|
Members in Shoutbox
None.
Shoutbox Search
Shoutbox Commands
/w [name] > Whisper
/r > Reply to last whisper /me > Marks as action Shoutbox Information
Moderators may delete any and all shouts at will.
|
Global Shoutbox
Please log in to shout.
[2018-10-27. : 5:57 am]  Oh_Man -- Also re my animal question I just remembered a famous quote from A. Schopenhauer which sums up the point I'm trying to make perfectly: "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills."[2018-10-27. : 5:54 am] Oh_Man -- jjf28jjf28 shouted: Oh_Man what are you implying? that things operating outside determinism is unfalsifiable? I'd say it's entirely falsifiable by making a successful argument for determinism Basically what Im trying to say jj there is no third option. Brain function is either deterministic or indeterministic (probabilistic) and free will unless redefined is a myth[2018-10-27. : 1:31 am]  jjf28 -- Oh_ManOh_Man shouted: The pertinent paragraph, "the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making unfalsifiable claims, rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others." what are you implying? that things operating outside determinism is unfalsifiable? I'd say it's entirely falsifiable by making a successful argument for determinism[2018-10-27. : 1:28 am]  Moose -- jjf28jjf28 shouted: what if we're actually timeless beings that weaved our every decision into a causal reality and are now observing from the point of the time-bound actors whose course we predetermined? True faith projects onto exponential fulfillment[2018-10-27. : 1:19 am] Oh_Man -- "out agents possibly consisting of parts not bound by determinism" if anyone has arguments for this I'll hear it out[2018-10-27. : 1:18 am] Oh_Man -- The pertinent paragraph, "the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making unfalsifiable claims, rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others."[2018-10-27. : 1:17 am] Oh_Man -- jjf28jjf28 shouted: Oh_Man agreed, assertions without evidence should be dismissed without evidence; but I do hear you arguing that free will doesn't exist, and by not finding a way to rule out agents possibly consisting of parts not bound by determinism your argument seems incomplete (or at least, inductive) I point you to the Wikipedia entry for Russel's Teapot.[2018-10-27. : 12:33 am] jjf28 -- jjf28jjf28 shouted: what if we're actually timeless beings that weaved our every decision into a causal reality and are now observing from the point of the time-bound actors whose course we predetermined? a lot of people didn't really want to play so they turned the wrong way in the womb[2018-10-27. : 12:27 am] jjf28 -- https://pics.me.me/thereisnews-com-incidents-man-arrested-for-putting-fake-arrow-decals-37210700.png[2018-10-27. : 12:23 am] jjf28 -- what if we're actually timeless beings that weaved our every decision into a causal reality and are now observing from the point of the time-bound actors whose course we predetermined?[2018-10-27. : 12:08 am] jjf28 -- on the flip side, if someone wants to defend a contention that free will exists, and they run to something like quantum indeterminacy they would need to flesh out such a contention jjf28jjf28 shouted: unless the suggestion is something like it's just apparently random when observed but there's actually a non-deterministic component of yourself influencing that apparently random system (or reveal what their hidden assumptions are that cause them to think randomness supports free will)[2018-10-26. : 11:21 pm] jjf28 -- I accept determinism so I can simply grant you that agents are completely bound by determinism, but Nude doesn't  [2018-10-26. : 11:12 pm] jjf28 -- Oh_ManOh_Man shouted: You're referring to souls perhaps. Well I've seen no evidence of them . And that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. agreed, assertions without evidence should be dismissed without evidence; but I do hear you arguing that free will doesn't exist, and by not finding a way to rule out agents possibly consisting of parts not bound by determinism your argument seems incomplete (or at least, inductive)[2018-10-26. : 11:01 pm] Oh_Man -- https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcQeQOsIwKs6256DjWzM9i6VilTKiemLAUwmWyuPxpQf4av5VBCa[2018-10-26. : 10:58 pm] Oh_Man -- FaRTy1billionFaRTy1billion shouted: also I can tell an anecdote of not being random XD Several days after having been under anesthesia my mom asked if I wanted a popsicle and was shocked when I said I didn't know we had any, saying I had personally chosen them and some flavors of ice cream while we were waiting for prescriptions at the store on our way home from the surgery. When she showed me what I had apparently chosen I thought to myself about what I liked about them. Then, without me having said anything, she told me the exact things that, as far as I could tell, I had just thought of for the very first time A cool story[2018-10-26. : 10:57 pm] jjf28 -- VraelVrael shouted: I think you're referring to existence. Well I've seen no evidence of that. And that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. you dismiss, therefore you exist[2018-10-26. : 10:56 pm] Vrael -- I think you're referring to existence. Well I've seen no evidence of that. And that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.[2018-10-26. : 10:51 pm] Oh_Man -- You're referring to souls perhaps. Well I've seen no evidence of them . And that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.