File: 3b2253eeee8d0a915aae5e4fc(...).jpg (2 KB, 80x65)

2 KB JPG

>>16781789
You could have the illusion of free will in a deterministic world.
You could have the illusion of being determined in a nondeterministic world.
We don't know enough to know which world we live in.

>>16781817
I just proved what world we lived in, you don't control your electrical impulses

>>16781817
It doesn't matter if the universe is deterministic or not, if true randomness exists then your thoughts are random too not "free"

File: yteelg3qkqk31.gif (2.89 MB, 540x300)

2.89 MB GIF

>>16781819
Speak for yourself, by-product-being.

You cant manipulate your central nervous system to construct Geometry and calculate equations, I can, so I know its possible in others. Youre not even trying, you have learned helplessness, now you see yourself as something that cant, so wont.

Doing so would be to be what youre not, defying yourself...which you wont, because you would become someone else; you would die.

>>16781819
>my electrical impluses currently make me depressed, I better do something about it
>i go out it more in the sun, i work out, i eat well
>now I have different electrical impulses
Hmmm

>>16781835
What if none of that works and you have more problems than just depression?
>>16781832
>I can do complex stuff with my brain and I'm assuming you're retarded so that means I have free will
Way off the mark

File: 1750056917165674.jpg (56 KB, 1024x920)

56 KB JPG

>>16781852
>with my brain
Wordcel cope.
>I'm assuming
Your cope projects.
>you're retarded
You are. Objectively are. You have taken the path of "no agency" within yourself, you are, by definition, Cognitively impaired. You dont even know who you are, you are simply the by-product of your environment and think that is what being alive is...its not, youre asleep while awake.
>that means I have free will
Correct, I do, I take an active role in my mind, body, and direction in existence.
>Way off the mark
You are a maladapted failure of a degrading society seeking validation in your failed life while you use that validation to prove to yourself you had no choice in the outcome. You did....youre sedking emotional placation in the emptiness you feel in life. Like a woman seeking sympathy for always choosing bad boys you beat her...the sympathy felt more pleasurable than the pain...so she kept doing it.

>What if none of that works and you have more problems than just depression?
"What if I keep going back to the bad boys and get beat?"
Oh noes...the battered wife syndrome boy kept seeking the sympathy points instead of growing up and becoming a real man?!

t.Doctor of Psychology...youre doing this so you wont emotionally suffer the self inflicted consequencs of failing by trying on your own...you do this out of cowardice and fear.

>>16781789
>Free will doesn't exist because will doesn't exist.
>you realize there's no (you)
Akshually if there's no will then "I" actually seriously unironically am me, my dad, Audrey Hepburn, lake Victoria, a gay Roman slave from III century BC, a zebrafish, movie "Last Action Hero', the planet Saturn, Staphylococcus aureus, and the Big Bang itself, as there is absolutely no causative distinction between this meatpuppet and all those things affecting it directly or indirectly. They are all as "me" as anything else.

So essentially you're simply arguing that the New Age gay hippies are right with their all-encompassing unity of the whole cosmos and false ego shit.

>>16781948
No, you're you because of the neural connections and again firing pathways. Which means you don't have any will. The next thought that pops into your head will just be because a pathway happened to fire

>>16781878
>Im a doctor and you're not so I have free will
Off the mark again

>>16781819
You proved nothing. You just flat out assume brain activity is deterministic and use that as "evidence" that brain activity is deterministic.

>>16782017
How would it not be deterministic? The neural connections are already built, an impulse comes in, and it travels down multiple pathways. It's not going to quantum tunnel to another part of your brain

>>16782017
>Deterministic describes events or systems where the output is fully predictable and consistent given the same initial conditions and rules
This isn't the argument, OP Isn't arguing that the brain is deterministic, only that there's ultimately no choice in whether a neural pathway is activated.

>>16782021
>How would it not be deterministic?
And now you're making an argument from ignorance.
I'll take my dub now.

>>16782002
>No, you're you because of the neural connections and again firing pathways.
How come, if the firing of neural pathways is literally just a continuation of a causation chain from all those other things? Even "perception" is merely some more neurons firing due to other neurons firing due to some external things, there's really nobody to perceive things.

>The next thought that pops into your head will just be because a pathway happened to fire
And the pathway happened to fire because a grilled sandwich was eaten, a bird flew by, and the tectonic plate moved a millimeter. What is the deliminator that determines that the bird, the planetary crust and the sandwich griller are not "me", while the neural pathways are "me"?

