not one of those biased/fuck up terms?

you deny the fact that chinese claim this?

fucking IDENTIFY your argument you retard (they're all true)

>>10444901
I contend your translation is false.

he's a jew so he lies.

>>10444905
自由意志 in both jp/cn

the grammar of jp/cn lacks declensions or similar tenses of engish. every compound term, such as the above is taken, grammatically as "a done as b"

>>10444905
sample sentence for "free ill decision"
自由意志的選擇
translates directly as "a choice of from only self" or "decision lscking restriction"

naturally lacks coherence. no decision doesnt involve outside factors.

>>10444953
the idea that the Chinese don’t believe in free will is fucking preposterous. if you read their lit its obvious that its not absent from their psyche. please stop posting you’re going to run out of stims and coffee soon idiot

>>10444811
>slit experiment/shrodinger's cat meme
if there's infinite universes there's still not one where you're not retarded

>>10444976
they don't. are you chinese? (you arent)

they believe in choice. choice is not the doctrine of free ill

>>10445005
yes it is, they believe you can influence causality with your will. that’s the basis for daoist alchemy and good and evil

>>10445011
>citing alchemy to try and convince people chinese elieve in a philosophy
no. chinese believe you are born evil. they believe the sins of your parents and blood taint you.

this is not even REMOTELY fucking contested.

if you are born evil, you don't have free ill.

they FUCKING BELIEVE PEOPLE are BORN EVIL you nigger

if you don't think they believe people are born evil, ask them to let their daughter marry a nigger

>>10443379
You actually can't argue with that point because it's objectively true. All forms of gun control are predicated on the obvious lie that the reason you care about guns is because they kill people.

The actual reason is, objectively, that you despise human independence and want to limit it. Thankfully you cannot, because if you try, I will shoot your children in front of you, and make you dig their graves. Then I will bury you, still screaming and crying, next to their corpses.
Don't worry, Sam Harris will be flailing right there next to you, because he is a Jew, who argues like a Jew.

>>10445035

>>10445029
lying exposed

>>10445029
>entire capitalized words
>"nigger" unironically
First of all, you're underage, second, go back to r/eddit

>>10441872
Free will cannot be proven or disproven at this time.

>>10445029
>he thinks chinks think original sin is a thing
lmao, why are you even bothering?

>>10444811
>quantum woo
shut up.

>>10445248
>materialist grasping
completely exposed

>>10445252
i didn't say anything about materialism, pseud. anyone appealing to "muh quantum" to resolve the free will debate has no business participating.

>>10445029
>be evil
>don't have free will
u wut m8?

I mean, you can be destructive without free will, but evil entails intent.

living in a future state with "complete knowledge" sufficient to completely displace "free will" as a useful concept, is really just another way to say "when we get to heaven the scales will be lifted" and there will be no more evil. a condition of humanity is free will thus meaningful choice between good/evil. it is true that when we get to heaven and knowledge is perfected such a choice is dissolved. in that sense this idea of knowledge sufficient to obviate ethics is just the description of heaven from the point of view of the man who worships the intellect

>punch Sam Harris in the face
>he can't sue me because doing so would be akin to admitting the existence of a personal will

>>10444868
Ishiggidity diggity do

>muh everyday/short-term decisions aren't real choices
>implying this is what anyone mean with free will

>>10445317

>>10443635
You sound confused and dishonest yourself, Sam Harris has little philosophical understanding but I don't think it's possible to sincerely accuse him of dishonesty or any other form of active faggotry.

Guy takes morality way too seriously, homo.

It's over, Sam! I have the high ground.

>>10441872
Is the idea of free will not existing the most retarded shit going right now? I just can't think of anything more retarded besides those African tribes that make little boys suck dick.

>>10447232
The idea is ages old and still discussed among philosophers.
You sound like a clueless brainlet monkey.

Imagine a ball sitting at the apex of a frictionless dome whose equation is specified as a function of radial distance from the apex point. This rest-state is our initial condition for the system; what should its future behavior be? Clearly one solution is for the ball to remain at rest at the apex indefinitely.

However, this is not the only solution under standard Newtonian laws. The ball may also start into motion sliding down the dome—at any moment in time, and in any radial direction. This example displays “uncaused motion” without any violation of Newton's laws, including the First Law. And it does not, unlike some supertask examples, require an infinity of particles. (Newtonian Mechanics)

The shape of the dome is given by specifying h, how far the dome surface lies below this highest point, as a function of the radial coordinate in the surface, r. For simplicity of the mathematics, we shall set h = (2/3g)r3/2. (Many other profiles, though not all, exhibit analogous acausality.)

point-like unit mass slides frictionlessly over the surface under the action of gravity. The gravitational force can only accelerate the mass along the surface. At any point, the magnitude of the gravitational force tangential to the surface is F = d(gh)/dr = r1/2 and is directed radially outward. There is no tangential force at r = 0. That is, on the surface the mass experiences a net outward directed force field of magnitude r1/2. Newton's second law, F = ma, applied to the mass on the surface, sets the radial acceleration d2r/dt2 equal to the magnitude of the force field:

(1) d2r/dt2 = r1/2

If the mass is initially located at rest at the apex r = 0, then there is one obvious solution of Newton's second law for all times t:

(2) r(t) = 0

owever, there is another large class of unexpected solutions. For any radial direction:

(3) r(t) = (1/144) (t-T)4 for t greater than or equal to T
= 0 for t less than or equal to T

where T is an arbitrarily chosen, positive constant. One readily confirms that the motion of (3) solves Newton's second law (1). See Note 6

If we describe the solutions of (3) in words, we see they amount to a violation of the natural expectation that some cause must set the mass in motion. Equation (3) describes a point mass sitting at rest at the apex of the dome, whereupon at an arbitrary time t=T it spontaneously moves off in some arbitrary radial direction.

>>10447126
he literally never comes from a statistical argument ithout making berksonian sampling error

fucking listen to his "not all (group) are like that" arguments. that is berksonian error.

or any time he says "you deduce that but I have a method taken from LIMITED data on a phenomenon that there is data for but NO causal mechanism that is understood"

he does this EVERY time to play to only slightly above averagem orons

>>10445288
chinese believe people are born having evil intent. are you retarded?

ITT : brainlets thinking they understand the question of free will

3 ideas of free will

1) Compatibilism or some meeker forms of it, what Mele calls ''modest free will''

2) Incompatibilism (or free will with deep openness)

3) Basically 2), but with something like a soul being a necessary component.

Literally ZERO scientific evidence has disproven 1). The libet experiment and his lackeys from the future (Fried + others 2011) (Soon + others 2008) are seductive, but offer no concrete evidence for free will not being a thing given that they did not achieve 100% accuracy and that the actions perform do not corresponds to the sort of actions where we consider our will to play a part. Also a bunch of other stuff I won't bother typing.

Evo psych is about as magical as a soul is and social experiments like the bystander effect offer concrete evidence but no hard determinism (since subjects do in fact display different behavior).

As for 2), it's up in the air. Quantum mechanics may or may not demonstrate that the Universe isn't entirely deterministic, but I know nothing about the field, so it's conjecture on my part.

As for 3), believing in the existence of a soul or somesuch thing might be a bit of a leap of faith, and demonstrating the possibility of one a hard task, but it's probably not impossible.

>>10447343
I don't think he does that, could you link me to one concrete example?
Usually he talks to literal scientists about stuff when he brings up any kind of empirical evidence, and the scientists usually agree or even bring it up themselves.

To be honest I'm confused about what you're saying, I read your post twice now but I can't figure it out.
I also googled Berksonian sampling error but that doesn't seem to mean anything.

>>10447367
you're the brainlet

they can literally put a helmet on your head and predict your choice before you realise your choice

subatomic mechanics are deterministic but the mechanics of causation are different

fucking reading a michio kaku book doesnt clue you in fag

>>10447367
You have no idea what you are talking about and you will receive no serious responses, I know you know you're bullshitting as if you even understand what this is about.
Insecure idiot.

