Social Social Thread - Talk About Anything (You Are Allowed to Talk About)!

[adumbrodeus]

Dear god, do all the dgamers play smash 64?

 

[th3kuzinator]

...

only 4 of them do as far as I know

 

[StretchNutz]

Last sentence ehh maybe but still GREAT AMERICAN

You can't seriously argue that the central tenets of Marxism haven't crept into the national psyche since the Wilson era.

 

[ciaza]

It's just natural to be proud of your country I guess though. I mean that's hardly a convincing point, but think about it. When you watch the olympics, what country do you go for? You go for your own and think: "Yeah, this guy is from my country, I want him to win!"

 

[The Star King]

Dear god, do all the dgamers play smash 64?

You should conform and play Smash 64 too

You can't seriously argue that the central tenets of Marxism haven't crept into the national psyche since the Wilson era.

You're from Arizona, right? I think we all know where I'm going with this.

 

[ballin4life]

That's exactly what my mom asked me when we had our debate lol

I told her that I do believe in "free will", it's just that it is "fated" to make a certain choice based on you as a person (again, your genetic orientation + environmental influences). I don't like the use of the word "fate" there, but I don't know what other word to use.

So these specific words that I am using right now are fated? I'm not choosing which words to use?

A specific environmental influence caused me to snap my fingers just now?

I'm not saying it's metaphysically impossible, but you're going to need a LOT of hidden variables there. It just seems unlikely.

LOLWUT

Even the mighty king of stars couldn't predict the exact words that I would use in this post.

 

[ciaza]

I can see Star King's point. The environmental influence was you reading what Star King wrote and so you snapped your fingers to prove a point to him.

 

[The Star King]

It's just natural to be proud of your country I guess though. I mean that's hardly a convincing point, but think about it. When you watch the olympics, what country do you go for? You go for your own and think: "Yeah, this guy is from my country, I want him to win!"

I don't. I root for the people whose personalities I like or something, or have certain achievements or traits I find admirable. But I'm a strange human being, I suppose.

So these specific words that I am using right now are fated? I'm not choosing which words to use?

A specific environmental influence caused me to snap my fingers just now?

I'm not saying it's metaphysically impossible, but you're going to need a LOT of hidden variables there. It just seems unlikely.

Maybe. IDK. Don't really like to argue about things I myself am not sure about, so I'll drop it.

Even the mighty king of stars couldn't predict the exact words that I would use in this post.

That's predictability to the extreme. Humans aren't THAT predictable.

 

[StretchNutz]

You're from Arizona, right? I think we all know where I'm going with this.

yes. But sadly you don't know a thing about me so you can't form a realistic prejudice.

 

[Battlecow]

So you're saying you don't believe in free will?


I don't think free will is 100% for sure proven, but I think that I observe it with each action I take. Plus the fact that humans in general seem awfully unpredictable. These are the reasons I believe in free will.

Does not compute. "Free will," in the sense that you're using it, OBVIOUSLY doesn't exist; unless we start ****ing with the metaphysical (and that's all BS) it should be as plain as the nose on your face that you, in your entirety, are made up of an incredibly complex but nonetheless finite system of neurons/brain juice/whatever makes you tick. If life was a ROM, and you savestated it and restarted from that point again, everything including human decisions would be the same the second time around. The "soul" or whatever is, rationally speaking, an illusion perpetuated by humans who are butthurt about their cosmic insignificance.

How do you observe free will in every action you take? It's impossible. Humans seem awfully unpredictable? That's because they're kind of complex sometimes, not because they act based on the dictates of "souls" or whatever nonphysical self you think exists. Pulling the personal experience card on something as philosophical as this doesn't work.

But anyway, if determinism is true, then there is no sense in being proud of anything either, since it was all determined.

That's one way of looking at things. We're always going to be proud, though; it's a false vanity to choose one thing that arises from your circumstances over another.

Now of course, circumstances and so forth have had an impact on the decisions that I have made. But my claim is merely that pride only makes sense for things that you had an impact on.

I was born with extraordinary good looks. You were born with a path in front of you that you couldn't help but follow, one which led you to accomplish every action you've ever been proud of. Neither of us has any capability to "decide" or "impact" because the decisions we make could be calculated from birth if anyone was capable of doing the math. Do you see what I mean? You can't impact things because you don't exist in that sense. Therefore pride in things you've impacted makes no more sense than pride in things you were born with.

I suppose you could achieve an equivalent effect by claiming "well I'm proud of the fact that I currently live in the US", which actually is a conscious choice. It's not really much of an accomplishment, but it's better than being proud of something that you had no impact on at all.

see above stuff

Anyway, once again, should I be proud of winning the lottery?

Augustine tells us that pride is "the love of one's own excellence." That makes sense to me. Winning the lottery doesn't show excellence. Being born excellent does.