[2018-10-26. : 10:49 pm] jjf28 -- I have no idea, but I feel like that has to be the hidden assumption when people run to randomness[2018-10-26. : 10:47 pm] Oh_Man -- The only way you have free will is if you define free will to fit into one of these two categories, which I believed is what comptabalists try to do.[2018-10-26. : 10:47 pm] jjf28 -- unless the suggestion is something like it's just apparently random when observed but there's actually a non-deterministic component of yourself influencing that apparently random system[2018-10-26. : 10:46 pm] Oh_Man -- If they're random then again you have no control over your "choice". It is only the whims of fate "chosing" for you.[2018-10-26. : 10:45 pm] Oh_Man -- If they're deterministic then you never could have "chosen" differently.[2018-10-26. : 10:44 pm] Oh_Man -- And whether your concious or subconcious "choices" are determined by deterministic or random factors is irrelevant.[2018-10-26. : 10:43 pm] Oh_Man -- Your conscious choice was only an illusion. In reality it was your uncontrolled subconcious "choosing" for you.[2018-10-26. : 10:40 pm] Oh_Man -- Now you have to think about all the animals that you DIDNT consider. Why did your subconcious only choose that animal/s and not the others?[2018-10-26. : 10:35 pm] Vrael -- Oh_ManOh_Man shouted: So when thinking about why you chose that particular animal, why did you do so? Did you immediately say the first thing that came into your head, or did you weigh up multiple options and pick one because of some reason, or something else? first animal that came to mind[2018-10-26. : 10:21 pm] jjf28 -- FaRTy1billionFaRTy1billion shouted: jjf28 but is it random? XD what does it matter? it's not like you control something that's random, it's literally random[2018-10-26. : 7:24 pm] O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- jjf28jjf28 shouted: Oh_Man last I checked on neuroscience they were favoring the idea that we rapidly generate options, and then eliminate them till we have a decision but is it random? XD[2018-10-26. : 12:30 pm] jjf28 -- Oh_ManOh_Man shouted: So when thinking about why you chose that particular animal, why did you do so? Did you immediately say the first thing that came into your head, or did you weigh up multiple options and pick one because of some reason, or something else? last I checked on neuroscience they were favoring the idea that we rapidly generate options, and then eliminate them till we have a decision[2018-10-26. : 12:14 pm] NudeRaider -- Oh_ManOh_Man shouted: So when thinking about why you chose that particular animal, why did you do so? Did you immediately say the first thing that came into your head, or did you weigh up multiple options and pick one because of some reason, or something else? why? Just wanted to pick something original. So yeah before I answered I weighed several options.[2018-10-26. : 10:39 am] Pr0nogo -- joe "i wish i was 5'9" rogaine and sam "laughs at jordan peterson for money" harris had a good podcast about this but i forget what ep of JRE it was[2018-10-26. : 9:54 am] Oh_Man -- So when thinking about why you chose that particular animal, why did you do so? Did you immediately say the first thing that came into your head, or did you weigh up multiple options and pick one because of some reason, or something else?[2018-10-26. : 8:15 am] O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- Ooh, I just thought of an example. idk if this happens to you, but it happens to me. Say you are at a restaurant and can't decide between two choices, so you flip a coin. You see the result, but then disagree with it and choose the other option. Did the coin actually influence your decision?[2018-10-26. : 8:10 am] O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- so I guess I would say randomness can exist, but I still don't think choices are random XD[2018-10-26. : 8:03 am] O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- I guess my position hinges mostly on whether or not chaotic events are random .. like you can pretty accurately model a double pendulum and every time you run it get the same result, but if you built one then it is basically impossible to repeat the same results twice ... not because of some problem with the model, or even because of quantum-level things, but just the tiniest different in starting position, or even like a slight perturbations in the air flow would be enough to send it on a wildly different path[2018-10-26. : 8:01 am] O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- but I suppose that if you accept quantum things are random, then random events can influence people .. but idk what the extent would be, and I feel like that owuld have very little impact on choices[2018-10-26. : 7:27 am] O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- and I think creativity in general would have a similar construction[2018-10-26. : 7:25 am] O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- Sentences are very tactfully put together, and your own particular word choice or "voice" is just based on your past experiences with language[2018-10-26. : 7:24 am] O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- Like I would argue that most speech in conversation is original thought, but it's not random. You have understanding of the words and understanding of the concepts they represent; they're not put together randomly[2018-10-26. : 7:22 am] O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- NudeRaiderNudeRaider shouted: also explain creativity something like making connections between unrelated