>>10447388
I assure you berksonian sampling error means something. try googling berksonian bias or parado

I'm not going to go through 3 hours of his lying ass to find one "gotcha"

but I'll direct you to his peterson debate. harris denies, repeatedly, the ability to understand via deduction

regarding the math type of mistakes you can look at any statement of his regarding genetic intelligence

any "not all ______ are like that" is literally a precisely defined statistical sampling error called berksonian sampling error

>>10447420
>Berksonian bias presents a potential problem in hospital-based studies when comparing the frequency of two conditions that require or lead to hospitalization (e.g. tuberculosis and lung cancer), due to the fact that persons with both conditions are more likely to be hospitalized than those with only one.

I don't know what you're saying, how would Sam Harris deny that deduction leads to understanding? Why would he even do that, and in which sense would he make use of "Berksonian sampling error" to arrive at this conclusion?

"not all ____ are like that" is just what everyone already knows about inductive arguments.

>>10447394
>they can literally put a helmet on your head and predict your choice before you realise your choice

Yea, these are the experiments I mentionned.

The experiment you mention (there are a few) is probably the Libet one. Libet recorded electric signals in the brain via EEG. He asked subjects to flex a muscle spontaneously (when they felt like it) but not to think consciously about when to do it. When a decision is taken, we can normally see electric signals in the brain about 200 ms before the action actually happens. This is normal, and not something that threatens free will, since this is just the delay for you to actually perform the action once you've decided it. Other experiments, like the ''touch a button once you hear the sound'' ones confirms this. When the subject had decided to take his action, they used a Libet clock to determine precisely, in the brain, when the electric activity which scientists think correspond to a decision being taken happened in the brain.
It was of about 200ish ms, like usual.

However, Libet found out that he could see electric activity in the brain which seemed to happen before the decision of flexing that muscle took place (in the brain), not 200 ms but 550 ms before the decision took place in the mind. By this he concluded that the decision was made unconsciously in the mind and free will couldn't exist since it requires conscious decisions.

>>10447435
look at the pic I posted again.

correlation for 2 variables falls to NOTHING if you only sample the areas they're highly correlated. look at the upper right corner and imagine only sampling that area. the lack of a negative vector causes the math to display 0 coefficient of causation

he does this EVERY single time he says "the data doesnt support a connection"

he does this to other neurologists (using data like I posted) to deny genetic intelligence, he does this to economists, he does this to peterson

he then replaces valid data ith literal errors in math

he claims inductive supremacy even in fields that there is not a CLUE ho to BEGIN sampling (he does this regarding medical a lot)

>>10447464
Hmhh, I've never seen him do this and I've listened to him a lot. And he strongly believes in genetic intelligence, hasn't he hosted Douglas Murray on his podcast multiple times?

>>10447461
are you telling me freedom is real but it is unconscious?

you people get dumber by the day

>>10447474
if he believes in genetic intelligence, he'd believe in racial differences

>>10447483
I think he does. I was suspicious that you were butthurt because he wouldn't come out as a flat-out race realist, makes me become even more suspicious of your claims.

Anyway, he doesn't deny racial differences, I remember that he even claimed that there might be a genetic basis for the Jews' tendency to hoard money.

>>10441872
I think he isn’t in his field of expertise and it’s basically a laymans claim. There is a very strong consensus in quantum physics that the experimental data gathered supports the hypothesis of the existence of possible future conditions with event probability unequal one.

>>10447503
he certainly broadcasts his contempt for deportation much more loudly than his contempt for racial murder rates

you never "noticed" his stats errors because apparently you need mongolian vr cartoon masturbators to teach it to you

listen more closely

>>10447523
>it's another absolute brainlet who has no understanding of what he speaks of instrumentalizing """""quantum physics""""" for his own belief-system

R E T A R D
KILL YOURSELF
FAGGOT

>>10447529
I just think you're bullshitting, you don't sound very reasonable to me and refuse to deliver one concrete proof for your claims.

>>10447534
I‘ve studied physics and quantum physics is my believe system as far as a believe system is defined as axiomatically organized system, which purpose is explaining the world.

>>10447461
>>10447478

Here's why this experiment is flawed and ultimately doesn't pose a threat to any definition of free will.

Libet's claim is that since this decision was made unconsciously (or seemed to be so), and all actions are the same in the brain, all actions are ultimately made unconsciously, meaning no free will.

1) All actions are not the same, not in real life or in the brain, and evidence suggest this. Flexing a muscle in this context is a random decision that is of no consequence to you, akin to picking a particular banana from a bunch. You don't really care which one you pick, you just want a banana. This is completely different from a long, thought out decision, like going a trip or asking a girl out. There is no good reason to believe that an action like flexing a muscle would be analogous, in the brain, to decisions like I mention up there. And since every single libet-esque experiment use the exact same kind of action to determine if it's conscious or not, I have good reasons to discredit these research on that basis. But there is much more, and in the methodology of that experiment itself.

2) Libet didn't bother recording brain activity at all times, but only when the muscle flex happened, meaning he doesn't know with certainty if the ''pre decision'' brain activity actually corresponds to a future action, is just random, or simply the possibility of that action taking place.

3) Libet did another experiment where he asked subjects to pretend to flex, but then not do it at the last moment to see if they could ''veto'' their decision. The entire thing is fraudulent because how can you ask people to ''pretend'' to have the intent of doing something when they explicitely know that they will not do it.

The fact that Libet did not actually know if there was a true correlation between ''pre decision'' electric signals in the brain and an action taking place a bit later is enough to discredit the entire thing, but there are other issues as well, those I mentionned and others still.

As for more recent research, one had subjects press buttons, selecting between the right and the left one, according to their will. They were able to predict the button the subjects would press 1 whole second before they actually selected it!... 60% of the time, with 50% of course being a total coin flip.

>>10447534
>>10447318

How about you answer this post you fucking brainlet?

>>10447545
I'm not going to go through a three hour podcast to teach you about basic math you fagot

>>10447578
you literally don't have a eplanatory mechanism for choice

everything else can be detailed (mental processes are bottom UP just fyi) and being bottom up, necessarily conscious processes are the least influential part

in fact, cortical volume is THE strongest predictor of things like planning (planning is not freedom)

and even if you ignore all of that, you cant even TELL me the manner your proposed process functions

you are in denial

>>10447578
Plus there have been experiments that have shown readiness potential to be present even when a decision hasn't been made.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053810009001135?

"Neuroscientist" (read: author) sam harris however arrogantly sticks by the interpretation that free will is tied to pre-motor activity. The dudes a reddit browsing brainlet.

>>10447600

This is a non-argument. Whether or not I am able to give you a satisfactory explanation of what a choice is doesn't mean that it exist or not.

And no, I don't even have to give you one. Like all physicalists cockmunchers in this debate you expect us to take for granted and guess your ''argument'' by simply stating the postulate for determinism. Make a proper, coherent argument as to why free will doesn't exist or gtfo. I explained why recent researchs in neuroscience don't disprove it and you have said nothing so far.

>you are in denial

The only one in denial here is you, in denial of yourself. The physicalist worldview for you is a neurotic ego defense mechanism meant to project onto the world attributes that help avoid unacknowledged aspects of your inner life and psychological set of issues, which is also why you don't bother to capitalize your sentences and also why you're the faggot OP who made the other tread about quantum mechanics, posturing as an intellectual while being as non-committal as possible, insecure little faggot.

ITT virgin materialists

>>10447343
>intent
>somehow does not imply will
There's a reason there's a difference between manslaughter and first degree, hoss.

>>10447635
the materialists make progress every single year. every year they come out ith MORE fucking evidence that shifts the argument in their favor, over and over

you sit in your room and jerk off. fuck you you faggot

>>10447600

And let me add, on the subject of determinism, that someone like you is literally the product of our epoch. No other period in human history could have produced the specific neurotic mess of an individual that you are, with your brickwall style of debating, edgy stemfag grammar, your disdain of everything precisely because it reminds you of yourself and your willingness to remain as ironic and aloof as possible while enjoying all the benefits of intelligence posturing.

>>10447658

No they fucking don't. Do you literally have one source?

Let me tell you : you don't. You do not have 1 source in this debate available, you vapid piece of shit, you fucking human trash. But if I ask you for one, you'll use your fat fucking fingers to find the nearest scientific publication so you pretend you care about this debate. But you don't even care. It's odd, those on the side of free will existing all seem to be healthy individuals, and actual individuals, different from one another, while all of you fucks may as well be the same person.