Normally that would be the ego, but your whole point is that there's No Such Thing. So it's all fundamentally one singular entity, any attempt to separate man from his causes would end up an entirely arbitrary effort at reinventing the self and it's will.

>>16782107
I think OP is trying to come up with some Bakker-tier horror shit where qualia exists as a magical disembodied gnome fairy dust spirit living behind the eyes, but it's like, chained up and turbo enslaved in the wagie-cagie and all the information flow is exclusively one-directional towards it. So we have a Magical Self that is not defined by anything or expressed by anything ans simply exists because reasons, but it can only passively sit in a metaphysical cuck chair being subjected to Arbitrarily Other things (which are Other because they are not on the same magical fairy dust plane of existence as the self) and never doing anything, just suffering.

>>16781878
Is it a requirement to be an insufferable faggot to get your doctorate?
>doctor
>of psychology
Kek

File: 25529368.jpg (41 KB, 313x500)

41 KB JPG

>>16782003
Close your cock-holster you navel gazing eunuch. Its literally my job...youre seeking "good-boy bro-jobs" for being saddened at your own reflection.

>>16782155
>an insufferable faggot
Research, meaning Im not a Therapist (because thats a lower position, this is the extent of my "clinic hours" now).

>>16781789
>Free will doesn't exist because you don't will/choose your neurons to fire down a certain pathway
Show me who defines free will as "choosing your neurons to fire down a certain pathway". If you can't, contemplate your status as an 80 IQ individual and the conflict between objective reality and what you build your whole identity around, then promptly make your neurons fire down the suicide pathway.

Threadly Reminder:

All arguments against "Free Will" are actually retarded schizos arguing with voices in their head. Not one of them can define "Free Will" coherently and they have no clue what they're trying to refute. They're just lashing out against nothing because the phrase itself makes them extremely angry. The very idea of human agency makes biobots seethe.

>>16782194
>Not one of them can define "Free Will" coherently
Free will: The hypothesis that human actions are controlled by some alleged non-physical process like a soul.
What part of this is not coherent for you?

>>16782210
Ah, yes, the old synonym for "free" - "non-physical".

>>16782212
Are you saying you don't like the definition or are you saying it is incoherent?

>>16782214
I don't like it and it's irrelevant to the concept of free will. It doesn't define free will, it defines a non-material essence of a human mind. There are plenty of people who believe in a non-material soul which simultaneously has no free will, and there are lots of hard materialist who have no issue with free will.

>>16782210
>Free will: The hypothesis that human actions are controlled by some alleged non-physical process like a soul.
Who defines "Free Will" like that, besides the voices in your head? Also OP's argument does absolutely nothing to refute this.

>>16782218
>I don't like it
Great
>it's irrelevant to the concept of free will.
Why? If you look at this article https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/ you can see segments like
"For some, the worry was primarily scientific (Descartes). Given that a proper understanding of the physical world is one in which all physical objects are governed by deterministic laws of nature, how does contingency and freedom fit into such a world?"
So clearly it can't be irrelevant to the question of free will if many people worried about it.

>>16782228
Your own quote fails to support your definition.

>>16782233
How?

>>16782235
It doesn't say or imply anything about about "non-physical process like a soul", it just asserts an apparent conflict between Free Will (however it's supposed to be defined) and determinism.

>>16782237
The conflict is between "freedom" and being "governed by deterministic laws of nature" (i.e. physics). If humans have "freedom" and if "freedom" is in conflict with being "governed by deterministic laws of nature", then humans are not being "governed by the deterministic laws of nature". That's basically the same as my original definition about human actions being driven by non-physical mechanisms.

>>16782243
>The conflict is between "freedom" and being "governed by deterministic laws of nature"
You have not demonstrated:

1. That there is such a conflict
2. That nature is deterministic (protip: 18th century thinkers believing so doesn't make it true)
3. That any of this relates to your mongoloidal claims about "non-physical souls"

Try again and please, do a better job.

>>16782243
>conflict is between "freedom" and being "governed by deterministic laws of nature"
No. Like anon said above - there are metaphysics which have non-physical souls and no free will, and there are metaphysics with purely material human mind and free will. This shows that there is no conflict between physicalist mind and free will. To say nothing of us knowing for an indisputable fact that certain parts of material reality are most definitely nondeterministic. This post >>16782194 seems right in that you seemingly can't even define "Free Will" coherently in the first place in order to argue for or against it.

>>16782246
You are obviously too emotionally invested in this to discuss this like an adult. Grow up and learn some manners please.

