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

[The Star King]

r 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.

For the umpteenth time, we can't because we don't have sufficient knowledge to do so, and it's virtually impossible to gain such knowledge. If you knew EVERY genetic trait, EVERY past experience, the EXACT current mood and state of mind, and everything else that can influence a decision of a person, then yes, you can predict what someone will do.

 

[StretchNutz]

...so a pure determinism should disregard concepts for which a distinct cause cannot be found...

Who's finding these causes? Are we back to assuming that MANKIND is the ultimate authority on the universe?

That is such a poor assumption on which to base an argument of metaphysics. The human mind is truly insignificant and irrelevant compared to that which it can not comprehend.

 

[StretchNutz]

boom starking is on my side: the side of TRUTH and JUSTICE.

 

[Battlecow]

Ballin' back from the dead with a surprisingly reasonable post. HE'S STILL IN IT!

aiight, so for practical reasons your accomplishments thing works. The schoolchildren example. But if we're not worried about success or its effects on us, that doesn't matter. AA and SK answered a couple of your other points. The first paragraph makes sense, actually, and I can't prove my point, so I guess we're at an impasse; but then again, I can't prove that 1+1=2, so I'm gonna go with "I'm right because it makes sense to me."

boom starking is on my side: the side of TRUTH and JUSTICE.

Hey now, this is MY SIDE I was on it first.

Y'all are just hangers-on

 

[ballin4life]

I'd like to point out first that none of you have offered any actual arguments for why determinism is correct. You have merely assumed that to be the case. I have responded with arguments against determinism and arguments for free will.

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

Yup, that's why I said humans are unpredictable.

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.

I'd like to see someone think of the chain of events that caused me to snap my fingers with one hand rather than the other, or to do that rather than stick my tongue out or whatever other random action I could choose.

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.

Humans aren't completely unpredictable. I can predict that you will use a bathroom (or should I say "dunny"?) at some point in the next 48 hours. But you can't predict exactly what humans will do, which is what determinism would imply.

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.

You claim that the act is a direct result of biochemical reactions. You don't have much to back up this statement, since we are all going through similar biochemical reactions all the time, yet we are not committing the same actions.

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.

We assume that given knowledge of the exact force, etc with which you throw a die that you would be able to predict the outcome. Once again though, there is no reason to assume this for humans, and indeed you would need a LOT more hidden variables to account for this.

Recall also that physicists have rejected the "hidden variable" interpretation of quantum mechanics and accepted that there are things that are unpredictable in some sense.

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.

Yes, every free action could be attributed to determinism ... if you make a TON of assumptions about hidden variables. I do think free will can cause neurochemical secretion in some cases, but regardless I agree that the brain and body have an impact on the mind, just as the mind has an impact on the body. But that still does not mean that the mind is 100% controlled by chemicals.

 

[3mmanu3lrc]

@ballin: Is "Mr. Show" a serie or what?

I'm asking because I kind of liked that video you linked.

 

[ciaza]

Edit. Hang on.

 

[asianaussie]

im honestly lost, i don't know who's arguing what anymore

im arguing that weak determinism is more viable than either free will or pure determinism because you don't have to make as many assumptions and there is empirical evidence

star king just posts in an authoritative manner and doesn't post anything controversial, just accepted concepts, nothing to see here

ballin is making plenty of assumptions and using those assumptions to argue 'logically', he says we make too many assumptions when he makes just as many, probably more, since free will is in the same abstract boat as determinism, and is even further behind when it comes to evidence, etc (though that is expected by nature)

gooo battlenutz

 

[StretchNutz]

You claim that the act is a direct result of biochemical reactions. You don't have much to back up this statement, since we are all going through similar biochemical reactions all the time, yet we are not committing the same actions.

If you don't agree that every single thought and action in your tiny little mind is the result of the physical biochemistry in your actual brain then you reject science.
Every thought, every whim, every dream, every late night jerkoff session is the result of your biochemistry.
We are all going through "similar" reactions all the time because we are all "similar" but we are not going through "the same" reactions because no two things in this universe are "congruent."

Edit: AA we're not tag teaming, we're just making similar arguments because we can both understand that which is supported by facts. And we are both clearly the same person.