Maybe we should run a Magnetic Resonance imaging on your skull to figure out if when you read my posts there's an emotional response similar to castration since your worldview is centered around to trying to justify why you're such a weak and powerless individual despite your vast erudition and all those XKCD comics you read in your free time.

>>10447656
a tiger INTENDs to eat you and thats the reason you kill them if you are a tribal person. that does not mean he has freedom of choice

>>10447660
>stemfag
is this a meme?

you honestly think stemfags arent smarter than humanities?

you DO understand physics majors have higher verbal gres than english majors, right?

my "brick" debating is forcing you to confront the fact that you are trying to argue about something involving math, but you don't understand math

math isnt about your fragile ego. learn it, or stick to hamlet.

>>10447681
materialists built the helmet. YOU did not build the helmet. a cartesian dualist did not build the helmet.

>>10447682
You can't be evil without freedom of choice, only destructive. Tiger's aren't evil, just hungry - not that they don't have a choice in the matter either.

>>10447658

There's this idea running around that those who believe in free will are afraid of the idea of being determined. I think much more terrifying is the idea of being responsable for your actions, like being responsable of spending your free time reading shitty fucking comics on the internet or having your panties in a bunch because someone more logical than you believes you are accountable for the sorry state you are in you fat fucking bastard.

I really wish quantum mechanics (LE EBIN SCIENCE XD!!!!!!1111) would work like in those comics you despise so I could wormhole my way to your computer and stab you in your
thick head with my christmas dinner eating fork and see your D E T E R M I N E D brain matter splash out onto the floor and maybe we could figure out by running if you had any awareness of what transpired when big boy incompatiblist decided to fuck you up with his free willed soul you goddamned hellfire mess created in the pits of the Silicon Valley.

>>10447695
tigers are born killers. people are also born killers. humans are evil because of consciousness, not choice.

>>10447705
troll?

>>10447682
>>10447687

AAHAHAHAHAHAHH WE THE STEMTARDS HAVE SO VASTLY SUPERIORS TO THOSE HUMANITARDS WITH OUR PRECIOUS CONTRIBUTIONS TO HUMANITY AHAHASHDH

LIKE

THE NUCLEAR BOMB, OR WEAPONS IN GENERAL OR REALLY THE ENTIRE CAPITALIST SLAVE SYSTEM AND ALL THOSE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS HOOKED UP ON PROZAC THANKS TO OUR BASED BROTHER KRAPELIN AGAUOGHAOGHAGOHGH=

let's be honest here most STEM niggers and maths niggers are basically just recorder boxes. You have nothing to offer the world, your formulas are almost useless, your technological contributions will make exactly 0 people better off, you do nothing but manufacture useful bullshit , there are no physical laws and maths are just symbols monkey niggers like you make up for funzies. There is no such thing as numbers or language or laws or rules or objects or minds. All of it is just, noise. And even that is too much to advance. You can't do philosophy you hide behind logic because you're afraid, you hide behind rote memorization and tinker-toy thinking because you're afraid. your mega blockz universe is incorrect, its inconsistent and does not make accurate predictions outside of easy microphenomena and trivial macro phenomena. you get to "Revise" your systems of thought because they're not true, they can never be true. Computer systems, human brains can't physically support adequate models of the universe. no computer system could ever come close to modeling reality, its impossible by your own beliefs. You abdicate having a soul, a sense of self, a sense of life and reality for models. You are sterile, you are hollow, your mind died at 13. You're an athlete, pathetic little clown monkey, and a mathematician, pathetic little number jockey. You mean nothing to the world, there will be 10,000 people to replace you in a year's time all of them just as meaningless. You tend to be boring, ugly, annoying and vulgar. The one's who aren't the following tend to be bad mathematicians to say the least. The very manner in which you type speaks volumes about your tiny little mind. You're an insect, a nothing, a great big cum stain on the genetic lineage of our race. You'll attain to nothing, produce nothing, waste everything and the systems your ilk champions like CRISPR, blockchains and AI are completely psychotic and will enslave or annihilate all of us. You don't care at all, even a little bit about other organisms, you're the most amoral kind of people imaginable. I wouldn't shed a single tear if all of you got gassed tomorrow.

>>10443909
>Free will doesn't make sense in the framework of my abstract, materialist models*
ftfy

>>10444811
>>10447367
>>10447523
Problem with using quantum physics to declare the universe undetermined, in addition to the fact that the mind's reactions are too macro level to be much affected by quantum factors, and the fact that most of this quantum woo misnomer is the result of Hollywood sci-fi -- the truth is, the relativity you use every day to find yourselves on your phone's map ap, already declares, quite testably, that while quantum results maybe fundamentally undeterminable, they are nonetheless fully predetermined. The past exists as statically as the future, as one view of "now" in the universe can easily overlap with the future or past of another's. You can't focus on the micro while ignoring the macro. Block universe is an inevitable consequence of relativity of simultaneity.

Even so, even if your consciousness is merely a needle in the winding groove of a record player, your decisions nonetheless form the path of that groove. The path we are following is one of our own making, and without a fictional omniscient view of both past and future, we are forced to make decisions to create that path which would not exist were we not there to make them. We are only vaguely aware of the future and the past and thus free will is forced upon us by our fundamentally limited perception.

Only the gods and laplace demons lack free will. The rest of beings of limited conscious are stuck with it, be the universe predetermined or not.

>>10447725
nah bro, we really needed thinner laptops, that was a huge leap forward for humanity.

>>10447720
>tigers are born killers. people are also born killers. humans are evil because of consciousness, not choice.
Tigers can be trained, and apparently, so can people - but killing for survival isn't evil, it's just nature. Tiger's aren't born evil, just potentially destructive. Evil requires a step beyond mere survival instinct, it requires premeditated will to instill unnecessary suffering beyond the moment. One cannot be evil without will - only destructive as any other natural phenomena, like a hurricane or a tiger. This is why evil is ascribed exclusively to human beings and the occasional supernatural consciousness, while all other acts of destruction are just labeled as parts of the cycle of nature.

>>10447695
Morality is the result of evolution. Chimps are highly moral and so are most social primates with hierarchical structures.
Morality is tribal. If you want the protection of your tribe yet you act in ways that harm it then it is morally irresponsible and as a result your tribe will be eliminated. Choice matters only to determine if you are likely to commit an action that will harm your tribe again. It is all about tribalism. If you see a child drowning you will help her since she can grow up and help your tribe out. If she is a child of the enemy arguments can be made to let the child die since she can grow up to be a threat or help her up since she is part of the greater tribe that is all of humanity. This is where the rubs lies in that conservatives tend to divide allies and enemies clearly while "liberals" tend to believe everyone is human.

>>10447762
you're retarded. the drive to kill originates in the hypothalamus and ismechanically identical to that in tigers

you build religious language to obscure the mechanical truth nd make yourself sound smart.

evil is inherently a religious and unproveable concept. killing is not. the mechanics behind pathological murder are understood. no choice is involved no matter YOUR definition of evil. killing is a mechanical process in the brain.

>>10447766
I think you'd be hard pressed to find a conservative so staunched in his ways that they'd leave an enemy's baby to die on the streets. If anything, you're making the claim that humans are inherently good as a result of empathetic instinct. But if a chimp were to choose to eat that baby instead, it wouldn't be evil, only nature doing as nature does. It takes a conscious being of will aware wrongness of the act to truly commit an act of evil.

>>10447778

>the drive to kill originates in the hypothalamus

Citation necessary.

Also, for the record, brain activity detected in the hypothalamus linked to killing (how exactly?) ≠ it actually originating in the brain.

>evil is inherently a religious and unproveable concept

Says who?

>the mechanics behind pathological murder are understood.

No.

>no choice is involved no matter

A choice was involved necessarily. What do you think a choice is?

>killing is a mechanical process in the brain.

Killing is an act, like you typing your shit post is an act. Honestly it's so bad I think it might be bait.

Try responding with something a bit more coherent ok?

>>10447778
It's a matter of what the Chinese (going way back) are referring to when they (supposedly) claim that people inherently evil. The term evil requires free will, knowledge, and reason. The Chinese do not claim tigers are evil anymore than anyone else does, and a feral human who knows not right from wrong is in much the same boat. Evil requires a conscious decision. Animal instinct alone is not evil, it requires that extra ingredient of knowing it is wrong, and willfully deciding on carrying through with the act anyways.

