/sci/ - Science & Math

Incoherent schizobabble. Go hang out with Chris Langan.

>>15106150
>you're on a level with the most intelligent man alive
>somehow this is supposed to be an insult
What did xe mean by this?

>>15106136
Imagine getting so asshurt over having your determinitard dogma undermine in every thread that you write all this crap pretending to be another poster. Determinitards will never be human.

>>15106152
Langan is a midwit masquerading as a genius whose following consists of similar types who post those shitty bell curve memes about religiosity

Can you commit suicide mentally?

>>15106155
>IQ 195+ is midwit
Sure, buddy. What's you're IQ though?

>>15106150
>>15106153
>>15106155
>>15106158
Determinitards seething, unable to understand let alone criticize the proof. Let me guess, you had no other choice?

>>15106164
See >>15106153. I don't know what imaginary audience you started this thread for, but we both know I'm living rent-free in your head. Your shenanigans are a clear sign of extreme emotional distress. Determinitards will never be human.

>>15106164
I completely ignored your original post and just wanted to know, if you can commit suicide physicallly, does your mental self die? Are they one and the same? And if not can you suicide your mind but your body lives on? As what?

>>15106165
Of course you don't understand because you're illiterate.

>>15106159
There's no proof he has such IQ. If he has 195 IQ then so does the schizo loon down my street who yells at passing people that the end is nigh.

>>15106136
Your premises are retarded; you are retarded.

>>15106175
>the schizo loon down my street who yells at passing people that the end is nigh.
Sounds pretty based ngl

>>15106150
ikr, the caps

>>15106136
Free will is a straightforward contradiction as nothing can become its own cause, and determinism amounts to an abuse of cause and effect. How many more days are you going to spend processing this?

>>15106275
>nothing can become its own cause
This is a science board. Why are you denying the big bang?

>>15106136
>Seems bitch made to me but do you, bro

>>15106136
>2. If you morally SHOULD do something then this is implies you CAN do it.
Wrong. Morality assumes you can make moral choices freely.

>3. You SHOULD morally and epistemologically never believe things which are FALSE.
You shouldn't *knowingly* believe things which are false. It will often happen accidentally, even if you did nothing morally wrong.

>>15106136
Premise one is based on the english language containing words, so I discard.
Premise two is false. You can't always do something just because you should.
Premise three does not make sense. Of course you can have false beliefs it's called being wrong.

>>15106281
The theory describes how the universe expanded from an initial state. The theory doesn't describe a self-caused event, although you can be forgiven for imagining that as that's the popular conception.

>>15106136
This is why scientists laugh at philosophers.

>>15106136
>You know why you like the things you like and feel the way you feel.
Wrong.

This is called the Introspection Illusion. You believe you know yourself, know what you enjoy, know your identity and believe you have reasons for why you are the way you are. Turns out YOU were wrong.

>It might seem that people would focus only on attributes of the stimulus that are consistent with their initial attitude, to justify how they feel.
Most people claim they like or enjoy things, or hate and dislike certain things but they don't actually even know the real reasons why half the time. Your mind deceives you, makes up a reason and then rationalizes your preferences. You don't actually even decide half of the process

YOU don't even exist

>>15106312
If philosophy is just critical thinking then OP is a terrible philosopher.

>>15106309
What caused the big bang then?

>>15106372
OP is unironically more profound than any shit written by Aristotle or Kant.

>>15106305
>Premise one is based on the english language containing words, so I discard.
Words which can be translated into any other language. The argument is valid and your reply is cringe.

>>15106136
Determitards should just kill themselves, surely it's determined that way

>>15106662
It's unknown. It's unknown if it's even knowable since the expansion may have destroyed all retrievable information about prior states.

>>15106681
Or it's not.

>>15106690
maybe I am determined to execute all these filthy dogs? Surely no one would be to blame, after all it was determined

>>15106696
I guess we'll see. Maybe I'm determined to stab any schizos that try.

>>15106275
>nothing can become its own cause
Refuted. Any questions?

>>15106136
> 2. If you morally SHOULD do something then this is implies you CAN do it. It would be absurd to declare an impossible action to be a moral obligation.
You lost me right here anon, shoulds, coulds, and woulds don’t belong in a statement like this. And just to clarify I don’t believe determinism, but you certainly SHOULD go back to the drawing board if you want to “btfo” the “determinitards”

>>15106699
you are right. Maybe it would be smart if I trained by battering some cripples before going for the final retards

>>15106701
A system internally producing its own laws, even if they are necessary and identical to the only kind possible, is distinct from that system becoming its own cause. How does this address the argument?

