Cardiovorax posted:You can stop pretending that you're actually paying attention to what people are saying any time now. That is exactly what someone said above- we obviously don't have free will because we're not aware of why we prefer certain tastes, moods, colors, or other aesthetic phenomena. Of course, the mindset in use by you and your band of fellow nitwits generates infinite regress. If we observe someone engaging in something that's not part of their preferences, then clearly it is a deeply-rooted preference beneath all the others, just like how Freud developed inverted and suppressed Oedipal complexes. It's transparent that your hypothesis is in its latter days, able to survive only through ad hoc declarations.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 01:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 09:45 |
|
|
I Am A Robot posted:Um, actually he's not. That lady is basically tricking herself into thinking the gorilla is communicating with her. Half the time when someone asks Koko a question she'll make a nonsense reply and Francine "Penny" Patterson will say "Oh that's just Koko being silly!". Her handler hasn't published anything since the 70s. If we actually had access to a gorilla that could communicate as much as people claim she can, her handler would have publications left and right and would have probably won the Nobel prize by now. Being able to communicate in human languages is entirely different than being able to communicate thoughts and emotions in any way you dumbass. Kudos on name dropping Clever Hans, though. Aves Maria! fucked around with this message at 01:15 on Oct 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 01:03
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 01:08
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:That is exactly what someone said above- we obviously don't have free will because we're not aware of why we prefer certain tastes, moods, colors, or other aesthetic phenomena. Of course, the mindset in use by you and your band of fellow nitwits generates infinite regress. If we observe someone engaging in something that's not part of their preferences, then clearly it is a deeply-rooted preference beneath all the others, just like how Freud developed inverted and suppressed Oedipal complexes. It's transparent that your hypothesis is in its latter days, able to survive only through ad hoc declarations. I read this in Matthew McConaughey's voice.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 01:11
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:It's pretty funny to see people who don't believe in free will arguing that because we are not always conscious of the reasons for our preferences, that we still never make decisions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 01:46
|
|
tetsuo posted:We don't and every psychological experiment on the matter shows that the decision is made some time (in seconds!) before we are consciously aware of it, a decision produced by prior causes and parts of the brain over which we don't exercise conscious control and can't access. The choices you make just rampage out of a neural wilderness you can't and don't consciously manage. We don't and yet we do. Seems like language is irretrievably poisoned by the consciousness meme. Also, what is happening when people agonize over a decision then? Are their brains overheating?
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 01:52
|
|
|
Bruce Kison posted:this kind of destroys that idea What I find interesting from this video is that Koko has adapted from seeing smiles as a threat display (gorillas typically display their teeth when angry), but as a co-operation display. Turfahurf posted:I have a book called The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind that one of my high school teachers gave me. I haven't read it but my friend did and it's apparently about how people didn't have any kind of real consciousness until they started doing shrooms. Sounds cool but it's very long and apparently super dry. Currently using it along with a couple other thick books to prop up my computer monitor. Bicameralism has been pretty clearly falsified, there's no increased incidence of schizophrenia in societies that had late contact with the europeans. It's a crock of poo poo, and it's remarkably eurocentric to boot. The whole multidisciplinary nature of its study means it only barely touches on ancient literature, even when it bases a massive set of data points on a cherry-picked reading of only a handful of ancient literature sources from the west, and pretty much ignores civilization and literature in China and India and America. It helps that the conquistadors were nice enough to burn most of the Aztec and Mayan literature.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 01:52
|
|
|
VectorSigma posted:language establishes collective knowledge and enables the abstraction required for self-awareness, op Same.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 01:53
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:We don't and yet we do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 01:53
|
|
|
lol doublethink
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 01:54
|
|
|
tetsuo posted:We don't and every psychological experiment on the matter shows that the decision is made some time (in seconds!) before we are consciously aware of it, a decision produced by prior causes and parts of the brain over which we don't exercise conscious control and can't access. The choices you make just rampage out of a neural wilderness you can't and don't consciously manage. poo poo just got real, itt
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 01:56
|
|
|
iSheep posted:haha jokes on you I stay up every night having existential meltdowns. Fried Watermelon posted:the weed helps
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 01:58
|
|