>>10447736
>ftfy

No you didn't. No matter what the 'framework' there is no room for free will. It's a nonsensical term.

>>10447813

No matter what the framework of the discussion is there's always room for some retard like you to be completely unaware of what free will entails or what it is.

>>10447817
Right... try thinking about it for more than ten minutes.

>>10447786
Humans are not inherently good or evil. We are tribal. The difficulty lies in determining the extent of what a person considers as their "tribe." It ranges from a single individual, yourself, to your family, to your community, to a nation, and to all of humanity. For an individual this changes depending on circumstances. Due to reproduction, you don't need the entire tribe to reproduce, you only need 2 individuals. Part of a tribe can be sacrificed and still survive in the end. Evolution does not give a fuck. So it gave us selfishness along with selflessness.

A baby example is argumentative. You can say that the baby can be modified to be a member of your tribe. Plus in the modern age where still briths are less common, a baby's value is higher.

Good and evil is subjective. You are judging the actions of another agent. If you consider that agent part of your tribe yet he acts in ways that harm it then he is evil. And remember you can judge yourself, though less harshly.

>>10447813
Predeterminism does not negate free will, anymore than does your inability to fly by flapping your arms. You're a pattern recognition machine working with painfully limited data which you must base all your decisions upon, and thus, so long as your consciousness is limited by that physical and temporal prison, you are forced to experience this as free will, however one may fantasize of some mythic omniscience outside time that can directly experience the inevitable futility of it all, you never will.

>>10447822

Try thinking.

>>10447809
>neurology isnt provable
>evil is provable but I'm not gonna do it teehee
k bub

>>10447810
chinese claim that people from families of murderers are born murderous

I believe I have spelled this out sufficiently

the major civs are definitively split on the issue

>>10447824
But you only label him evil because you believe he is capable of knowing better. Again, animal instinct alone, tribal or otherwise, isn't enough to give us the term evil.

Yes, it's a subjective term, but one we reserve for beings of reason and will. It implies free will. Whether free will and evil are real or not, it's inherent to the concept.

>>10447836

Your reading comprehension is about as good as your understanding of the free will debate.

(Meaning not much)

>>10447825
decent response. but if consciousness is a filter for larger data sets than can be processed, it is called a hash function, meant to transform/fitt he data to other patterns

choice is not implicated in this. it runs a pattern match algo from the hash, then generates a novel hash

no choice, no divergence. only line of best fit

pic related

>>10447825
>>10447827
Conscious 'will' is a function of the brain. This is well documented.

>>10447836
>the major civs are definitively split on the issue
Not really. Nearly every major religion has original or inherited sin in one form or another, and all of mankind recognizes that children need to be trained into acceptable human behavior. In the western world, in addition to that, the nature/nurture debate rages on, and even the Chinese attempt rehabilitation, and similarly to every other society, hold children under the age of reason more blameless than adults, often favoring to hold their parents accountable for their actions until a certain age.

>>10447854

Arguably debatable, but I won't say it isn't.

So what if it is? No scientific experiment has disproven free will.

>>10445317
>my car suddenly stopped
>I refuse to fix it because it wasn't his choice to be suddenly defective

>>10444811
Quantum physics just makes some things random. Free will from randomness is just as bad as determined one, unless it's compatibilist's free will.

>>10444780
I don't believe we are special snowflakes in the universe and I believe consciousness (qualia) is fundamental in the world.

>>10447842
Yes and No. You are labeling him evil because he is a member of your tribe, he has received benefits from the group's protection. The evil part is trying to determine if he's likely to commit the action again. If he was "aware" of what he did was wrong then if you let him live or do not exile him, he will act in other ways to harm your tribe by being selfish. It can be rather harmless at first but if an enemy tribe approach you better do something about that fucker.

Again we arrive back at tribalism. It is a balancing act. In order for a tribe to exists it demands that every individual make sacrifice but the sacrifice was be beneficial in the end.

>>10447849
Even a simple batch file has to make a decision when it comes across a conditional. As this script is uncompiled and processor only reads one line at a time, it cannot see this coming, nor make the decision before it comes across the data requiring it do so. Your own situation isn't fantastically different from this, save that unlike the processor, you're self-aware of the process. The inevitability of the decision does not protect you from the experience of having to make it, and all the consequences and subsequent decisions that result. Only fictional constructs are so removed from that burden, actual conscious beings can never be. You know there is a bigger picture that you do not have access to, and can claim free will is an illusion all you want, but that will never release you from it.

>>10447856
the rehabilitation period led directly into a period of civ collapse. restored by liu bang, notoriously harsh, instituting a "death penalty, non negotiable" for murder

framing this from the perspective of original sin betrays your lack of breadth on the issue

>>10447863
you're talking to people that read "I FUCKING LOVE sCIENCE" feeds

they don't even like learning math. you think they're going to be smart?

I predict they'll keep citing continental philosophers, full of premises nested in unstated assumptions

if you think they understand entropy and ergodicity in causal systems, you're very, very naive

>>10447879
the "feeling" is not the ability to break from causality. the "feeling" is the limbic priority over the cortical system

tell me you reason for thinking feelings reverse causality. if I cry can I reverse information flo in an entropic system?

if I cry three times as long?

tell me the amount I have to cry

the conditional decision is set by eighted priorities

>>10447862
>No scientific experiment has disproven free will.
That's... debatable. Largely depends on what you define as free will. We have, for instance, machines that are aware you are going to press a button before you actually make the decision to do so, and thus prevent you from doing so before you can act - not simply by reacting before the nerve impulse travels down your arm, but detecting that the decision will be made you're even aware of the decision yourself. Similarly, we can alter your behavior in any number of predictable ways by fiddling with your material gray matter, either directly or chemically.

We certainly have more scientific experiments that cast doubt on free will than give it merit.

On the other hand, consciousness itself is kinda non-empirical by nature, and thus largely outside the purview of science. ...and in the end, you're still a decision making machine, experiencing those decisions as you go, predetermined or not.

>>10447902
We're back to "You don't have free will because you can't flap your arms and fly". No, you can't defy the laws of physics, or causality, of your own will, but nor does that release you from experiencing and exercising free will. It's inevitable due to your own limited perspective, even if you're vaguely aware of the inevitability of it all.

>>10447924
its doubtful you can even choose your breakfast

people lack agency to the point they cant not become obese

indeed, biological baselines are only seemingly changeable by limited and very, very, very strong environmentmal influences

look at obesity. people learn bad habits and eat bad food, then become obese. there is no choice" involved, even if you add in environmental influence

the dumb people become fat and NEVER lose it. the people that are disciplined can lose it, but not by CHOICE, but because they hate the idea of being disgusting.

it is a threshold effect for competency. fat people think being skinny is good, but they're too dumb nd lack discipline (part genetic, part environmental.)

I don't have freedom of choice because I hapen to be born on 47 springfield lane, my environment. that is retarded

everyone aims for THING. do they DO thing? they DO if they can. if they cant, they dont. tada

no choice

incomplete information passes through imperfect hashes. variation. not choice.

>>10447950
Doesn't stop the fat person from experiencing that as a choice, and feeling guilty about that choice, thus eating more to deal with the resulting guilt in and endless cycle of lard.

One may look upon another from outside the system and see that the choice is indeed inevitable, but from inside the system, one experiences each decision as a choice, even when they are painfully aware that they will inevitably make that choice.

Environmental and even genetic circumstances beyond our control come upon us all the time, but it doesn't free us from experiencing our reaction to them and from willfully making our decisions, however inevitable they may ultimately be, whether we are aware of that inevitability or not (and most of the time, we aren't).

>>10447983
choice is inherently limited by the scope you can see into the future

humans lack free choice in precisely the proportion they resemble animals (almost every) and lack free choice in inverse proportion to their intelligence

in a binary option, there is only ONE optimal choice. the optimum is framed by your sight into the future. an animal eats today. a human delays for higher priorities. the delayal is not "free" he does it to stave off future death

if you are sufficiently intelligent, there is only one "choice" you make, 100% of the time

>>10448132
>if you are sufficiently intelligent, there is only one "choice" you make, 100% of the time
No such creature exists. It's not just a matter of imperfect vision of the future, but imperfect vision of the past. To make the perfect choice, to the point of inevitability, you'd need omniscience, not only of everything that has happened, but of everything that will happen as a consequence of any given choice. So long as some hole exists in your perception of the totality of reality, past and present, you are stuck with making that choice, and as a conscious being, experiencing making that choice. And for mere mortals such as ourselves, those holes are vast indeed.