Pretty confident in my argument here bro.

 

[asianaussie]

Free will may exist to some extent, but you cannot prove it, whereas determinism is a far less abstract concept. I prefer to believe in determinism, but I won't discount free will, as we don't know enough about the human psyche to really make a decision. All of socio-humanistic psych is fluff theory.

I can see Star King's point. The environmental influence was you reading what Star King wrote and snapping your fingers to prove a point to him.

Anyone can come up with a reason and call it determinism. Your example isn't wrong, but it uses a very wide definition of determinism. I would say it is his pride and ego (the psychological sense, not meant as an insult) pushing him to be right that caused him to even post that.

Word choice and diction is based on how we learn, who we learn from, people in our environment and examples we see.

 

[The Star King]

yes. But sadly you don't know a thing about me so you can't form a realistic prejudice.

You're right. The "Marxism" post can lead me to making very probable guesses, though.

Gah too many posts to respond to appearing.

 

[StretchNutz]

Why are we talking about free will? It does not exist though we experience the illusion of free will. That's what they told me when I did LSD one time.

edit: **** yeah Augustine rules. City of God changed my life bro.

 

[ballin4life]

I can see Star King's point. The environmental influence was you reading what Star King wrote and so you snapped your fingers to prove a point to him.

So you're saying that if you knew me and you read Star King's post, that you would know that I would snap my fingers?

Doubtful.

 

[3mmanu3lrc]

...Winning the lottery would be something to be happy for, but not proud IMO.

Why are we talking about free will? it does not exists though we experience the illusion of free will. That's what they told me when I did LSD one time.

So, just like that, you simply believe in what you hear from others?

What's your stance in claiming that free will does not exists?

 

[asianaussie]

Determinism and human ability to predict using determinism are completely distinct, don't use one to argue the other.

Determinism is merely the presence of reason for every action, not predictability in regard to those actions.

 

[The Star King]

So you're saying that if you knew me and you read Star King's post, that you would know that I would snap my fingers?

Doubtful.

No, but he would know you would do something random and unrelated to make a point of free will to me.

Yeah, after Battlecow and aa's posts I'm leaning more towards determinism.

 

[ballin4life]

Determinism and human ability to predict using determinism are completely distinct, don't use one to argue the other.

Determinism is merely the presence of reason for every action, not predictability in regard to those actions.

Determinism implies predictably if you have sufficient knowledge.

I don't see how there could possibly be a causal relationship between my genetics, my upbringing, Star King's post, and me snapping my fingers. Seems more like something that I randomly chose to do.

 

[StretchNutz]

The "Marxism" post can lead me to making very probable guesses, though.
.

Probable. Though when it counts, probability often don't mean ****. For example, I get an improbably large number of misfires. So no matter how many times I'm told that the probability is only 12.5%, it just doesn't mesh with the real world.
I think perhaps you simply can't comprehend a person of my sagacity and overall dopeness.

 

[ballin4life]

No, but he would know you would do something random and unrelated to make a point of free will to me.

Yeah, after Battlecow and aa's posts I'm leaning more towards determinism.

This isn't good enough. Determinism implies that you would know exactly what I would do and when I would do it.

 

[Battlecow]

So these specific words that I am using right now are fated? I'm not choosing which words to use?

A specific environmental influence caused me to snap my fingers just now?

I'm not saying it's metaphysically impossible, but you're going to need a LOT of hidden variables there. It just seems unlikely.

yes, the words you're choosing are fated. You choose them because a bunch of whatevers in your brain are firing, forming thoughts in your head, which you articulate the way you do as a response to all the multitudinous external stimuli you've ever experienced. This is grade-school stuff.

Gaaaah lotta posts

 

[ciaza]

Posts. Posts everywhere.

Anyway ballin: God knew that you would snap your fingers

 

[The Star King]

Determinism implies predictably if you have sufficient knowledge.

The knowledge exists, but gaining enough knowledge to predict someone somewhat accurately is virtually impossible.

@ciaza - Don't.

 

[Battlecow]

Yeah, just because SK can't predict your finger snapping, doesn't mean it wouldn't be possible to someone who had knowledge of everything that had happened up to that point and the intellect to comprehend it. That's all "determinism" (that's a good word; just learned it) implies.

 

[StretchNutz]

determinism does not imply predictability because man is fallible and does not understand the true essential nature of the universe. How can one predict the outcome of a system for which he does not understand the mechanism?

edit: battlecow we just said the same thing at the same time in a totally different way. we cool.

 

[asianaussie]

Pure determinism is foolish because humans have a dynamic psych, yet another abstract concept we cannot prove, yet one we can theorise co-exists with a deterministic mind.