 

[Battlecow]

OK so we're down to a totally arbitrary decision

do we believe in the randomness or not?

I don't, but I can't prove it doesn't exist for the same reason that I can't prove God doesn't exist, or that 1+1=2.

Argument over.

Edit: We are both AWESOME. I'm coming to Arizona soon just because I've always wanted to Doug Ditto with a true equal. This is some Artemis Fowl meets Ender Wiggin **** right here.

 

[ciaza]

New argument: Can you believe it's not butter?

 

[asianaussie]

that ad isn't even screened in australia

Got him.

 

[The Star King]

Yup, that's why I said humans are unpredictable.

I'd like to see someone think of the chain of events that caused me to snap my fingers with one hand rather than the other, or to do that rather than stick my tongue out or whatever other random action I could choose.

Humans aren't completely unpredictable. I can predict that you will use a bathroom (or should I say "dunny"?) at some point in the next 48 hours. But you can't predict exactly what humans will do, which is what determinism would imply.

WTF. You acknowledge my post in the first quote, then you act like you never read it in the next two.

@The second quote - For the UMPTEENTH TIME: We can't because WE DON'T HAVE SUFFICIENT KNOWLEDGE OF EVERY FACTOR THAT CAN POTENTIALLY INFLUENCE YOUR CHOICE, not because determinism doesn't exist. These factors can exist, we just don't know them all.

star king just posts in an authoritative manner and doesn't post anything controversial, just accepted concepts, nothing to see here

I'm doing so because Ballin doesn't seem to get it. KTHXBAI

 

[ciaza]

Your Mum isn't screened in Australia.

Got him.

 

[StretchNutz]

I believe that we think randomness is "random" but the universe actually has a secret plan.

And **** yeah I can believe it's not butter, I eat butter by the stick and if anyone tries to feed me margarine or that hydrogenated vegetable **** I immediately vomit it into their faces.

edit: man Ringo Starking is saying exactly what I'm saying but in all caps. That means he's serious. so read it slowly and deliberately.

 

[ballin4life]

For the umpteenth time, we can't because we don't have sufficient knowledge to do so, and it's virtually impossible to gain such knowledge. If you knew EVERY genetic trait, EVERY past experience, the EXACT current mood and state of mind, and everything else that can influence a decision of a person, then yes, you can predict what someone will do.

You claim this, but can't prove it.

Why assume hundreds of bajillions of hidden variables? I don't see what mechanism could possibly cause all the random things humans do.

Ballin' back from the dead with a surprisingly reasonable post. HE'S STILL IN IT!

It takes a little bit of time to respond to people's posts.

aiight, so for practical reasons your accomplishments thing works. The schoolchildren example. But if we're not worried about success or its effects on us, that doesn't matter. AA and SK answered a couple of your other points. The first paragraph makes sense, actually, and I can't prove my point, so I guess we're at an impasse; but then again, I can't prove that 1+1=2, so I'm gonna go with "I'm right because it makes sense to me."

I can prove that 1+1=2, though. That's something that is provable.

Determinism is not provable, and doesn't even have that much evidence for it (except in the case of inanimate objects).

Also, do you accept that I am right if free will exists?

@ballin: Is Mr. Show, a serie or what?

I'm asking because I kind of liked that video you linked.

Yeah it's a show. It's pretty funny ... check out the other stuff on Youtube (like the sketch "24 is the highest number"). Glad you liked the link ... gotta sneak some stuff into these philosophical posts.

 

[asianaussie]

guys, guys

the answer

is god

we can't decide on this argument because we are PUNY INSIGNIFICANT BEINGS WHOSE PUNINESS CAN'T BE ADEQUATELY DESCRIBED IN TERMS OF HUMAN LANGUAGE

sigh, I would accept your argument if free will exists, but that's because your entire argument is based on the assumption it does.

Do you accept we are right if determinism exists?

 

[Battlecow]

I can prove that 1+1=2, though. That's something that is provable.

Prove it. No Axioms, of course.

And yeah, you're right if free will exists in the sense that you say it does.

 

[StretchNutz]

Ballin it seems like you have the attitude of people in the 15th century before the discovery of microscopic particles. lrnSome quantum physics. there are ba-trillion dillions of variables going on all around you all at once. re: "Why assume hundreds of bajillions of hidden variables? I don't see what mechanism could possibly cause all the random things humans do."