Again, only gods and laplace demons lack free will.

>>10447983
You are talking about it as if its a soul, free of not only material, but informational and logical constraint. "Choice is inherent and uniue to the individual because I say so." If you are remotely honest you need to admit this.

Maybe souls are real. They'd be necessary for free choice.

>>10448156
Well, that, and complete awareness of the mechanisms of your own decision making process, and the ability to always make the most logically optimal choice, desires and temptations be damned, none of which humans have. ...and then there's always those plethora of situations where all choices are bad, or no choice is better than another.

But yes, if a perfect omniscient god exists, by definition, it lacks free will. The rest of us are kinda strapped with that baggage.

>>10448156
>free choice can only be had if you are omniscient
finally, you understand

higher levels of causality are real. I, me, personally, can reduce entropy in systems. it is INTELLIGENCE and energy that does this. not ill, not freedom. sentience is higher level causality, but the causality is subject to inherent priorities. freedom is a property of omnipotence.

I can't wait until this pop-philosophy bullshit goes away. Sam Harris is a nobody and no academic takes him seriously.

>>10448164
Not a soul, you only are required to be having an experience of consciousness. I mean, yeah, philosophical zombies are kinda boned in this department, but I can't prove they exist, so I assume they don't for the same reason I don't entertain solipsism, despite having no way to prove or disprove it. It's just polite.

So, again, being kind and assuming that you, like me, are consciousness and having a limited experience, then we're both stuck with free will.

It is an unprovable axiom, but you're going to hit one sooner or later, and it's as good as any.

>>10448183
That's the exact opposite of what I said. You *can't* have free will if you're omniscient.

We don't have access to that, such a consciousness can't even physically exist in this universe, so we're stuck with your limited perception giving rise to free will, however much we may fantasize about some being that could be free of said.

>>10448188
since you seem to lack education outside of humanities, let me help you

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory

read that. then, come back and admit that you dont understand it.

good.

okay, after that, take "freedom" and reconceptualise it as a form of unbounded information. lets represent it by F. take "eill" and coe it as a potentially different, but potentially the same factor as F, but as bounded information, and represent it as W.

okay, your job is to take these factors and arbitrarily insert them into the formulae in the link.

random information that enters and leaves the system as arbitrary and undefind, but UNBOUND vectors

do that for me. go ahead and edit the page and get yelled at and called an idiot. post the angry responses you get

>>10448210
Information theory doesn't enter into having free will, as it ignores the experiential and conscious component that is key to said, which is ultimately, noncommunicable.

Everything is inevitable, fine. Doesn't matter. You're having an experience of a limited scope. You can't prove it empirically, but everyone intuitively knows it's happening to them. So long as that is the case, you experience the decision making process as choices of will. Regardless of any overarching knowledge you may have to the contrary, you cannot obtain nor experience said in sufficient totality to avoid that limited perception making process from what you perceive as a single flowing point in time. From your point of perspective, barring some obliteration of your consciousness, you will always be a slave to free will. The best you can do, as a human being, is assemble the delusion that the decisions being made are actually someone else's, or more commonly, blame the decisions on outside factors, but it doesn't ultimately prevent your limited mind from being forced to make them.

>>10448250
information theory is letting scientists reconstruct visual data from monkey brains because information theory directly relates to iterated ergodic relay systems you dickhead

the only thing here thats not observable or measurable that is obviously real is consciousness.

you'd really like to eliminate actual neurology from the picture so that you can pretend you're smart.

you didn't even try reading the page. it very obviously relates to organic system architechture, such as messy signaling, etc.

you're an idiot if you cant figure out your argument is identical to the argument for a soul

>>10448277
>the only thing here thats not observable or measurable that is obviously real is consciousness.
Which gives you the experience of free will.

The mechanics of the rest only matter inasmuch as they are giving rise to that experience. That if your body is obliterated, it will presumably cease, thus there's no soul involved, only a consciousness derived from a complex system experiencing its own decision making process. No amount of exploration into the biology of it removes that experience in and of itself. It is thus not at all relevant to the question of "if you have free will", it is only relevant to the question as to "why" or "how" you experience free will.

I'm all for denying the existence of a soul in the classical sense, but I am rather unable to escape the experience of having an experience, without chemical assistance, and even then, I obviously can't experience the lack of having an experience, and only retroactively experience the apparent gap (and having been under full anesthesia, have experienced said gap).

>>10447849
Kek, you don't know shit about NN's

>>10448313
consciousness does not in any manner correlate to freedom

I can imagine flying if I close my eyes. you are imagining being free.

both are false

*Refutes it thus*

>>10448367
Doesn't change the fact that, should you be dreaming, you are experiencing flying, insomuch as you understand it.

Similarly, you cannot escape the experience of making decisions and free will, every day. Much like your imagination, it is something you both possess and are possessed by.

okay but i think the real question here is
who would like to see my penis?

>>10448383
brainlet

sensation is not state divergence

>>10447648
>Carnap

kek

>>10448383
you guys are all retards. I'm the one arguing against freedom in the entire topic

there are actually several cases to be made in favor of it,and it is mathematical, but I havent seen any at all in the topic

I'll leave you retarded secular leftists to your devices to masturbate over literal dark age christian philosophy. for most people there'd be a conflict here, but you retards cant ever consider the possibility you are retards

>>10441885
>"It's often thought that there's no description of the way the world is that can tell us how the world ought to be. But I think this is quite clearly untrue. Values are a certain kind of fact. They are facts about the well-being of conscious creatures."

>Values are a certain kind of fact.

>Values are fact

What did he mean by this?

>>10448462
he means values are utility functions that can be codified

and even though he is retarded/dishonest, and certainly framing it retardedly, he is correct here

>>10448480

What does it mean for values to be codified?

>>10448462
Holy fuck, Scottish pseuds absolutely, inarguably BTFO. I want to hear him on causation.
>Look, the ball is hitting the other ball and so it moves. Like, literally what else would it do LOL. Problem of induction my ass *dabs* *meditates*

>>10448462
all he did was beg the question that at bottom we all have the same thing in mind when we speak of well-being. i.e.: that well-being is an objectively knowable factual state of affairs. But this is plainly false (as a true matter of fact) because people in good faith disagree. to say those people are wrong only begs the question. he simply categorically denies the unknowable as a "factual" reality. In other words, he equates ultimate factual revelation with the dissolution of ethical deliberation, which is only true of someone who worships the intellect. In any case, until that day becomes a reality it is essentially a prediction trying to take a loan on a gamble about what the future state of affairs will reveal. you can't say because I think the future will show that everything is a matter of knowing the facts that proves that I am justified in thinking today that all knowledge is a matter of knowing the facts. sometimes knowledge is a matter of knowing you don't know the facts. we call that wisdom

>>10448496
Written down within a structure and followed. It's all evolution in the end. People generate their own values, what ought to be done, based on experience or random neural circuitry. The values that are worth anything will survive time and reality long enough so that it is written down and passed on. Of course this doesn't mean it's written down values, i.e. religion, is the best since the environment changes it's what withstands time. For example tape worms and the cuckoo bird exist evolve but you wouldn't say these organism are beautiful.

>>10448367
>>10448407
I could be bounded in a nutshell and count myself a king of infinite space, as they say.

It's all well and good to say imagination isn't real, but one cannot go so far as to say it doesn't exist. When it comes to individual perception, it most certainly is a state divergence, and, in many ways, a measurable one with neurochemical consequences. To deny free will, is to deny individual experience entirely. Much like imagination, you can deny its ultimate efficacy in the world, but not its actual existence as common experience. Like consciousness, you can call it illusion, but the individual cannot deny the existence and persistence of the illusion. You can question how it came to be, but not that it is.