>>15106673
Well in theory red is blue because I can put it in a sentence illustrating such. You see my point? Also you didn't engage with the whole post you just cherry picked what you wanted to try to refute and failed miserably.

>>15106662
>What caused the big bang then?
Does the theory address that? You'd have to ask an astrophysicist.

>>15106717
>a system spontaneously causing itself with zero outside influence is different from self-causality
how

>>15106719
You didn't address the criticism. The semantics are independent of the langauge used to express them. Think of 2+2=5. You can use different language words for 2 or you can write down the equation with different symbols but the meaning stays the same. Now try again.

>>15106701
Based Langan

>>15106725
Your first premise establishes the words "can" and "do" as fundamental properties of reality it is fucking brain dead stupid.

>>15106724
>a system spontaneously causing itself
Is that what the post you cited says?

>>15106736
Physical possibility ("can") and physical events ("do") are both well-defined abstract logical concepts. I'm not OP btw.

>>15106740
I wrote it and I know what the CTMU says. In any case, reality causes itself because nothing else can cause it. Period. Unless you have a coherent argument to the effect that it doesn't. (You don't because any such argument is paradoxical.)

>>15106750
How does that refute that nothing can become its own cause? Surely your claim is simply that the universe causes itself necessarily, i.e. it never "became" its own cause as there's nothing external to the universe itself. Thankfully, humans aren't universes.

>>15106704
>shoulds, coulds, and woulds don’t belong in a statement like this.
You are not allowed to use modal logic in a philosophical argument because ... uhm, you just can't, okay?

>>15106152
>he's the most intelligent man alive because of a single test he took
wow, so that's it folks? doesn't matter what you actually do in your life to contribute to the world, just take a test and score high?
the absolute state of pseuds on this board

>>15106681
>something caused the big bang
>how do you know?
>because my belief system would sound very stupid otherwise
>shouldn't you have evidence?
>nah
>wait are you sure we don't need evidence?
>we don't even know if we can know and don't even know if we can't know man, but nevermind that it's still SCIENCE and if you disagree you are just dumb and you don't even like understand this stuff okay?!?!?!!!
>isn't that it weak armchair philosophizing to decide something is true while preemptively creating an excuse to ignore subsequent lack of evidence?
>nah
>can't you do the same to say God exists?
>nah that is God of gaps fallacy
>but aren't you doing the exact same thing?
>REEEEEEEE!!!!!

>>15106744
Fuck, I've seen to many people use words words words as an argument and assed he was doing the same.

>>15106744
Fuck, I've seen to many people use words words words as an argument and assumed he was doing the same.

>>15106761
Sure. The universe didn't "become" its own cause due to the fact that the universe is ultimately atemporal. The universe simply is its own cause. Happy?

>>15106750
>In any case, reality causes itself because nothing else can cause it. Period
ROFL. Imagine being over 2000 years behind in philosophical thought yet being this confident with the baseless ideas you invent. Peak Dunning Kruger.

>>15106780
Sure, it seems consistent as an idea to me. This doesn't have much to do with the topic of free will, of course.

>>15106772
Lmao. Nice imaginary argument.

>>15106788
>Nice argument
Thanks. It's not imaginary tough, it's exactly what the moron is doing

>>15106784
I'd say that a system spontaneously choosing everything about itself relates very heavily to the topic of free will. The most you can say is that it doesn't relate to the topic of human free will, which is still wrong because humans are a part of the universe.

>>15106788
It's anon fantasizing about what his opponents (perhaps also imaginary) think so he can easily defeat them.

That anon also regularly confuses the content or presentation of an argument for the person themselves, so regularly jumps to claiming you have no imagination, vision, or creativity as a person if you write a short, simple post on whatever the topic is.

>>15106806
I struggle to see how you could reconcile humans being part of the universe with them becoming self-casual agents. Wasn't the implication here >>15106780 that self-causation would only apply to the universe as whole as it's atemporal with respect to nothing else? e.g. it's not part of, or located in, anything else.

>>15106772
>something caused the big bang

>>15106681
my mistake this post >>15106772 was meant for this post >>15106686

>>15106810
>It's anon fantasizing what his opponents
>That anon also regularly confuses
Imagine being so schizo you project your fantasies onto other people by assuming they are regular philosophy thread posters. I haven't posted in one of these philosophy threads in months. Take meds and stop accusing others of literally committing your own fantasy of "assuming what opponents do"

>>15106825
Why are you directing the citation request at me? I'm the one pointing out other anon thinks the BB "had a cause"

>>15106136
I didn't read because already know that free will can't exist. I just want to know what's wrong with flushing your oil down the drain.