Phobophilia posted:What I find interesting from this video is that Koko has adapted from seeing smiles as a threat display (gorillas typically display their teeth when angry), but as a co-operation display. There was at least one chimp involved in language experiments who masturbated to Playgirls and appeared to avoid sexual contact with other chimpanzees when reintroduced. If the people involved in those experiments are right about great ape personhood, many of them really should be jailed. tetsuo posted:In the face over overwhelming experimental evidence to the contrary please demonstrate it. You picked out the part where I rephrased your use of "decision" after saying we don't make decisions, and ignored the part where I asked why, if decisions are made before people are consciously aware of them, equivocating and agonizing over decisions take place. After all, this should be impossible under the scenario you have outlined. But you are dishonest for no good reason, and should be stuffed into a commercial laundry and steamed to death, you miserable human being. Cardiovorax posted:lol doublethink Ditto.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 02:00
|
|
|
tetsuo posted:We don't and every psychological experiment on the matter shows that the decision is made some time (in seconds!) before we are consciously aware of it, a decision produced by prior causes and parts of the brain over which we don't exercise conscious control and can't access. The choices you make just rampage out of a neural wilderness you can't and don't consciously manage. tetsuo posted:In the face over overwhelming experimental evidence to the contrary please demonstrate it. what psychological experiments are you talking about what evidence
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 02:02
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:You picked out the part where I rephrased your use of "decision" after saying we don't make decisions, and ignored the part where I asked why, if decisions are made before people are consciously aware of them, equivocating and agonizing over decisions take place. After all, this should be impossible under the scenario you have outlined. quote:But you are dishonest for no good reason, and should be stuffed into a commercial laundry and steamed to death, you miserable human being.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 02:05
|
|
|
None if you exist
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 02:05
|
|
|
tetsuo posted:You can still waffle over choices but the actual settling on a final choice, as a product of free will, is an illusion as the matter is settled before you're consciously aware of it. It's not settled necessarily instantaneously, so waffling and hemming and hawing are possible. this doesn't actually make any sense at all it's like you're saying the conscious hemming and hawing is just an echo of what happened in the subconscious but you still have no ability to make a decision consciously because it's just an echo and the decision has already been made but that's nonsensical imo
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 02:06
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:this doesn't actually make any sense at all
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 02:08
|
|
tetsuo posted:You can still waffle over choices but the actual settling on a final choice, as a product of free will, is an illusion as the matter is settled before you're consciously aware of it. It's not settled necessarily instantaneously, so waffling and hemming and hawing are possible. So in other words, rather than internal debates being echoes of the ones going on below conscious levels, they are just manufactured illusions for the purpose of- of- of ensuring that the illusion of choice and the illusion of self are present. Or I guess "just because", just because Occam's Razor is a horribly blunt instrument and therefore nobody can slit your throat with it, alas. tetsuo posted:It's unsettling but true, sorry. When you're making a choice of, say, where to go out drinking, where does the list of destinations come from? They kind of bubble out of a space you're not in control of - at a base level you're not even in control of your options list for your supposedly free will choices - and then the one that you pick from that list is decided on unconsciously. Oh, you mealy-mouthed little bitch. Sliding Cartesian dualism in a Groucho mustache and set of sunglasses in. Clever, but not clever enough.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
tetsuo posted:It's unsettling but true, sorry. When you're making a choice of, say, where to go out drinking, where does the list of destinations come from? They kind of bubble out of a space you're not in control of - at a base level you're not even in control of your options list for your supposedly free will choices - and then the one that you pick from that list is decided on unconsciously. so are you going to cite anything at all or are you just going to keep saying you're right? it would be news to me to see scientific data indicating that we don't actually make any decisions consciously you're also kind of going with 'well we don't know how the brain totally works so therefore we are not in control of it' which is also nonsensical
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 02:10
|
|
|
Your Dead Gay Son posted:None if you exist hosed up if true
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 02:10
|
|
|
Your Dead Gay Son posted:None if you exist well I exist I'm not really sure about you though
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 02:11
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:so are you going to cite anything at all or are you just going to keep saying you're right quote:you're also kind of going with 'well we don't know how the brain totally works so therefore we are not in control of it' which is also nonsensical
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 02:12
|
|
|
yeah op
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 02:12
|
|
tetsuo posted:Libet and others? I don't have anything better than wikipedia to cite right now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will probably has good links "In many senses the field remains highly controversial and there is no consensus among researchers about the significance of findings, their meaning, or what conclusions may be drawn." That's your source, huh. NPOV ftmfw. But hey, I want you to explain how conscious and subconscious thoughts in the same brain are not parts of the same individual without invoking dualism.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 02:14