>>16782247
>there are metaphysics which have non-physical souls and no free will
Every definition will have some detractors. So what? That's not a counterargument against the definition being coherent.

>>16782248
>has his mistakes calmly and objectively pointed out
>realizes his mistakes are terminal
>starts looking for a way out of the discussion
Concession accepted. The only "conflict" Descartes faced is the one between a primitive model of reality and a direct experience of reality.

>>16782249
Ignoring the point.

>>16782249
>my useless head canon definition isn't the one anyone actually uses
>but see? it IS coherent
And yet it renders your argument irrelevant.

>>16782253
How did I ignore it? I pointed out that you still haven't explained why my definition is coherent

>>16782256
What does "non-physical" even mean? What does "physical" even mean?

>>16782256
*incoherent

>>16782259
You could take physical to mean anything which is covered and entailed by the laws of physics as they are now understood

>>16782256
>>16782260
As I said back in >>16782218
> it's irrelevant to the concept of free wil

>>16782264
>"physical" just means "conforms to the current model"
And how do you know that "freedom" doesn't conform to the current model? Because you define it as "non-conforming to the current model"? But even ignoring this very coherent but completely meaningless tautology, who cares if it doesn't conform to the current model? If direct observations don't conform to the model, the model is flawed.

>>16782266
>And how do you know that "freedom" doesn't conform to the current model?
That's a question you can ask once you've admitted that the definition is coherent and you can argue about whether or not it doesn't conform to the current model. But the question was about the coherence of the definition.

>>16782268
Kinda funny how I've literally just granted that your definition is coherent (at the cost of making your argument meaningless), but you keep looping on it because you've reached a dead end.

>>16782268
>That's a question you can ask once you've admitted that the definition is coherent
bruh

>>16782210
That's called Cartesian mind-body dualism, the ghost in the machine model, and it's not "free will".

Even assuming reductionist physics is true, the same rules that make a rock helplessly roll down a hill also enable the formation of more complex systems propelled by their own internal dynamics, whose modeling involves elements like self-reflection and decision-making, which have causal efficacy.

To assert that the existence of such systems is only an illusion, because you just "feel like" they don't play by your interpretation of this universe's rules, undermines itself: science operates under the implicit assumption that humans comprehend the essential characteristics of what they're observing and then inferring rules that explain those characteristics. You don't get to just claim "you're observing things wrong" when something doesn't conform to your personal head canon about how the universe works.

Lastly, all the above is charitable in granting the assumption that reductionism is true. You can reject reductionism altogether without asserting some "unlawful" external factors that perturb the universe. Then the idea that complex organisms are compositions of primitive elements, externally puppeteered by laws, reduces into a convenient fiction. It has no ontological weight. Claiming that anything is "controlled" by anything else becomes moot and ill-defined. This is a perfectly good position to take as a scientist. It doesn't conflict with any empirical data.

>>16782270
Ok, so you admit that the definition is coherent. That wasn't clear from your earlier post. If you want to take the argument further, we can, but that was not the original point.

Since you asked how I know humans don't have freedom: I don't know it with certainty but it is very plausible to me (and there is no real evidence to the contrary) that all human actions can be studied in principle using only the known laws of physics and their consequences. This is not a tautology since it could possibly false.

>>16782275
>whose modeling involves elements like self-reflection and decision-making
Are you referring to the folk psychological models of how humans behave?

>>16782278
>Since you asked how I know humans don't have freedom
That's not what he asked, schizo.

>>16782278
>you admit that the definition is coherent
Ok. I'm sure that's exactly what you had in mind originally when you started this thread: to define Free Will as "something that doesn't conform to [current model]" and then deduce it doesn't conform to [current model].

>in principle
>very plausible to me
>no "real" evidence to the contrary (besides the inability to ever prove my claims)
Nice argument. Great thread.

>>16782284
>that's exactly what you had in mind originally when you started this thread
Why do you think I started this thread? I didn't. And if you read my post, I never deduced that we don't have free will. I just suggested that it was plausible. If you have any evidence of some human actions which you think can't be explained by known physics, you can post them.

>>16782285
>If you have any evidence of some human actions which you think can't be explained by known physics, you can post them.
Call me back when you make a falsifiable prediction about human actions from the first principles of [current model] (which you keep mistaking for reality).

>>16782275
>To assert that the existence of such systems is only an illusion, because you just "feel like" they don't play by your interpretation of this universe's rules
It's not a matter of "feeling like" it doesn't fit neatly into the rules of the universe, it's a matter of not finding the actual models of free will convincing. I'm yet to hear one that doesn't contradict actual empirical data, as you put it.