When we predict a random action we cannot pinpoint exactly what action it was. Did you snap your right hand? Your left? You thumb and middle finger? Did you hold your pointer finger to your middle finger?

Determinism is not absolute, random actions are unpredictable by their very nature, and made possible because of the human random psych.

I can predict, however, that you will post again in this argument.

 

[Battlecow]

Pure determinism is foolish because humans have a dynamic psych, yet another abstract concept we cannot prove, yet one we can theorise co-exists with a deterministic mind.

When we predict a random action we cannot pinpoint exactly what action it was. Did you snap your right hand? Your left? You thumb and middle finger? Did you hold your pointer finger to your middle finger?

Determinism is not absolute, random actions are unpredictable by their very nature, and made possible because of the human random psych.

I can predict, however, that you will post again in this argument.

Stop using fancy terms. I literally just said that I wasn't a philosophy student.

What means this dynamic psych? I don't believe in random actions; why would they exist? I believe that you could indeed predict which finger he'd snap if you had knowledge of everything and the intellect to comprehend it.

Not quite sure of my rightness in this case. You just took me off of the "lol I win" feeling that I had vs Ballin'.

So yeah humans don't have a random psyche is what I'm saying.

 

[The Star King]

I can predict, however, that you will post again in this argument.

>________>

Stop using fancy terms.

You're the last person I would expect to say this.

 

[asianaussie]

>_______> all you want, desn't make my point any less valid.

Dynamic psych is, in layman's terms, the ability to change which factors influence you more and hence change your actions accordingly.

Also, Star King's edit ninja'd me.

 

[StretchNutz]

Determinism is not absolute, random actions are unpredictable by their very nature, and made possible because of the human random psych.

I can predict, however, that you will post again in this argument.

Good prediction. Though I think it is less an argument, more a socratic discussion.

Even "random actions" can be accounted for in literal and specific terms. For example, if a man commits a random act, that act is still the result of very minute and intricate physiological responses to biochemical reactions. As I implied earlier, the specific mechanism by which determinism occurs is beyond human comprehension, but that doesn't mean it can't exist in an absolute sense.

 

[Battlecow]

Stretchnutz the great american has it right again. Well articulated.

This dynamic psyche stuff ain't right AA. Why would the human brain be any more random than, say, the roll of a six-sided die?

 

[Ocean]

 

[asianaussie]

The fact that we do not know precisely what drives a lot of mental functions (for instance, we can say acetylcholine is responsible for higher memory, but we cannot say anything further towards it) is the reason pure deterministic views cannot truly be acceptable, because we do not yet know the pure reasons for it, hence disqualifying the argument because it does not conform to its own assumption.

It may become acceptable in the future, but not yet.

Random actions are only random by how we label them - they are not attributable to something in the immediate environment, and hence stem from a more deep-set cause. They still have deterministic assumptions driving them, they are just a little less 'logical' than other actions.

 

[The Star King]

>_______> all you want, desn't make my point any less valid.

I >_______>'d because with "I can predict you will post again in this argument," either he'll post, and you'll be like, "Ha! Predicted!", or he won't, and you'll have the last word against him. Nice try buddy.

 

[asianaussie]

Actually, if he posts, he is proving both my point and, to a lesser extent, his point, so posting is the smart option.

I'm not so shallow as to say he's wrong based on a weak trap like that.

 

[Battlecow]

We don't know all of the factors that influence a dice roll, but we know they existed unless we believe that god reached out and touched it or whatever. No, we can't prove that there's no randomness in human whatever, but it seems more reasonable to assume than the alternative. I think. I mean, can we prove anything? *stonerface*

I do like your posts here though they're really smart and stuff.

 

[StretchNutz]

The fact that we do not know precisely what drives a lot of mental functions (for instance, we can say acetylcholine is responsible for higher memory, but we cannot say anything further towards it) is the reason pure deterministic views cannot truly be acceptable

agh. you keep implying the infallibilty and ultimate knowledge of man which pisses me off because I have discovered that all people are actually quite stupid in many ways.

I'm trying to avoid discussion of religion here, but I'll just say that there is a great amount that exists that humans can't comprehend, we're not equipped with the right sensory organs and our 3-dimensional conception of reality and correspondingly limited psychic capacity are inadequate to comprehend the essence.
So basically saying determinism is real, you just don't know what makes it tick.

 

[Battlecow]

You can't seriously argue that the central tenets of Marxism haven't crept into the national psyche since the Wilson era.

This central tenets stuff is bull****. People say to me all the time "dude, every system has some aspect of socialism in it" or whatever, but the point is that we don't subscribe to it as a system and we don't suffer any of its badnesses. What central tenets, out of curiosity? They're not necessarily bad just because they're Marxist, although it's hard to imagine a good idea arising from an idiot like that.

agh. you keep implying the infallibilty and ultimate knowledge of man which pisses me off because I have discovered that all people are actually quite stupid in many ways.