>>10441872
kantbot indirectly btfo him on twitter today

https://twitter.com/KANTBOT20K/status/945458369963417600

>>10448555
you neglected to mention. they survive by a measurable margin and that margin lets us determine the utility. genetecists can determine the speed a particular allele spreads nd the time it emerged

>>10448565
it is not state divergence

theoretically state divergence can take place if there is an ai capable of recoding its source code. is the emergent ai the same consciousness? unlikely.

state divergence can theoretically take place over the span of tens of years, from a child of one day old, to the point you become 30

by the time you are 30, you have, perhaps self-induced change

this change is not a process in your consciousness RIGHT this moment (your argument) but then instead a negotiated process of your environment and your unconscious ability to reorient. at this point, you've put the source of freedom outside your body and morphed the internal component to the point that your argument looks ridiculous

you seem like a different poster. I'll say it again

neurologists, mathemeticians, and physicists have all made separate arguments (convincingly) for freedom of choice or state divergence. those arguments I accept. they are demonstrable in both closed and unbound systems and evident in nature.

I've never seen it ONCE here. I have to lurk blogs for phd students

you don't even realise that you're in a cave

>>10448627
>neurologists, mathemeticians, and physicists have all made separate arguments (convincingly) for freedom of choice
For example? (Preferably by your own surmation, rather than just a link - but bonus points for both.)

>>10448627
what are 'they'? the 'utility functions' i.e. 'values'?
the utility functions let us determine utility.
okay.
or do you mean alleles?
are we drawing an analogy between values and alleles?
okay then, so we define 'values' as those utility functions that demonstrate maximal utility.
but then what is 'utility'?
if we are cleaving to the analogy with alleles, it would seem that it is that which allows greatest propagation of a given 'value'.
so, like, memes.
the principle of morality is to spread memes to the greatest extent possible.
colonize the universe with image macros.

>>10448640
you'd really like to understand?

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3482752?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

link related. read it. there is a reason stem fields are hesitant to treat humanities civilly. you invade every single field, appropriate terms and language you don't understand, then use them to try and gain sinecures, destroying science nd getting the best scientists fired

>>10448653
who's been fired?
do you mean lawrence summers?
are economists stemfags now?

>>10448659
many, many, many, many people have been fired.

the discoverer of the structure of dna for one

if you don't notice this, you're inherently dishonest

>>10448653
This did not exactly fulfill the request, Anon. So I'll have to assume either you don't understand the articles you claim exist yourself, or are simply laying claim to their existence falsely, and are simply resorting to calling me an SJW and a humanities major.

Which is a shame, as I believe I could come up with several such articles myself, though I'd have to play devil's advocate, as I've not found any of them thoroughly convincing.

>>10448645
>principle of morality is to spread memes to the greatest extent possible.
No, it is to survive not only time but competition and random destruction due to a physical reality. Reproduction helps but it is not the end all. Maintenance level is more stable.

Values is just what a person pursue. It guides a person's actions. People are variable in their value depending on their culture and so on. If the culture is strict then values are shared and deviants are quickly eliminated i.e. conservatives vs liberals.
Utility is determined by time. If it is useful it will withstand time and its elimination.


And yes memes, viruses, religion, genes all follow the same set of principles since they all exists in the same physical universe. Same reason why a car, an airplane, the sun, a moon, and so on all follow a single set of laws of motion.

>>10448674
if i am ignorant i am dishonest?

>>10448683
what set is that?

>>10448683
so the greatest values are just those behavioral dispositions that happen to persist over the long run?
do we try to maximize these behavioral dispositions? is that the principle of ethics?
what if the most successful behavioral dispositions are contrary to our intuitions about what is 'just' or 'good'?

>>10448694
It's debatable what exactly the set is but most scientists worth their salt believe it's evolution that is generalized and expanded beyond biology. For example smartphones and most of technology have "evolved" in the same manner in that a prototype is built and then reproduced by a consumer market selecting which is best. This in turn brings in different companies and their variations and subjected to competition and so on. Arguments can be made about cars and everything else.

>>10448676
did you read my post?

I'm not giving it to you fags because you'd just take it and misunderstand it to promote your agenda

pic related

the thing I am referencing is not even uncommon. you cant refer to it and that almost certainly guarantees you're a humanities undergrad

>>10447586

This made my day.

>>10448717
crystals and ion fields evolve over time and self organise to reduce entropy in inorganic environments

this destroys the humanities major

>>10448717
i thought we were talking about the laws of motion i.e. physics
but you're referring to a generalized selection theory
are the laws of motion subject to selection pressure?
how can they be universal laws if they are subject to change?

>>10448729
>this destroys the humanities major
i don't see how
explain please

>>10448710
It's argumentative. Sometimes you have to suffer for the greater good. Aka why the Christ archetype is so morally effective. There's dips and valleys and people can get stuck on a local value maxima. The means to get out is randomization in which you go low and hopefully get out of the trap. This is where variations comes in, in that you can have most of the population be conservatives and follow what works before while having a smaller subset be variable in case shit happens and the deviants are there to find a way out. Same shit happens in nature when a populations gets inbred and can't adapt to sudden changes and the guy with flippers is suddenly successful. And again, time decides.

>>10448736
so murderous rage becomes the predominant behavioral disposition of the majority of the population
there's no stance from which we might cast judgment upon this state of affairs without begging the question?

>>10448720
Whining about humanities majors /r9k/ style, especially to an EECET, isn't exactly helping your case. I doubt anyone who's replied to you is a humanities major, judging by the reponses. Just calm your tits and admit you ain't got jack.

>>10448731
>laws of motion subject to selection pressure
Calculus of variation. Any objects in motion minimize their energy use. Shit don't go in random motion and zigzag unless something's fucking with it. Of course this gets thrown out the window on the quantum level.

>how can they be universal laws if they are subject to change?
The principles remain but they are applied in different manners. It's the same way we treat mathematics in which we have a set of axioms and then derive theorems. We already know to some degree that everything is subjected to time, space, and the fundamental forces. Those are the bounds. If you find something is off, you can always add a new law.

>>10448748
he is correct and you are incorrect

local value utility is not generally calculated upon a basis that can be changed. generaly dispositions are genetic and cognition is limited.

e.g. even in the modern scientific fields, .1% of scientists are responsible for 90% of the discoveries. POINT one.

you cannot "negotiate" the bad scientists into becoming more competent. local nash/pareto need to be forcibly disjoined. typically this happens via genetic replacement

people are not generally changeable past age 16 or so. actors in a given system are generally the most entrenched and least adaptable. this is biological not political.

even things such as acceptance of fags is roughly 90% biological, caused by disease avoidance parts of the brain.

humans are not smart in the manner you've been taught.

>>10448748
Directed murderous rage is useful in times of war when soldiers are needed. We can cast judgements all we want based on what we seen work before but nature will ultimately decide. For example we can build a plane in however way we want but ultimately when it is pushed off a cliff it better fly. But that's not to say their is only one solution. There can be multiple and each be effective in their own manner.

>>10448753
There are several people here complaining about you idiots.

Many mathematical arguments have already been presented here by various posters and none of them have even garnered responses. You keep masturbating to dark age christian philosophy as supposedly secular leftists. You people are all remarkably dumb.

>>10448758
humans are not as you have been taught, as far as personal experience has revealed
you have a peculiarly dismal perspective on things
i am glad we do not share this

>>10448763
Most of which are for the opposite case and none of the few in the other camp are particularly convincing. Maybe you could at least link to one you found convincing?

>>10448773
literally modern neurology

your morals are not statements of fact

>>10448779
i am familiar with the concepts and a good deal of the literature you have alluded to throughout your posts.
i have given a great deal of consideration to the implications of what contemporary research has suggested about not only our own 'natures', but the operative principles of reality
if have found that these are not concordant with my personal happiness, so i eschew them, perhaps narrowing my worldview, but allowing me to pursue my own interests with an ease of mind that would otherwise be impossible

>read about determinism, indeterminism, metaphysical minds, solipsism, materialism, souls, cause and effect, anecdotes, studies, experiments etc. concerning this topic
>get a fucking headache
Free will and consciousness are topics too fucky for my dumdum brain to really comprehend with confidence. I want to finally get off this ride with the belief that my choices matter and that it's beneficial to my being to make choices that will help me make better choices in the future (e.g. sleeping to become leas shit in the morning instead of posting on /lit/ at 2 AM) and to just stop worrying about this issue.