>>15106136
Free will is only truly possible for God.

Drone containment thread.

>>15106772
I like how you tried to misrepresent someone telling you that we don't know something as of it's an arrogant assumption. Projection much?

>>15106867
>misrepresent someone telling you that we don't know something
I'm doing no such thing you liar. The anon I meant to reply to decides the BB has a cause and offers no evidence this "cause" exists. I factually pointed that out.

>>15106136
Ooof. This reeks of bottom 50th percentile freshman year philosophy 101.
> 2. If you morally SHOULD do something
This ain't how this is done son. You'd have to prove first that I morally should do something.

>>15106892
the main thing it reeks of is bait. you, on the other hand, reek of r/zoomers

>>15106136
>CAN....In other words
>SHOULD....It would be absurd to
>>FALSE...In particular with respect to
>using ALL CAPS in your premises to make them sound better
>...adding qualifiers to your premises to make them sound better
This is like tripping at the starting line

>>15106701
Why is the retard in the screencap attributing agency to reality? It doesn't configure or select anything. What the fuck does that even mean?

>>15106136
Premise 5 is false under the assumption that determinism is true, since it is not possible for you to hold a NON-FALSE belief that free will is true if determinism is true, hence you are a retard.
QED

>>15107234
>It doesn't configure or select anything.
Wrong. It configures and selects itself and its structure.

>>15107252
More meaningless drivel. How can a non agent configure or select anything? Are you contending that reality has agency? Stop being so vague.

>>15107283
Reality is obviously an "agent". It falls under all 3 definitions here, does it not?

free will just means you aren't stuck in sin
it has nothing to do with philosophages

>>15107286
>First definition
"One" implies a being, which reality is not.
>Second and third definitions
Not what I mean by agent. See https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/agency/#:~:text=In%20very%20general%20terms%2C%20an,a%20standard%20theory%20of%20action.

>>15107302
I mean conscious being.

>>15107306
first of all, why aren't you in /lit/
second of all, the idea that beings are sentient or conscious is a Mahayana-ism
beings aren't conscious

>>15107302
>reality is not.
Yes it does because reality exists, which is what it means "to be". Unless you have an alternative definition to provide.
>In very general terms, an agent is a being with the capacity to act, and ‘agency’ denotes the exercise or manifestation of this capacity.
Since an encyclopedia entry isn't a definition, I'm going to assume this excerpt is what you mean when you use the word agent. Does reality "act"? Well yes, reality acts because it does things which is what it means to act. One of the things it does is "existing".

>>15107318
>beings aren't conscious
Is this how /sci/ copes with the problem of consciousness?

>this is what philosoplebs consider a "logical proof"
... and then they are upset when told that science and math are intellectually superior

>>15107403
If by intellect you mean declarative knowledge, sure. The question of determinism doesn't necessarily fall within that category.

>>15106152
>>15106155
>>15106159
>>15106175
Lol, this is some peak horsehoe stupidity. Langan is clearly intelligent, but he is far from the smartest man alive. Hoeflin's IQ tests are interesting, but they're grossly overinflated at best, pure meme at worst. He standardized them using volunteer readers of a magazine. Any average USAMO contestant would be able to get a perfect score on most of them.

>>15106136
>If you morally SHOULD do something then this is implies you CAN do it.
>You SHOULD morally and epistemologically never believe things which are FALSE.

This argument is invalid, conflating different meanings of the word "should." By merely suggesting you "should" do something, you are already assuming you have the free will to choose it. In a deterministic universe, there is nothing you "should" do. Everything you will do is already determined.

>>15106136
>>15107403
>>15106152
>obvious samedrone

>>15107439
So there's nothing I should take away from this comment?

>>15106136
>I have irrefutable proof that determinism is logically incoherent.
You have plausible proof that determinism doesn't play well with moral prescriptivism, which is a surprise to no one.
>inb4 you accuse me of being a determinitard
I hate them more than you do.

>>15107439
>By merely suggesting you "should" do something, you are already assuming you have the free will to choose it. In a deterministic universe, there is nothing you "should" do. Everything you will do is already determined.
This doesn't mean the argument is invalid. It merely means determinism is invalid because determinism is incompatible with morality.