 

[Battlecow]

We should argue more contentious things.

DID THE CIA BLOW UP THE WTC?

Get in here Unk.

Also that youtube clip was funny but it's message was eeeeeh

There is some reasonableness to the "He's successful, so he probably knows what he's doing because it worked out well for him" argument, in some situations.

 

[The Star King]

Never mind.

 

[StretchNutz]

we can't decide on this argument because we are PUNY INSIGNIFICANT BEINGS WHOSE PUNINESS CAN'T BE ADEQUATELY DESCRIBED IN TERMS OF HUMAN LANGUAGE

you clearly don't get it. It's not up for us to decide. what happens to you in the real physical world is beyond your control. There is one really good word in human language (english, specifically) that perfectly describes the punyness of humans if you take it in a scientific context: "insignificant." The actions of humans are insignificant to the universe on a larger scale while at the same time being the product of essentially infinite quantum reactions within the universe on a smaller scale. There is no free will, simply existence which is determined by minute (my-noot) factors beyond our control or comprehension. I'm really smart and all that but it seems like i'm having such a hard time explaining this to you. maybe aus-people just don't get it.

 

[ballin4life]

im arguing that weak determinism is more viable than either free will or pure determinism because you don't have to make as many assumptions and there is empirical evidence

What is weak determinism?

ballin is making plenty of assumptions and using those assumptions to argue 'logically', he says we make too many assumptions when he makes just as many, probably more, since free will is in the same abstract boat as determinism, and is even further behind when it comes to evidence, etc (though that is expected by nature)

What assumptions am I making? I am basing my argument on my observations.

If you don't agree that every single thought and action in your tiny little mind is the result of the physical biochemistry in your actual brain then you reject science.
Every thought, every whim, every dream, every late night jerkoff session is the result of your biochemistry.
We are all going through "similar" reactions all the time because we are all "similar" but we are not going through "the same" reactions because no two things in this universe are "congruent."

Edit: AA we're not tag teaming, we're just making similar arguments because we can both understand that which is supported by facts. And we are both clearly the same person.

I don't reject science. Remember, science is based on metaphysics. I'm using one of the underlying principles of science - that knowledge of the universe is based on observations. My observations match up better with free will than with determinism.

OK so we're down to a totally arbitrary decision

do we believe in the randomness or not?

I don't, but I can't prove it doesn't exist for the same reason that I can't prove God doesn't exist, or that 1+1=2.

Argument over.

Well, if you accept scientific consensus, you have to believe in randomness now due to quantum mechanics.

Also, 1+1 = 2 can be proven.

God doesn't exist can't be proven, but it's actually a somewhat similar question. Both God existing and not existing match up with the evidence, just like free will and determinism match up with the evidence. I think that free will matches up better, and that in order for determinism to match up you have to make tons of assumptions about hidden variables.

WTF. You acknowledge my post in the first quote, then you act like you never read it in the next two.

@The second quote - For the UMPTEENTH TIME: We can't because WE DON'T HAVE SUFFICIENT KNOWLEDGE OF EVERY FACTOR THAT CAN POTENTIALLY INFLUENCE YOUR CHOICE, not because determinism doesn't exist. These factors can exist, we just don't know them all.

I'm doing so because Ballin doesn't seem to get it. KTHXBAI

Yes, and this very fact that you can't possibly get all this knowledge that you claim is necessary to predict something casts some doubt on determinism.

 

[Battlecow]

I believe that Super Smash Bros. is the only truly random element in a predestined-otherwise universe. From whence did it come? From the darkness that comes before. What does it give us? Free will.

@ ballin'

For the second time, prove 1+1=2. Of course, axioms aren't allowed, that would defeat the purpose.

 

[The Star King]

Ok I realized ballin4life responded to my post before last in his last post.

So my last post was unnecessary, oops. Stop being so behind, ballin

 

[StretchNutz]

I don't reject science. Remember, science is based on metaphysics. I'm using one of the underlying principles of science - that knowledge of the universe is based on observations. My observations match up better with free will than with determinism.