I feel somewhat insecure in this decision however, what compels you guys to do otherwise?

>>10441872
>Sam Harris
Well allow me to rupture his entire premises.
>Man’s consciousness shares with animals the first two stages of its development: sensations and perceptions; but it is the third state, conceptions, that makes him man. Sensations are integrated into perceptions automatically, by the brain of a man or of an animal. But to integrate perceptions into conceptions by a process of abstraction, is a feat that man alone has the power to perform—and he has to perform it by choice. The process of abstraction, and of concept-formation is a process of reason, of thought; it is not automatic nor instinctive nor involuntary nor infallible. Man has to initiate it, to sustain it and to bear responsibility for its results. The pre-conceptual level of consciousness is nonvolitional; volition begins with the first syllogism. Man has the choice to think or to evade—to maintain a state of full awareness or to drift from moment to moment, in a semi-conscious daze, at the mercy of whatever associational whims the unfocused mechanism of his consciousness produces. To think is an act of choice. The key to what you so recklessly call “human nature,” the open secret you live with, yet dread to name, is the fact that man is a being of volitional consciousness. Reason does not work automatically; thinking is not a mechanical process; the connections of logic are not made by instinct. The function of your stomach, lungs or heart is automatic; the function of your mind is not. In any hour and issue of your life, you are free to think or to evade that effort. But you are not free to escape from your nature, from the fact that reason is your means of survival—so that for you, who are a human being, the question “to be or not to be” is the question “to think or not to think. A being of volitional consciousness has no automatic course of behavior. He needs a code of values to guide his actions.

>>10448835
this is a discussion about fact. not your egotistical feelings

>>10448926
>Man’s consciousness
Is it "his", can you even substantiate that abstraction, "man" as a meaningful abstraction here?
>shares
Qualitatively, literally, or what?
>animals
Problem of induction; what if man is 'the' animal?
>first two
by order of what?
>stages
set has 40 definitions in English, so what is meant by stages?
>its
as in man or or man's consciousness or consciousness?
>development
On what scale and in what domain?
>sensations
How do you know
>perceptions
Anything is subject to reality
>but it is the third state, conceptions, that makes him man
No because animals exist conceptually
>to integrate perceptions into conceptions
perception is an idea
>by a process of abstraction
why is it a process?
>is a feat
is it?
>man alone has the power to perform
Does he and does he perform it through power if he does?
>he has to perform it by choice
Sure.
>concept-formation
meaning? and where?
>it is not automatic
it can be.

what the fuck man

>>10449005
How do you read even read

>>10449012
I only write (in my diary) and watch hydewars pay wall

>>10449005
This monstrosity of a reply does not deserve a response. This is the most /pseud/ post I've ever seen.
Into making the thrust and genral purpose of your post concise or fuck off.

>>10449100
wow tell that to ayn rand im just trying to read here

>>10449100
not being cute and half ironic though kill yourself you gargantuanly arrogant kumquat half larper

>>10449109
[part 2] for being so quick to act on your surety from which descends through the limbic system down your spine toward your finger tip not even to think for even a moment it is not i but the post in response this monstrosity hath been engendered and for the possibility within doth package of concerns there lay a legitimate question or for what challenge it may be for your own personal wit and gain to address the fallacies yourself or to emphatically answer in response to your own civil kindness which most exist to the extent you are wanting me to know something you you cotton picker

>>10449103
>>10449109
Whoever of you is that guy; your post's intent and purpose was completely unknown to me because of how badly it was written. I do not even understand your core issue or what premise your were opperating from.
I reiterate >>10449012's sentiment
How the fuck do you even read?

>>10449117
>Whoever of you is that guy
to imply it could not be both or none
>;
not even the correct way to use a semi-colon you delightful hypocrite
>your post's intent and purpose was completely unknown to me
you could have picked any interpretation and it would have been better than going toward that existential abyss we should all avoid

my core issue at this point is with you buddy. if you want to get to the point instead of having all your wires showing thinking aloud that would be great

>>10449117
furthermore it is a destructive and counter-productive impulse to assault the very language one depends on to communicate and in any case shows if it were publicly amiable and you were a little more earnest you'd do much worse things to i your fellow guy

>>10449139
My point was already made. Presumably I am being asked to expand on the details of the same for a deeper point but if so I'll need it phrased in a not assinine way.

>>10449148
>assault the very language one depends on to communicate and in
>literally not allowed to mock unintelligible and/or prose
Yeah ok fag.

>>10449153
*and/or shit prose

>>10449149
>deeper point
i don't see how the intention of wondering what had been meant by something is deeper than the inquisition itself especially when you do not have an idea of the intent and especially when there are so many intents you could name one and i'd surely concede to having been using of it and it should be the labor and love of your own reason to forward that not me or your chiropractor or whoever

>>10449153
if you think i have any bearing on the rules of ones mind you're a submissive little BITCH dude and also a crypto kantain which makes you a femboy like kant

>>10449170
Fantastic, we're in complete agreement. Now I'll just need the original query made concise and coherent and this conversation will go swimmingly.

>>10449173
I fucking despise Kant though.

>>10449182
read plato >>10449189 make a youtube video

>>10449208
>make a youtube video
uh, no?

>>10449216
uh yes?

Don't be afraid to rip a retard like you guys are talking to into shreds he's getting off fucking with you two

>>10449224
Wait you do you mean though? Bystander here.

>>10448779

Cite ONE study.

>>10449224
lol shut the fuck up over socialized faggot

>>10447906

Those experiments mean very little, since RP has shown to be present before actions but also before no actions actually happening, and others don't reach 100% accuracy (one only reaches 60%)

Lastly none of them emulates the actions in day to day life which actually necessitates thinking.

>>10449244
what mechanism allows for volition anon?

Listen to Sam Harris get btfo'd by a neuroscientist whom he refuses to debate:

https://therightstuff.biz/2017/12/25/between-two-evergreens-mike-and-jf/

>>10448452

Answer the dome example you fucking ape.

>>10449245


The same one which allows you to dodge my arguments.

>>10449249
im not the Harris nigger, answer my question please

>>10449258

If you're not the autist nigger then I'll honestly tell you I'm not sure about any of it. The meekest form of free will can dodge this question, but it's not a form of free will that's satisfying enough for me. For a model that still admits the brain as the big guy, I like to think of it as an emergent property of matter which only occurs at a specific amount of neurons and only as a result of their connections.

As for the soul, it's seductive, but I would find it hard to defend it.

>>10447394
Lol, you think a little machine that can presict you pressing green or blue button negates the existance of soul? Haha you are a pathetic anti-entity, and I consider you to be like an insect of China, fragile little boy.

why is everyone in this thread so weird

>>10449246
no

>>10444410
I might be late in responding to this, but I absolutely despise him too. After listening to most of Waking Up, I feel like the only reason that show exists is to vindicate his public image.
And he is definitely obsessed by status: notice how he only invites guest that can boost his prestige and never invites anyone that might threaten his public image. Even when he invited Murray over that IQ thing, he spent so much time after jacking off to how special he is for taking such a "risk." Like, oh, look at me, these people aren't hating me for good reasons, they hate me because I give a platform to these misjudged individuals in my pursuit for absolute truth.
I don't understand how it's possible that nobody, fucking nobody up to this point has done a video or an article on just how full of shit he is. Every single time a person talks about a real thing on his podcast, he combats them with some made-up scenario that's impossible.
>hey, sam, x is bad and kills people
>well, i get that, but let's imagine a scenario in which x not only doesn't harm people, but benefits them
How the fuck anyone considers this proper argumentation is beyond me. He takes discussions about real life scenarios that require our immediate attention and turns them intro these abstract universals tier conversations.
Also, for fucking years he's been asking for donations, even though his net worth is in the millions and his parents were rich as fuck, and he's yet to do anything. Oh, wait, he did do one thing: he put his AMA behind a paywall :). Incredible.

>>10449468
This.
He refuses to debate Objectivists for instance because after he talked about how an objective morality should and one day might be developed; he got butthurt over being told that Ayn Rand had already succeeded.
His issue being that Objectivism is unremittingly pro-Capitalism and asserts it as the only moral system.

>>10449839
>Ayn Rand
>succeeded
Please elaborate.