past experiences. It's not random, it's more like "because A has X and B has Y, I present C with aspects from X and Y"[2018-10-26. : 7:18 am] NudeRaider -- right. And all I've said about that so far is that it makes it plausible, that quantum states of your neurons have influence for decisions that are (close to) 50:50[2018-10-26. : 7:17 am] O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- the most amount of randomness I can imagine would be from like imperfect memory recall and decay[2018-10-26. : 7:16 am] O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- I still doubt very much that people have like a quantum RNG lobe in their brain to give a certain randomness to whatever choices or whatever[2018-10-26. : 7:13 am] NudeRaider -- it's enough to accept that at the quantum level the mechanics are random, which is all you need to know for the sake of our argument[2018-10-26. : 7:12 am] O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- NudeRaiderNudeRaider shouted: FaRTy1billion basically the quantum world (everything smaller than atoms) does not behave like classical physics. The particles (e.g. electrons) change their state at random times and/or are at a random place. Radioactive decay is a well known example. You can't predict when a radioactive atom will split and emit a radiation burst. I know that much, but that's a very basic understanding to base any sort of philosophies and stuff on[2018-10-26. : 7:11 am] NudeRaider -- FaRTy1billionFaRTy1billion shouted: NudeRaider I can't use quantum mechanics as an argument because I don't know anything about it or like chaos theory and stuff XD basically the quantum world (everything smaller than atoms) does not behave like classical physics. The particles (e.g. electrons) change their state at random times and/or are at a random place. Radioactive decay is a well known example. You can't predict when a radioactive atom will split and emit a radiation burst.[2018-10-26. : 7:10 am] O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- also I can tell an anecdote of not being random XD Several days after having been under anesthesia my mom asked if I wanted a popsicle and was shocked when I said I didn't know we had any, saying I had personally chosen them and some flavors of ice cream while we were waiting for prescriptions at the store on our way home from the surgery. When she showed me what I had apparently chosen I thought to myself about what I liked about them. Then, without me having said anything, she told me the exact things that, as far as I could tell, I had just thought of for the very first time[2018-10-26. : 6:52 am] O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- NudeRaiderNudeRaider shouted: unless you're serious and that's supposed to be your justiification to dismiss randomness altogether. Like it wouldn't exist at all? Then I'm afraid I'm just gonna have to withdraw. I can't use quantum mechanics as an argument because I don't know anything about it or like chaos theory and stuff XD[2018-10-26. : 6:47 am] O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- ("atom-for-atom" meaning a perfect clone, which can't actually exist .. but for the sake of the hypothetical)[2018-10-26. : 6:46 am] O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- If you could like atom-for-atom save a copy of yourself in a specific instant and then continually create a clone of that instance and immediately ask a specific question, I believe that the clone would always answer in the exact same way[2018-10-26. : 6:42 am] O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- NudeRaiderNudeRaider shouted: Farty, when faced with a choice, are you feeling "something" that pushes you towards a certain option? As in is that the reason for your stance? Or is it more of a rational thing: "How could it possibly be random? I'm ME and hence my thought process is always the same for me so when faced with a choice, following the thought process I must always reach the same conclusion"? you don't necessarily always make the same choice .. if it's a repeated situation, your previous choice will influence your next choice. Otherwise, your choices can be influenced by things you have heard or read or thought about recently ... sort of like if you were to take a political stance quiz and then watch something that is heavily biased, you would likely get a different score if you immediately took it again[2018-10-26. : 6:00 am] NudeRaider -- NudeRaiderNudeRaider shouted: NudeRaider while we're there: More about randomness than free will: Explain why none of your signatures are looking exactly alike. inb4 you blame the pen, paper or the air, lets tighten the setting: let the user type any sequence of buttons on the keyboard and register the timing. Even when taking into account measuring tolerance you'll notice that the timing will be slightly different each time.[2018-10-26. : 5:55 am] NudeRaider -- NudeRaiderNudeRaider shouted: also explain creativity while we're there: More about randomness than free will: Explain why none of your signatures are looking exactly alike.[2018-10-26. : 5:48 am] NudeRaider -- Farty, when faced with a choice, are you feeling "something" that pushes you towards a certain option? As in is that the reason for your stance? Or is it more of a rational thing: "How could it possibly be random? I'm ME and hence my thought process is always the same for me so when faced with a choice, following the thought process I must always reach the same conclusion"? |
Members Online: Zergy