>>16782281
I'm referring to any tenable, falsifiable scientific model of such systems.

>>16782290
>It's not a matter of "feeling like"
>it's a matter of not of not finding X convincing
I like how you think trying to hide subjectivity behind subjectivity hides subjectivity.

>the actual models of free will
Which ones? List them.

>>16782289
You can make many falsifiable predictions about human actions from the known laws. For example, no human can travel faster than light. No human can suddenly acquire a large positive charge with no noticeable changes in his immediate surroundings. No human can survive at very high temperatures, etc.

>I can predict what you will do
>You will do... not going faster than light!
No point wasting time of literal imbeciles.

>>16782293
>trying to hide subjectivity
I'm not hiding subjectivity or even addressing it. The claim is that rejecting certain models must come from finding them ontologically "inferior" regardless of their content. I countered with the position that no, the fault lies within the models themselves.
>Which ones? List them.
Take Cartesian dualism for example. We know for a fact that the "self" does not exist. Corpus callostomy patients visibly develop separate conscious processes that cannot communicate, yet one hemisphere still confabulates a bullshit reason for why "I" did something which only the other hemisphere could have possibly known. This directly falsifies any theory about an external cohesive individual entity "piloting" a body, it's impossible for it to be true.

>asks for coherent definition
>seethes when given one
>asks for predictions of human actions from known physics
>seethes when given several
I'm seeing a pattern here

>>16782300
It's already well-established that you're sub-100-IQ. Anyone else is free to take a crack at refuting >>16782275. Protip: you can't.

>>16782302
Nice non-reply, glad you agree that idea of an entity possessing free will to control a body is a no-go scenario.

>>16782291
Can you post any examples?

>>16782304
There's simply nothing there to reply to. The first paragraph consists of literal delusions (you saying X and then denying it, claiming I said Y even though I never did). The second paragraph consists of non-sequiturs about Cartesian Dualism, which I simply don't consider relevant or care about.

>>16782301
You were told like umpteen times that your definition is irrelevant to the concept of free will.

>>16782300
>Cartesian dualism for example.
Cartesian dualism has nothing to do with free will tho.
>This directly falsifies any theory about an external cohesive individual entity "piloting" a body, it's impossible for it to be true.
What if corpus callostomy just divides this external cohesive individual entity the same way it divides brain? Point being it doesn't falsify shit regarding Cartesian dualism, without even considering that Cartesian dualism has nothing to do with free will.

>>16782307
>The first paragraph consists of literal delusions
No, it is a direct address to a quote which fully explains my disagreement with it.
>The second paragraph consists of non-sequiturs about Cartesian Dualism
No, it consists of a perfectly sequential and empirically verifiable data which directly refutes a model of free will, which was explicitly requested in this post >>16782293
>Which ones? List them.

If you have free will, can you use it to try to actually discuss in good faith? Or are you going to keep dodging?

>>16782308
>Cartesian dualism has nothing to do with free will
Wrong, it's a model for how it works: a ghost-like entity, possessing free will, pilots a body like a machine. They are fundamentally different in their substance, and the body is seen as a kind of inert, unthinking matter, a mere shell for the pilot.
>What if corpus callostomy just divides this external cohesive individual entity
...then it's not Cartesian dualism, because the mind is fundamentally not material in this view and cannot be "split". You're now talking about property dualism.

>>16782300
>We know for a fact that the "self" does not exist.

This >>16782107 anon already addressed how claiming nonexistence of the self ultimately just argues for panpsychism.

>>16782309
Call me back when:

1. You have better arguments than this:
>It's a matter of not finding X convincing
>Y seems very plausible to me
>Z is not "real" evidence
>

2. Have better reading comprehension than this:
>The claim is that rejecting certain models must come from finding them ontologically "inferior" regardless of their content
Protip: this wasn't stated or implied at any point.

3. Have a better definition of Free Will than "what about muh Cartesian Dualism?"

4. Have a better definition of "physical" than "conforms to [current model]

In other words, fuck off and don't back, smoothbrain.

>>16782308
>You were told like umpteen times that your definition is irrelevant to the concept of free will.
If you go to the article I linked before
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/#ArguAgaiRealFreeWill
and search for the word 'physical', you can see many examples of people thinking that physics is an obstruction to free will. I posted the example with Descartes earlier. You can say that you don't prefer this definition, but to claim that it's irrelevant is just engaging in denial.