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:so are you going to cite anything at all or are you just going to keep saying you're right? it would be news to me to see scientific data indicating that we don't actually make any decisions consciously The Libet experiment
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 02:15
|
|
|
tetsuo posted:Libet and others? I don't have anything better than wikipedia to cite right now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will probably has good links did you read right under The Libet Experiment where it says Criticisms? besides those psychological experiments don't sound very rigorous IMO they fail to account for a lot of things and see a lot of causation where there is only correlation for example there are many 'decisions' which are made by the 'subconcious' (such as breathing, eye movement, trying to regain balance when falling) and there are many 'decisions' made by conscious thinking - but a lot of these experiments seem to just declare all decisions the same Moridin920 fucked around with this message at 02:18 on Oct 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 02:15
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:did you read right under The Libet Experiment where it says Criticisms?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 02:16
|
|
|
tetsuo posted:I didn't, I knew about it before I linked there, I assume it conclusively proves free will? no, but it does bring up a lot of valid criticisms of Libet's methodology and results afaik the current general scientific opinion on the matter of do we have free will is "who knows, but probably"
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 02:18
|
|
|
does  http://i.imgur.com/aFXabdH.jpg imply free will?If free will exists, then someone chose to do this. If free will doesn't exist, then this was a terrible, necessary consequence borne by the sheer nature of reality. Personally I think the former is way more terrifying and depressing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 02:18
|
|
Quickscope420dad posted:does jeez, the '14s really are a bunch of fag babies
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 02:19
|
|
|
SnowblindFatal posted:I'd like to hear people's arguments as to what is the magical force that allows us to break the laws of physics inside our heads.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:That is exactly what someone said above- we obviously don't have free will because we're not aware of why we prefer certain tastes, moods, colors, or other aesthetic phenomena. Of course, the mindset in use by you and your band of fellow nitwits generates infinite regress. If we observe someone engaging in something that's not part of their preferences, then clearly it is a deeply-rooted preference beneath all the others, just like how Freud developed inverted and suppressed Oedipal complexes. It's transparent that your hypothesis is in its latter days, able to survive only through ad hoc declarations. Effectronica posted:jeez, the '14s really are a bunch of fag babies
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 02:21
|
|
|
You haven't demonstrated how free will as a concept breaks the laws of physics, and I predict there's a 80% chance you're a compsci person who may not even know what physics actually is, so I think it will be entertaining to see you try.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 02:21
|
|
|
SnowblindFatal posted:I'd like to hear people's arguments as to what is the magical force that allows us to break the laws of physics inside our heads. Effectronica posted:You haven't demonstrated how free will as a concept breaks the laws of physics, and I predict there's a 80% chance you're a compsci person who may not even know what physics actually is, so I think it will be entertaining to see you try.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 02:22
|
|
|
That's a major fail at a regdate burn, the weakest of burns. You should fall upon your own sword.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 02:22
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:That's a major fail at a regdate burn, the weakest of burns. You should fall upon your own sword. dunno what a redgate burn is if i had free will maybe i'd choose to find out but i don't
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 02:23
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:You haven't demonstrated how free will as a concept breaks the laws of physics, and I predict there's a 80% chance you're a compsci person who may not even know what physics actually is, so I think it will be entertaining to see you try. The whole universe is just an automaton and we're on a ride. That something like consciousness happened is pretty cool, I admit, but you gotta be pretty dense if you think that it makes the whole system somehow more special than it is. Consciousness simply is and doesn't affect anything.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 02:25
|
|
SnowblindFatal posted:The whole universe is just an automaton and we're on a ride. That something like consciousness happened is pretty cool, I admit, but you gotta be pretty dense if you think that it makes the whole system somehow more special than it is. Consciousness simply is and doesn't affect anything. You're retarded.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 02:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 09:45 |
|
|
You need a critical mass of signals before consciousness develops in the sense of today's human sapience. If you don't find that intuitive, just let alone the volume of effort necessary to reach the almost hyper-empirical states of consciousness displayed by individuals such as Finland's Iceman (who has exceptional sympathetic nervous control) or the manifestation of a trained meditator's Gamma (low-frequency) brainwave. Therefore I'd say that humans as we know them have not always had consciousness. We were primarily reflex automatas before we elaborated instincts and sapient expression. After some intermediate steps, including sapien-sapiens awareness, consciousness begins to emerges to varying degrees. Best Regards, RG
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 02:26
|
|