|
Effectronica posted:You're retarded.
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 02:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 02:17 |
|
|
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. even if that was a law of physics how is the universe being an automaton that we are riding in mutually exclusive with free will? consciousness is just awareness but like watching a movie we have no influence on the actions we take? idk man
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 02:27
|
|
|
free will vs determinism is truly the shittest of philosophical arguments beyond "is the chair there"
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 02:28
|
|
RichardGamingo posted: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. Pewdiepie himself couldn't give you viewers. You suck on a level beyond human comprehension, RichardFlamingo. Cardiovorax posted:and you think your brain is a wizard. More dogma. It's okay (and pathetic) that you have a secular, atheistic religion about how we're powerless, but it's not okay that you keep pretending it's science.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 02:29
|
|
|
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. Inverted and suppressed Oedipal complexes arise from contingencies. This is obvious if you both read any solid chunk of Freud's work and know the definition and have the brain function such that you can analogize a circumstance that involves contingent risk. Best Regards, RG
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 02:30
|
|
|
if everything is just a reaction of previous conditions and events then how could decisions with equal weight on all possible choices be made?RichardGamingo posted:This is obvious if you both read any solid chunk of Freud's work freud's work has been disproven pretty solidly though
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 02:30
|
|
|
Quickscope420dad posted:free will vs determinism is truly the shittest of philosophical arguments beyond "is the chair there"
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 02:31
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:More dogma. It's okay (and pathetic) that you have a secular, atheistic religion about how we're powerless, but it's not okay that you keep pretending it's science. SnowblindFatal posted:Actually the thing is that it's literally like arguing about religion. I bet five bux that all these people for free will are religious. Another one owned. Moridin920 posted:consciousness is just awareness but like watching a movie we have no influence on the actions we take? idk man Yes. You got it. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 02:31
|
|
|
hairless apes throwing digital shits at each other megathread
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 02:32
|
|
|
Wait wait wait wait wait wait. I think. I think Effectronica is trolling.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 02:32
|
|
|
SnowblindFatal posted:Yes. You got it. but there is no scientific basis for that afaik
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 02:33
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:if everything is just a reaction of previous conditions and events then how could decisions with equal weight on all possible choices be made? 1st step is to admit that it cannot be so and assign the source of the phenomena to an unknowable, abstract force, such as emotion. A metaphor. http://www.blackswanreport.com/blog/2012/05/hungry-donkeys/ Best Regards, RG
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 02:34
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:but there is no scientific basis for that afaik But it's the only logical conclusion unless you include mysticism which in itself isn't logical.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 02:34
|
|
|
I can imagine a monkey just toking up on some skunky reefer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 02:36
|
|
RichardGamingo posted:Inverted and suppressed Oedipal complexes arise from contingencies. This is obvious if you both read any solid chunk of Freud's work and know the definition and have the brain function such that you can analogize a circumstance that involves contingent risk. Don't quote me ever again RichardGaymingo or I will blot you out.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 02:36
|
|
|
SnowblindFatal posted:But it's the only logical conclusion unless you include mysticism which in itself isn't logical. science hinges on induction which is wholly dependent on the consistency of cause and effect so
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 02:36
|
|
SnowblindFatal posted:But it's the only logical conclusion unless you include mysticism which in itself isn't logical. Which is the most logical conclusion? 1. In general, our perceptions are real. 2. Our perceptions are real when it comes to the external world, except in certain cases, but fake when it comes to our selves, (and indeed the self is fake), except in certain cases. 3. In general, our perceptions are fake.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 02:38
|
|
|
defin sconscoisueness op then lets really get down to business (evil hand rub)
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 02:39
|
|
|
RichardGamingo posted:1st step is to admit that it cannot be so and assign the source of the phenomena to an unknowable, abstract force, such as emotion. 1st step is to admit we don't know all things SnowblindFatal posted:But it's the only logical conclusion unless you include mysticism which in itself isn't logical. no, it isn't. there are many arguments on both sides of the debate that make logical sense Quickscope420dad posted:science hinges on induction which is wholly dependent on the consistency of cause and effect so no.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 02:40
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Which is the most logical conclusion? can't have a conclusion without some premises
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 02:40
|
|
|
It's option 3, how is there even any debate there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 02:43
|
|