>>15107441
Take your meds, schizo.

>>15107442
Nope, in a deterministic world, there is only what you will or won't take away from it. If your brain possesses the right genetic and environmental predisposition, it will understand and integrate this information to conclude that the OP's "proof" is false. Otherwise, it will simply continue in a trap of logical incoherence

For the record, I'm not even a determinist, but that argument ain't doing it chief

>>15107460
>chief
>yikes
>oof
>etc.
Where is all this trash coming from? There's been a serious spike over the last two weeks.

>>15107460
I know. I'm just pointing out the gap between determinist ideas and their non-existent applications.

>>15107452
> It merely means determinism is invalid because determinism is incompatible with morality.
But you've ignored the other possibility, that morality (at least as we classically think of it) doesn't exist.

>>15107479
Lol, funny you point that out. That is probably the first time I've ever used a word like "chief" in a comment. I just felt the sudden urge for some variety.

>>15107489
>That is probably the first time I've ever used a word like "chief" in a comment
Don't know about that, my guy. Seems low-key sus to me. Finna head out of this zoomer-infested shithole, no cap.

>>15107530
Yikes broseph. I'm deadass spitting the truth right now, but you finna call me a liar. These microaggressions are getting out of hand. I can't even

>>15106884
>The anon I meant to reply to decides the BB has a cause
No, you did when you asked what caused the Big Bang. LMAO

As was already explained to you, the Big Bang is not claimed to be the first state of the universe with nothing before it, only the farthest back we can determine with our current understanding of physics.

>>15106136
Based

>>15106150
You do not have qualia

>>15106275
>nothing can become its own cause,
quantum physics disagrees

retrocausality

>>15106136
You have won at life, OP!
You may now retire yourself.

>>15106136
>2. If you morally SHOULD do something then this is implies you CAN do it. It would be absurd to declare an impossible action to be a moral obligation.
>3. You SHOULD morally and epistemologically never believe things which are FALSE. In particular with respect to the question of free will you should only hold NON-FALSE beliefs.
These premises are straight up false, so the whole argument is false

free will is self evident.
any other view is midwits rationalising themselves into idiocy

>>15109131
Thinking something is true because it's "self evident" is peak midwit p-zombie behavior.

>>15109136
>NPC doesn't understand Descartes' cogito
How unexpected ...

The fact that no one so far has been able to figure out that premise 5 is falsified by the assumption that determinism is true is really pathetic. It's an extremely elementary error.

>>15106701
>“This cannot be argued”
Telltale signs of schizo rambling, and retard hubris

>>15109144
It's a thought terminating cliche. Anyone can claim that something is self evident; that doesn't make it true, it's just restating their own belief. The cogito is a result of logic, namely that it's inverse is logically incoherent, not because of some property of self-evidence, brainlet.

>>15109146
There are only 4 premises. Try again.

>>15109158
You are not going to reply to this?
>>15109122
Those premises are false. Taken up from the ass

>>15109158
Step 5. Conclusion 5. Doesn't make a difference what you call it, it's a basic misunderstanding and you are stupid for failing to realize it. Interesting how you avoid the substance of the objection and instead quibble about semantics. What are you, a scared little bitch?

>>15106781
Thanks anon. Concise. Uplifting.

>>15109131
its absence is self-evident. im acutely aware of NOT having other people's desires and urges at any given moment. if you think about it then you will be too.

>>15107244
You're retarded, if you believe in determinism, are you saying OP can't believe in free will? How can you know/control what anyone thinks about?

>>15106136
(3) is contradicted by (2) because one cannot always know every truth as humans are not all-knowing and that some statements are unrpoveable. Since we cannot know if we are a brain-in-a-jar, a Boltzmann brain, a butterfly dreaming of being a human, and other such examples, we cannot KNOW if we hold correct beliefs. Thus by (2), it would be illogical to claim you SHOULD only believe true things, as since believing requires certainty, then you either lack knowledge that your knowledge could be faulty and thus believe an untruth or know your knowledge is faulty and thus do not believe it. Since (3) has been defeated by (2) the whole argument falls apart for anyone other than God/an all knowing entity

>>15106136
Meaningless linguistic tricks without philosophical value. Read Wittgenstein.

>>15111384
No, dimwit. You can't hold a true belief that free will is true if determinism is true, retard. If determinism is true as per premise 1, then free will isn't true. How simply do I have to spell it out for you numbskulls?