Knowledge of the universe != nature of the universe. Human knowledge is irrelevant. It exists within the framework of the physical universe, but it is not comprehensive, not absolute, mostly probably wrong, and above all IRRELEVANT. The universe does not change based upon how we understand it. It is 100% objective. It's not like there's some special god-granted promise that everything we think is right is right, everything that we think is conclusive is conclusive, etc.

 

[Battlecow]

I don't reject science. Remember, science is based on metaphysics. I'm using one of the underlying principles of science - that knowledge of the universe is based on observations. My observations match up better with free will than with determinism.

So because you can't predict what humans will do, your observations point to free will? Cool story bro.

 

[asianaussie]

stretch, that was a joke, as illustrated by the fact that not the whole sentence was in full caps

free will and determinism are merely products of human theory, either could be true, but it doesn't matter on the grand scale, it's just self-gratification for humans by humans

ballin, your assumptions include:

your observations and subjective perception of them are usable as basis for a non-concrete debate
we need to be able to predict every single action of someone before we can accept determinism
saying that someone did something out of free will is enough to prove free will is a definitive existence

honestly, you can change the location of the words determinism and free will in some of your posts and they will make sense

weak determinism is the acceptance of causality affecting humans on a grand scale, but also the acknowledgement of innumerous and inexplicable factors that cause phenomena

 

[ballin4life]

sigh, I would accept your argument if free will exists, but that's because your entire argument is based on the assumption it does.

My argument is based on my observations.

Do you accept we are right if determinism exists?

I was asking whether I was right about the "pride" question if free will exists.

Prove it. No Axioms, of course.

And yeah, you're right if free will exists in the sense that you say it does.

The statement has no meaning without axioms. But anyway, it follows directly form the definition of 2 as S(1) and the definition of "+ 1" as "apply the successor function".

Ballin it seems like you have the attitude of people in the 15th century before the discovery of microscopic particles. lrnSome quantum physics. there are ba-trillion dillions of variables going on all around you all at once. re: "Why assume hundreds of bajillions of hidden variables? I don't see what mechanism could possibly cause all the random things humans do."

lol quantum physics are an example of nondeterminism.

You don't understand the philosophical basis of scientific knowledge.

Also that youtube clip was funny but it's message was eeeeeh

There is some reasonableness to the "He's successful, so he probably knows what he's doing because it worked out well for him" argument, in some situations.

Please tell me you didn't take that clip seriously.

You still don't get what I'm saying. You're right, I'm assuming these variables exist, but I can't prove it. However, IF they do exist, they cause the seemingly random actions humans can take. You keep saying things like, "Think of the chain of events that caused me to snap my fingers", but I'm saying IF these factors exist, I can't prove it anyways because I don't know everything, BUT it's still possible that these unknown factors caused you to snap your fingers.

Yeah, all caps = SRS BSNS

Yes, I 100% agree with you that if all those factors exist then you can prove it. I just don't see any reason to think those factors exist.

you clearly don't get it. It's not up for us to decide. what happens to you in the real physical world is beyond your control. There is one really good word in human language (english, specifically) that perfectly describes the punyness of humans if you take it in a scientific context: "insignificant." The actions of humans are insignificant to the universe on a larger scale while at the same time being the product of essentially infinite quantum reactions within the universe on a smaller scale. There is no free will, simply existence which is determined by minute (my-noot) factors beyond our control or comprehension. I'm really smart and all that but it seems like i'm having such a hard time explaining this to you. maybe aus-people just don't get it.

Assert your conclusion some more.



Still, no one has even presented an argument for why we should believe determinism in the first place. I can think of some arguments. But 100% of your objections have either been assertions that determinism is correct, assertions that determinism is possible (and therefore correct?), and attacks on my argument. How about a reason to believe determinism?

 

[Battlecow]

Yo I already said that the argument's over because it's impossible for either side to prove their point.

Ballin' I don't get your 1+1 proof 'cause I'm not a NERD but my thinking was something along the lines of "if we don't know that a=a (and that can't be proved, only assumed) we can't prove anything mathematically."

 

[The Star King]

@Ballin Just to clear something up, I'm not necessarily arguing for determinism existing, although I do think it's probably more likely. I only didn't like some of the things you said in your argument. That's why I posted against it.