Cardiovorax posted:It's option 3, how is there even any debate there. Okay, then, imagine me away Cardiovorax, since this is all created by your own mind as far as you know... Oh, wait, that's why you don't believe in free will: that way you can insulate yourself from any criticism of solipsism.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 02:45
|
|
|
imo anyone who says they are obviously right on one side or another of this debate is being disingenuous given that we just don't know enough about how poo poo works (either the universe or our brains) to be able to make that kind of statement definitively.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 02:46
|
|
|
Everyone please explore this in your own minds, in silence, as I have, until you reach the ultimate conclusion that the discussion is pointless and it doesn't loving matter if free will is illusory or real, or if existence is the dream of the cosmic octopus, your ultimate insignificance is achieved whether any of this is true or false. Then be quiet, about this, forever, and do not talk about it again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 02:47
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:imo anyone who says they are obviously right on one side or another of this debate is being disingenuous given that we just don't know enough about how poo poo works (either the universe or our brains) to be able to make that kind of statement definitively. it's perfect fertilizer for undernourished egos just chill and watch the ugly plants grow man
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 02:47
|
|
Moridin920 posted:imo anyone who says they are obviously right on one side or another of this debate is being disingenuous given that we just don't know enough about how poo poo works (either the universe or our brains) to be able to make that kind of statement definitively. Actually, as an accomplished demonologist, I do know the answer, but can never reveal it.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 02:47
|
|
|
Sorry you have to learn it from me, but yeah, the world you think you live in is just a mediocre construct created from the tunnel vision you call your senses. If you think that anything at all is actually what your perceptions tell you, you've missed out on some 5000 years of philosophical history.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 02:55
|
|
Cardiovorax posted:Sorry you have to learn it from me, but yeah, the world you think you live in is just a mediocre construct created from the tunnel vision you call your senses. If you think that anything at all is actually what your perceptions tell you, you've missed out on some 5000 years of philosophical history. My senses tell me that the chance of this bread being nourishing is very high. Guess I'm actually dead after eating it.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 02:57
|
|
|
Cardiovorax posted:Sorry you have to learn it from me, but yeah, the world you think you live in is just a mediocre construct created from the tunnel vision you call your senses. well yeah that's true still doesn't mean I don't have any choice in the matter of what to eat for lunch
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 02:57
|
|
|
Um if you cant trust your senses you can't trust anything at all..except forums user "cardiovorax" apparently. And what are perceptions if not sensory input. define your terms nigga
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 02:58
|
|
|
california roll posted:at what point in when we were long distance endurance runners to tire out animals for food were we able to think as we can today? never. consciousness grows in complexity as the social environment humans inhabit grows in complexity.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 02:58
|
|
- hi
|
Moridin920 posted:well yeah that's true Tautologicus posted:Um if you cant trust your senses you can't trust anything at all..except forums user "cardiovorax" apparently. And what are perceptions if not sensory input. define your terms nigga Cardiovorax fucked around with this message at 03:01 on Oct 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 02:59
|
|
|
you can't trust any sensory input 100% but that doesn't make all possibilities equally likelyCardiovorax posted:No, but it does mean that "but I feel like I have real choice" isn't nearly as much of an argument as it sounds like. it isn't an argument at all. there are mathematical proofs in support of free will and unpredictability at the most fundamental level of the universe. there are also flaws in the logic. there is also the fact that in any mathematics there exist statements that are neither true or false, but simply logically unprovable. Moridin920 fucked around with this message at 03:01 on Oct 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 02:59
|
|
|
nothing is real until many qualified people test and evaluate something and get matching data that holds up to outside scrutiny.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 02:59
|
|
Cardiovorax posted:No, but it does mean that "but I feel like I have real choice" isn't nearly as much of an argument as it sounds like. Okay, see, I'm going to slam your head into this stone, and you're going to tell me that the pain isn't real, and I'm going to explain this to the cops when your body is discovered and they'll let me go, as enlightened individuals.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 03:00
|
|
|
pikachu...! i chew chew chewse U!!
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 03:01
|
|
|
ash knows... ash knows...
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 03:01
|
|
|
hemophilia posted:nothing is real until many qualified people test and evaluate something and get matching data that holds up to outside scrutiny. yeah pretty much
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 03:02
|
|
|
arguing in good faith? not on my message board!
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 03:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 02:17 |
|
|
there is no good faith when it comes to this bullshit
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 03:03
|
|