>>10449854
Objectivism is a peerlessly consistent, integrated philisophic system that was the first real blow to the mystic's monopoly on morality.
It was formulated as an answer to the Kantian anti-conceptual malaise that had begun to grip academia and the communist encroachment that rode along. She is the formulator of what I call the first "Meta-philosophy;. It is a complete, integrated, closed-system.
Ayn Rand's philosophy was the strongest attack on Communism, Fascism, and Statism ever witnessed. Her indentification of rational selfishness as a moral ideal is the best summation of the actual nature of existence into a concrete whole. Cultural Marxists are terrified of Ayn Rand as she represents the American Constution completed; a rejection of the primordial evil that is Altruism that the US founding fathers lacked. The ONLY thing (or one of the few things) they lacked. Epistemologically validated, metaphysically defined, and ethically expanded, Objectivism is the greatest threat Commie and Nazi Statists have ever encountered which is why they cannot even bear to have it discussed as a philosophy. Capitalism is the only moral system ever devised. And the best. And even the kindest. The only reason there is ever any doubt about the wonders of Capitalism is because it lacked a defensible moral base at it's outset. Historically ""conservative"" Republicans have tried to justify it on the basis of Altruism. To which it is incompatible and, make no mistake, rest assured that Altruism is the great primordial evil of the world. Ayn Rand's arguments for why this is so are adamantine-clad and unassailable.

>>10441872
Sam Harris is a fsg

>>10450049
>this is the state of /lit/ in 2017

>>10450718
but is it the absolute state?

>>10449247
I prefer to not give ammo to humanities majors

>>10449468
sounds like very semitic behavior. you kind of just described the entirety of levantine society

>>10450742
so cute

>>10450718
I don't think that poster made a very good case, nor do I agree, but I think objectivism makes a very strong case for itself in terms of "ideologies that made a bunch of predictions and got validated because most of them turned out to be correct."

I honestly cant think of any other reasonably broad scope popular ideology that hasnt been mistaken about almost everything.

>>10450758
>I think objectivism makes a very strong case for itself in terms of "ideologies that made a bunch of predictions and got validated because most of them turned out to be correct."
wat

>>10451026
most packaged and/or systematic thinking ends up being 99% incorrect. objectivism is obviously flaed, but came pretty close 90% of the time.

the problem is that societies dont run on being good 90% of the time and utterly in error for 10%. if a society is damn near perfect, it collapses. the problem given objectivism is or any other ideology is that you damn better be agnostic about the things you arent 100% fucking certain of

objectivism can probably keep a society on the rails for 80 years or so. its a lot better than socialism or social justice, seemingly unable to cope for more than 20. but really, neither is a good idea

>>10448187
>academia
lel

>>10451092
Part of Objectivism is that freely admits that there is no automatic guarantor of efficacy and success. That the tools needed to solve a given dilemma must be ever evolving and that there is no guarantee that they will necessarily be found in time at all.
I'm curious what you consider these "10% flaws" to be.

>>10451212
you are a perfect case of my point

you say "humans are imperfect, therefore need a perfect ideology. my ideology points out people are imperfect. see? my pefect ideology is so humble, the humbleness proves it is perfect and all encompassing"

again, they're right bout 90% of things but thats not good enough. you guys invented the spear and declared game over, you fags

islam is RIGHT about most things but they're still animals because the things the fuck up they fuck up so bad and are completely unapologetic about it. they also claim to be humble

you people need to pul your heads out of your asses

>>10448367
Incorrect.

Free will exists because it must. If it didn't, we'd be no different from the beasts we have conquered.

If free will didn't exist, we would always go off of instinct. We have more than instinct, though.

It's hard to see how you don't see what is in front of your own eyes.

Literally read any philosophy, and you will come to the same conclusion. Moron.

>>10451255

Nothing will ever be perfect, because there is no such thing as perfect knowledge. All knowledge comes from human experience, so the most our knowledge will ever come to is based on our intellectual limits, even though there is so much more than what we know or ever will know.

The universe only exists because you exist. If I didn't exist, there would be no universe. This isn't wishy washy stuff, this is objective and scientific fact.

>>10451340
objectivism sets up a nash that rejects information pooling decentral communal structures. literally trash

>>10451321

>>10451340
>solipsism
You are so dumb it is painful

>>10451364
This is how you were conceived.

>>10451370
I guess you're too stupid to come up with an actual argument. Typical anon.

>>10451321
To differentiate between instinct and free will is futile. The qestion is if we were to be able to look into the future would we see the exact future that happens every time or just one possible future that can easily be altered by our actions in the present.

>>10451092
this means literally nothing, it's just a bunch of vague statements with percentages fitted in so it looks smarter

and this
>objectivism can probably keep a society on the rails for 80 years or so. its a lot better than socialism or social justice, seemingly unable to cope for more than 20.
is ridiculous
the soviet union lasted 70 years, china, north korea, cuba, all the eastern european commie states lasted 45 years
social justice? arguably every western country (including the communist ones) runs (or ran) on some form of it and they've all lasted a lot longer than 20 years

>>10451440
the soviet union had a complete purge (read: murder) of leadership every 10-20 years

>>10451519
and? they didn't purge "society". countries also have democratic elections every 4 years, is that a purge of society?

>>10451705
man people like you are idiots

the communists killed 20 to 50 million people in the ussr

objectivism is rather far from democracy, and yes democracy has purges too. see: the soft genocide of germans in the eastern slavic provinces before communism, the genocide of chinese in malaysia/indonesia, the genocide of boers in africa, ad infinitum

>>10451748
what
are
you
on
about

first it's about how long societies last, then government purges, now it's about genocides

this is what I meant when I talked about vague statements, as soon as someone replies to you you churn out a new reply with more vague statements that make even less sense

it's like punching fog

>>10451850
if the government gets killed and in the process kills 20% of the populace you have changed the society you nigger

>>10451870
do you really think that 20% of the soviet populace got executed every 10-20 years?
besides, societies change all the time, your point seems to be that objectivism would freeze the current societal relations and perpetuate them forever (or until its collapse). what an utterly horrific system.

>>10451931
literally it DID

background birthrates had roughly been 1.5%. population remained above flat, but should have been around 50 years to double

instead it remained barely above flat you retard

Man this thread deteriorated quickly.

OnT: Ben Stiller should stay away from the humanities.

>>10448916
please respond

>>10451947
>background birthrates had roughly been 1.5%. population remained above flat, but should have been around 50 years to double
>instead it remained barely above flat you retard
no
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Soviet_Union#Population_2

>>10453227
>using numbers about the 90s to argue about numbers from the 20s to 70s
man, I cant believe your mother didn't leave you on a cold rock to die

>>10447766
>>10447778
>>10447824
>>10447867
Heh...... I read Sapiens too

Great book, innit?

>>10451379
>objectivism with human neurology
>objectivism with human genome
>objectivism with entropy
>objectivism with leaking truth value
>objectivism with finite computing power
>objectivism with market based interactions where deception, predation and occultation are the unspoken rule
>objectivism with godel’s incompleteness theorem
>objectivism with limited computing power
>objectivism with problem of induction
as stupid as platonic realists and socialist niggers

national socialism for all its con artistry is safer than full throttle techno-capitalism

>>10453343
dunno about the other posters. I didn't

a lot of it is obvious if you aren't a retarded leftist atheist trying to read 12th century dark age christian philosophers, then using it to try and "disprove" modern science to sound smart

but then again, leftists gonna nig

>>10453257
that's not what I'm doing you fucking retard
>1920 137 727 000
>1970 241 720 000

>but should have been around 50 years to double

retard

>>10453421
Why are you talking about leftists?

>>10447725
>when your mc donald shift ends late

>>10453613
they got KILLED you retard

>>10453635
is this a word association game? you're incomprehensible, I give up.

>>10453709
at the birth rate BEFORE BEING KILLED IN POGROMs they'd have doubled in 50 years

fuck you. go die you innumerate faggot

>>10453718
but they did (almost) double in 50 years
1920 - 137k
1970 - 241k
also, you're forgetting the 20 million ww2 casualties
also, "20 to 50 million in the ussr", even the shitty propaganda "black book" has only 20 million in it, which means the real number is lower

>>10447648
<3