>>16782312
>claiming nonexistence of the self ultimately just argues for panpsychism
OK, and? The entire point of what's being said stems from this single post >>16782293
>Which ones? List them.
which clearly requested examples of free will models. You're moving the goalpost away from talking about a specific model to now encompassing the hard problem and other unrelated shit.
>>16782314
>Z is not "real" evidence
Mind quoting exactly where I said this? I haven't even been presented with evidence from you to begin with.
>this wasn't stated or implied at any point.
*ahem*
>To assert that the existence of such systems is only an illusion, because you just "feel like" they don't play by your interpretation of this universe's rules
>Have a better definition of Free Will than "what about muh Cartesian Dualism?"
You asked for examples, I gave you one.
>Have a better definition of "physical" than "conforms to [current model]
Definitions of what is and what isn't physical have not been included in this conversation.

You're being lazy and annoying, not bothering to make any arguments for anything and just bitching about free will models being dismissed without putting yourself out there and actually presenting one from which testable predictions can arise. Have a nice rest of your day, ma'am.

@16782317
>demonstrates he can't keep track of what he says
>demonstrates he can't keep read
Do they make this American white trash in a factory? They all seem to have identical characteristics and programming. No wonder they think everyone is a biobot.

>>16782311
>a ghost-like entity pilots a body like a machine
This part is correct.
>possessing free will,
This part is wrong and is not present in the model. The "ghost-like entity pilots a body like a machine" can be entirely and totally subservient to the will of a God, or karmic debt, or Fresh Vibes of the Cosmic Groove or whatever, possessing no free will whatsoever, and it would still perfectly satisfy dualism.

>...then it's not Cartesian dualism, because the mind is fundamentally not material in this view and cannot be "split"
Why mind being fundamentally not material would make it unsplittable? Cartesian dualism can have the "non-material soul" be subject to the effects of material phenomena. In fact, that's the case with the classic OG Cartesian dualism with Christian characteristics as according to Descartes himself, as it argues that the non-material soul can be affected by the sin and suffering caused by the material phenomena, like the flawed human flesh and it's sensations. It just doesn't argue that the soul can be split since that would fundamentally undermine the Christian elements of the model, but very little of modern Cartesian dualism holds on to those.

>>16782317
He doesn't realize that there are multiple posters in this thread, because he is stupid.

>>16782315
>you can see many examples of people thinking that physics is an obstruction to free will.
You can easily find as many examples of people thinking that physics is not an obstruction to free will, so? To address that you need to argue for how exactly physicalism eliminates free will, not for how physicalism eliminates non-physicalism - that would be, as another anon already pointed out, a tautology.

>>16782321
I want to say you're samefagging, but I'm now having second thoughts. "People" like you may as well be a bunch of clones. Unplugging one from an ongoing reply chain and plugging another in its place makes no difference: you'll just repeat/continue another mindless tard's fallacious line of thought seamlessly. You're all programmed with the exact same nonsense.

File: Optical-Illusion.jpg (255 KB, 850x479)

255 KB JPG

So when you look at this optical illusion you really think it isn't you moving your eye cone rods around? That the true you doesn't exist, the soul, the electromagnetism summoned into brain tissue via the miracle of procreation? That you haven't inherited a temporary flesh suit lucky enough to possess appropriately-earth-advanced brain tissue control systems, leased and on loan from the hard work of your ancestors? You think yourself beyond being containerized into a unit of perception by God?

Remember: Anti free will tards just want to be free of the impending doom of their terrible life choices. So make the best choices you can in every moment of existence.

:)

>>16782320
>The "ghost-like entity pilots a body like a machine" can be entirely and totally subservient to the will of a God, or karmic debt, or Fresh Vibes of the Cosmic Groove or whatever, possessing no free will whatsoever, and it would still perfectly satisfy dualism.
Granted, let's correct my point then: we're specifically talking about Cartesian dualist models which include free will like the idea of the soul in Abrahamic religions.
>Why mind being fundamentally not material would make it unsplittable?
How do you split the immaterial with the material? We step into the whole mess that is the problem of interaction here, and its sub-problems such as Bradley's regress etc.
>It just doesn't argue that the soul can be split since that would fundamentally undermine the Christian elements of the model
Aye that's the specific version I'm talking about. The idea that "you" are a spiritual individual being separate from the body which it controls is dead in the water. And if you grant that you can split that being by splitting matter, then what even is the distinction between Cartesian and property dualism, in which the mind procedes from matter, rather than preceding it?

>>16782325
>I want to say you're samefagging
>"People" like you may as well be a bunch of clones
Anon like a couple posts up there are two post made four seconds apart from one another, disagreeing with you in two drastically different manners.