I'm trying to avoid discussion of religion here, but I'll just say that there is a great amount that exists that humans can't comprehend, we're not equipped with the right sensory organs and our 3-dimensional conception of reality and correspondingly limited psychic capacity are inadequate to comprehend the essence.
So basically saying determinism is real, you just don't know what makes it tick.

We need to play Smash 64 sometime. Anyone this smart is worth playing on Zebes for. *adores*

 

[ballin4life]

Does not compute. "Free will," in the sense that you're using it, OBVIOUSLY doesn't exist; unless we start ****ing with the metaphysical (and that's all BS) it should be as plain as the nose on your face that you, in your entirety, are made up of an incredibly complex but nonetheless finite system of neurons/brain juice/whatever makes you tick. If life was a ROM, and you savestated it and restarted from that point again, everything including human decisions would be the same the second time around. The "soul" or whatever is, rationally speaking, an illusion perpetuated by humans who are butthurt about their cosmic insignificance.

Physics is based on metaphysics. I'm actually more certain of my own free will within my mind than I am of the existence of the universe. Certainly the existence of the mind is proven through "I think therefore I am".

Also, prove that all things would turn out the same. You can't. In fact, you can't even predict some of the most basic actions of humans. That's what I mean when I said humans are unpredictable.

The only evidence for determinism is that experiments on inanimate objects appear to have the same results when repeated. That's not a very solid ground.

Not to mention the doubt that quantum mechanics casts on determinism.

How do you observe free will in every action you take? It's impossible. Humans seem awfully unpredictable? That's because they're kind of complex sometimes, not because they act based on the dictates of "souls" or whatever nonphysical self you think exists. Pulling the personal experience card on something as philosophical as this doesn't work.

Yes it does, because observations are the basis of all physical knowledge. I observe something that seems awfully like my mind interacting with my body by making choices.

As I said before, it's metaphysically possible that free will is an illusion, but it seems more likely that free will actually exists based on the observations that I have available.

That's one way of looking at things. We're always going to be proud, though; it's a false vanity to choose one thing that arises from your circumstances over another.

Pride should come from accomplishments. Even ignoring the debate about free will, being born in a certain place or whatever is not an accomplishment. From a sociological standpoint, I think that we can say that taking pride in accomplishments will lead to more success than taking pride in things you were born with. There are studies about how kids perform much better when praised for being hard working and much worse when praised for being smart. Being hard working is a choice; being smart is inborn.

I was born with extraordinary good looks. You were born with a path in front of you that you couldn't help but follow, one which led you to accomplish every action you've ever been proud of. Neither of us has any capability to "decide" or "impact" because the decisions we make could be calculated from birth if anyone was capable of doing the math. Do you see what I mean? You can't impact things because you don't exist in that sense. Therefore pride in things you've impacted makes no more sense than pride in things you were born with.

I maintain that this is not the case.

Will you concede that I am right if free will exists?

see above stuff



Augustine tells us that pride is "the love of one's own excellence." That makes sense to me. Winning the lottery doesn't show excellence. Being born excellent does.

Pretty confident in my argument here bro.

Well, I would compare one to the other. If being born excellent makes you excellent, then winning the lottery makes you excellent.

And don't forget about Worthington's Law

Free will may exist to some extent, but you cannot prove it, whereas determinism is a far less abstract concept. I prefer to believe in determinism, but I won't discount free will, as we don't know enough about the human psyche to really make a decision. All of socio-humanistic psych is fluff theory.

You can't prove determinism either. I see no reason to assume determinism over free will, especially when free will appears to be more directly observable.

Anyone can come up with a reason and call it determinism. Your example isn't wrong, but it uses a very wide definition of determinism. I would say it is his pride and ego (the psychological sense, not meant as an insult) pushing him to be right that caused him to even post that.

Word choice and diction is based on how we learn, who we learn from, people in our environment and examples we see.

That's not what determinism says. I can say that the fact that Smashboards exists caused me to post this, but that's only a necessary cause. Determinism claims that every event has a sufficient cause - i.e. something that 100% ensures that the event will occur. That's why determinism implies predictability.

 

[asianaussie]

That's what I said, that determinism may very well be acceptable in the future, but not right now.

Determinism implies a distinct cause for everything, so a pure determinism should disregard concepts for which a distinct cause cannot be found, such as pure determinism.

A less absolute form of determinism is viable, and is my stance.

ballin, your argument assumes free will. Free will is not observable, every 'free' action can be attributed to determinism as well. Additionally, there is neurochemical evidence for a deterministic fashion. We have linked causality between neurochemicals and behaviour, you cannot possibly say it is your free will that causes the neurochemical secretion.