 

[StretchNutz]

I'm very very tired of this argument. If you go back and read everything I have written non-judgmentally you will discover that I am right (that goes for everyone but battlecow and star king, who clearly "get it.").

or not and then ur dum

Back to smash: battlecow I have a very ****ty internet connection so I am unable to play online but I believe there will be a small contingent from Tucson travelling to Genesis II if you think you'll be in that neck of the woods. And I ****ing love Zebes, that stage is mad legit and if you can't take it you're a wah wah crying little baby.

 

[ciaza]

Could you seriously be any more up yourself?

 

[asianaussie]

ballin is assuming he is in the right, and therefore if we say determinism cannot be proven, free will exists and is definitive

you cannot prove either, posting arguments would be futile because they would both make enough assumptions to make stretchnutz kill the nearest family

get trolled ciaza

 

[Battlecow]

Yo Nutz if I make it to genesis it's gonna be a meeting of the mindzzzzz mad friendlies yo

Are you one of B-rex's or Nathaniel's crewmembers?

Hey unless someone makes an interesting post soon I'm gonna take my merry marvel No-prize for argument-winning and do this shakespeare paper that's due tomorrow.

 

[ballin4life]

Knowledge of the universe != nature of the universe. Human knowledge is irrelevant. It exists within the framework of the physical universe, but it is not comprehensive, not absolute, mostly probably wrong, and above all IRRELEVANT. The universe does not change based upon how we understand it. It is 100% objective. It's not like there's some special god-granted promise that everything we think is right is right, everything that we think is conclusive is conclusive, etc.

I agree that human knowledge doesn't have a direct impact on the physical universe. But human actions do (obviously).

Also, there is some knowledge, like logic and math, that is not connected to the physical universe at all.

So because you can't predict what humans will do, your observations point to free will? Cool story bro.

Yes.

ballin, your assumptions include:

your observations and subjective perception of them are usable as basis for a non-concrete debate

But you see, subjective perception is ALL we have at a basic level. You might be dreaming all of this right now, yet you assume that your subjective perceptions of the world DO actually reflect a physical reality.

And according to my basic subjective perceptions, it seems that I can influence events. I'd put this on a level with the assumption that the universe exists (as opposed to it all being a dream).

we need to be able to predict every single action of someone before we can accept determinism

Well, I'm saying that would be pretty good evidence of determinism if you could do that...

saying that someone did something out of free will is enough to prove free will is a definitive existence

If free will is the best available explanation for what happened ... then it's totally reasonable to believe in it.

honestly, you can change the location of the words determinism and free will in some of your posts and they will make sense

Doubt it.

weak determinism is the acceptance of causality affecting humans on a grand scale, but also the acknowledgement of innumerous and inexplicable factors that cause phenomena

Don't see much of a difference.

 

[StretchNutz]

no. I'm just one of 2 guys at U of A who randomly started smashing last year and got relatively good by playing like 8 hours a day. The other being "TheFooL" who has posted a few times on the Jiggs and Doug threads.

ciaza: yes, I could be, but never as much as I am "up" your mom.
boom shaka laka.

Basically I'm an intellectual titan (with several giants in tow) awash in a sea of troglodytes. Little homamIII reference there, yup.

 

[Battlecow]

So we're back to what I said a while ago which is that no one can prove anything and that arguing is futile. Everything boils down to this. Samus is top tier. Life is meaningless.

Damn, Arizona is blowing the **** up. Everyone's popping out of that place. And I thought I was doing well with Champaign-Urbana.

 

[StretchNutz]

I recently picked up Samus (Link main btw) and find her quite refreshing. Retreating bombs and spaced Bairs are very satisfying for some reason.

Edit: IDK if you know Jetfour, don't know if he has posted much in the 64 boards, but he's the best in Tucson by quite a wide margin. Probably top 3 in AZ.

 

[asianaussie]

Well, I'm saying that would be pretty good evidence of determinism if you could do that...

you don't say...want to give me an example of similarly strong potential evidence of free will?

If free will is the best available explanation for what happened ... then it's totally reasonable to believe in it.

since the construct of free will makes so many assumptions and is itself abstract, i highly doubt that's the first port of call for most people

Don't see much of a difference.

the difference is that it makes allowances for things like free will