>>16782326
>That the true you doesn't exist, the soul
Yes that is correct, most models of the "soul" get directly falsified by split-brain patient observations.
>Anti free will tards just want to be free of the impending doom of their terrible life choices
Actually, regardless of whether or not free will exists, one needs to simply take a Darwinian stance on life to realize that, even in a universe with no free will, life would benefit from emulating something very similar to it (pattern recognition and prediction). So even hard determinists (I'm not one) still have plenty of incentives to keep playing along with the theater.

>>16782324
Yes, clearly you can find people arguing the opposite of what I'm arguing. That's not the same as saying the definition I posted is irrelevant. OTOH, the fact that lots of people think that physics is an obstruction, shows that the definition is relevant, because those people would be using similar definitions. You can believe they're wrong, but that's not the same as it being irrelevant to the question of free will.

>>16782329
>Anon like a couple posts up there are two post made four seconds apart from one another, disagreeing with you in two drastically different manners.
You're hallucinating things. Link to those posts.

>>16782326
>So when you look at this optical illusion
My free will is too powerful to fall for your tricks. I choose not look at this optical illusion. Your argument is thus nullified.

>>16782328
>Granted, let's correct my point then: we're specifically talking about Cartesian dualist models which include free will like the idea of the soul in Abrahamic religions.
Firstly, there are Cartesian dualist models with Abrahamic characteristics that do not allow for free will. And your arguments very much are relevant to spiritually-driven dualism, but again I think pretty much every anon on this board who does not suffer from schizophrenic disorders would not disagree that spiritual dualism is bullshit without needing corpus callostomy experiments as arguments. The problem here is that you are shitting on the concept of a non-material soul, but acting like it dismantles the concept of free will, while those are two distinct things.

>How do you split the immaterial with the material?
Like, easily? Why wouldn't it?

>We step into the whole mess that is the problem of interaction here
Cartesian dualism inherently argues that there is no problem of interaction. Like, soul can operate the flesh puppet, and the experiences of the flesh puppet can disfigure the soul, it all works on Divine Mystery which can explain away anything because Divinity, our only choices are believing or not believing in this.

>Aye that's the specific version I'm talking about.
Well, the only people who actually unironically subscribe to that are r/tradcath users, and once again it being wrong does not prove free will wrong. Lots of anons are going to shit on you for acting like dismantling religious concept of soul somehow disproves free will, because that's wrong in a way that really triggers people.

>what even is the distinction between Cartesian and property dualism, in which the mind procedes from matter, rather than preceding it?
Mind can precede matter but still be affected by matter in precedes. Like, again, in basic bitch Christianity soul precedes matter but is still fallible to sin, which can originate in material shit like bodily pain, hunger or erect penis.

>>16782342
>The problem here is that you are shitting on the concept of a non-material soul, but acting like it dismantles the concept of free will, while those are two distinct things.
>Lots of anons are going to shit on you for acting like dismantling religious concept of soul somehow disproves free will
Hold up, this entire conversation was born from "Which ones? List them." The whole thing is "OK, here's an example of a model of free will and why I think it's wrong." You can't scale up from a criticism of a single example presented upon request to the claim that "Cartesian (or rather spiritual as you put it) dualism is wrong, therefore no free will", because that's not what I said!

>>16782328
>we're specifically talking about ... models which include free will like ... Abrahamic religions
If you want to debate jewish theology try r/atheism or something. This doesn't refute Free Will.

>>16782346
Your pattern of behavior in this thread is to make broad statements then retreat to the weakest and most irrelevant specific instances. This is just a stalling tactic because you have no actual case.

>>16782275
>Even assuming reductionist physics is true, the same rules that make a rock helplessly roll down a hill also enable the formation of more complex systems propelled by their own internal dynamics, whose modeling involves elements like self-reflection and decision-making, which have causal efficacy.
/thread
It's a bit like denying thermodynamic laws because you think you can reason about the future of a gas container using a deterministic accounts of individual molecules. Just many orders of magnitude dumber.

>>16782365
Can you show what these models which involve self-reflection and decision making are?

>>16782348
>Free Will
that seem like a brand of sorts, nothing to do with reality. we have freedom of choice

>>16782370
It's a pair of words that makes biobots seethe.

>>16782368
>irrelevant, time-wasting question
The point went completely over your head.

>>16782379
Why is it irrelevant? And why was it included in the post if it was irrelevant?

>>16782346
>Hold up, this entire conversation was born from
No, I disagreed with you prior to another anon who made this >>16782293. And you already made arguments that have nothing to do with that post, so that's a non-sequitur.

>that's not what I said!
Anons were pointing out that you substitute free will with non-material soul long before that.

>>16782375
>It's a pair of words
and nothing else, no logical meaning

>>16782381
That point is independent from any specific model of human action. Especially the aspect I pointed out here: >>16782365

>>16782386
>and nothing else, no logical meaning
Good thing you admit all "Free Will" critique is just babble from biobots expressing frustrating about others having the agency they lack.

>>16782389
Since you posted an analogy, what's the analogue to thermodynamics when it comes to models of human action?

>>16782395
>what's the analogue to thermodynamics when it comes to models of human action
The analogy went completely over your head.

>>16782401
I don't think so, I'm just asking you to elaborate.

>>16782403
You asked me to elaborate on something that wasn't implied in my post because the point went completely over your head. You're unintelligent and you need to go back to your home board.

>>16782393
it's not babble, it's pointing out the fundamental logic inconsistency for a primitive concept
everything that can react to their environment makes choices. there's more or less choices. humans can come up with more choices compared to simpler forms of life.

>>16782405
Resorting to insults doesn't count as an argument in your favor. If anything, it shows you didn't really think through what you were saying.

>>16782407
>it's pointing out the fundamental logic inconsistency
In what? Define the thing you're looking for "fundamental logical inconsistencies" in.

>>16782408
What am I supposed to be arguing against? You didn't understand the post you replied to and you're asking me to elaborate on things I didn't imply. No one is "insulting" you. You're unintelligent and you need to go back to your home board.

>>16782415
You made the claim that thermodynamics is analogous to a model of human behavior which contains free will, but you don't seem to know of any such models, so your analogy fails. Hope that helps.

>>16782417
>You made the claim that thermodynamics is analogous to a model of human behavior which contains free will
I didn't, though. You imagined this and now you're dying on that hill. Go back to your home board.

>>16782419
Should I quote your post for you?
>the same rules that make a rock helplessly roll down a hill also enable the formation of more complex systems
>propelled by their own internal dynamics, whose modeling involves elements like self-reflection and decision-making, which have causal efficacy.
>It's a bit like denying thermodynamic laws because you think you can reason about the future of a gas container using a deterministic accounts of individual molecules

>>16782421
The last statement says the mistake you're making is roughly analogous to the thermodynamics situation, not that free will is analogous to thermodynamics. Work on your reading comprehension, preferably back in your home board.

>>16782424
How is it analogous, anon? Think a little. This isn't very hard.

>>16782426
In your next post, explain why acting like this is stupid:

>denying thermodynamic laws because you think you can reason about the future of a gas container using a deterministic accounts of individual molecules

Behavioral prediction: You won't do that in your next post. Maybe you have some vague sense why taking such a position is stupid, but you can't articulate it. Hence your confusion about the core of the analogy.

>>16782428
Well, thermodynamics is a scientific theory which makes precise testable predictions which have been verified. So it's useful even though it's not fundamental. Now explain how it is analogous to whatever you think "my mistake" is.

>>16782431
See >>16782428
>You won't do that in your next post. Maybe you have some vague sense why taking such a position is stupid, but you can't articulate
Nothing beyond the vaguest sense.

>>16782432
Okay, since you can't explain how you think it is analogous, your analogy fails. You can seethe in your next post but I won't be replying to it since you still wouldn't have explained what the analogy is.

>>16782434
See >>16782428
>Behavioral prediction: you won't do that in your next post. Maybe you have some vague sense why taking such a position is stupid, but you can't articulate it. Hence your confusion about the core of the analogy.
Dumb people are very predictable.

>>16782426
>>16782431
NTA but it is analogous in that both cases describe dismissal of systemic properties due to fixation on properties of more basic elements. It's two similar examples of extremely reductive approaches.

Anon was saying that your disregard for emergent behaviors for the sake of basic neurophysiological phenomena is similar to disregard for thermodynamics for the sake of tracing movements of individual particles. In both cases the whole manages to be greater than the sum of it's parts, but you don't care for it.

>>16782437
>dismissal of systemic properties
Great and I'm asking you to substantiate this analogy by demonstrating the existence of these systemic properties such as "self-reflection" and "decision-making" by showing what models of human behavior you're talking about.

>>16782437
I wouldn't frame it in terms of "emergent behaviors" but you get the gist of it. Trying to refute the causal efficacy of elements in a higher-level model by appealing to a lower-level one is stupid in principle, but even if you're unprincipled, you can see that it's doubly stupid in practice: the lower-level model is useless for making any concrete predictions on the relevant scale. Even if you could technically do it, by the time you're done propagating the snowballing microscopic uncertainties to the top level, you're left with a giant smudge - i.e. you can't even demonstrate the causal efficacy of your lower-level elements.

>>16782414
making a choice with no influence from your environment, which includes previous thoughts stored in your brain as memories/conclusions.
the closest thing to that is insanity. it is primitive in the sense that you do not understand why you make some choices, lacking scientific understanding, so you default to mystical primitive explanations. and pack that under a trademark name. a lot of us know what is hidden in there, and why, and it has no place on /sci/. it's more closely related to /pol/ since it's more politics related than science, it's meant to control people's actions, weirdly enough, not explain how and why we make choices. the concept is meant to control what choices believers make. and that is fine by me, I don't care, you're free to believe and do whatever you want in the confines of law. just stop passing that shit as science, please.
do consider that I am not saying this in "your places", I'm saying this on /sci/.

>>16782458
>making a choice with no influence from your environment, which includes previous thoughts
Who defines Free Will that way?

>>16781789
If I suddenly gained free-will, what would the difference feel like? What tangible difference would that make in my decision making?

>>16782464
>If I suddenly gained free-will, what would the difference feel like? What tangible difference would that make in my decision making?
You would no longer be a slave to the anti-human agenda. Denying free will, regurgitating nihilist talking points, asserting braindead materialist metaphysics, taking estrogen pills and other compulsive biobot behaviors will become optional. You will be able to reflect on them, evaluate their desirability and stop.

>>16782459
>Some philosophers and thinkers conceive free will to be the capacity to make choices undetermined by past events. However, determinism suggests that the natural world is governed by cause-and-effect relationships, and only one course of events is possible - which is inconsistent with a libertarian model of free will.[5] Ancient Greek philosophy identified this issue,[6] which remains a major focus of philosophical debate to this day. The view that posits free will as incompatible with determinism is called incompatibilism and encompasses both metaphysical libertarianism (the claim that determinism is false and thus free will is at least possible) and hard determinism or hard incompatibilism (the claim that determinism is true and thus free will is not possible). Another incompatibilist position is illusionism or hard incompatibilism, which holds not only determinism but also indeterminism (randomness) to be incompatible with free will and thus free will to be impossible regardless of the metaphysical truth of determinism.
Plenty. And there's serious reasons to in regards to our view of justice. Else you can always trace the choices in outside factors + genetics, which doesn't sit well at all with human primitive/instinctive perspective on what justice is. This affects politics as well as the justice systems, and laws that we all must abide by. It's a major issue and it won't easily be solved.

>>16782473
>Plenty.
Where? Not in your quote. Try again.

>>16782454
>the causal efficacy of elements in a higher-level model
What are these higher level models of human behavior? If there were any such models, you might have had a point.

>>16782469
I am able to do all that already, you did not propose anything distinct.
Are you sure you even know what you're talking about?

>>16782493
You're deficient in abstract thought and can't grasp a general argument. You mistakenly believe it doesn't make a point because it hasn't been instantiated in a way your primitive mind can work with. In reality, even if I agreed to have some irrelevant reddit debate about a specific model and, by some miracle, you ended up winning it, you would have accomplished nothing. My argument doesn't depend on a particular model. It explains an inherent fallacy in your own approach.

Just crawl back to r/atheism where you can regurgitate talking points against jewish theology, like you were desperately trying to do earlier ITT. Stay in your lane and stick to the basics.

>>16782494
Instead of being passive-aggressive, thank me for reminding you to dilate and take your hormone pills.

>>16782454
You don't understand the formation of higher-level abstractions. If there is no connection between the abstraction layers, then the abstraction is false.

>>16781832
>I can
Take a load of this bag of chemicals. you are just a natural byproduct of the big bang

>>16782509
>If there is no connection between the abstraction layers, then the abstraction is false.
Ok, but what does it have to do with my argument and your fallacy?

>>16782505
Where did I say your argument defined on a "specific model"? You have no model at all, as far as I can see and as your refusal to mention any such model demonstrates. Or perhaps you do have a model but are too ashamed to talk about it because you realize how dumb it is.

>>16782527
*depended on a "specific model"

@16782527
>Where did I say your argument defined on a "specific model"?
Where did I say you said this? Anyway, your replies are such abysmal quality I'm not wasting any more time or posts on this.

Grim.

>>16781832
i mean you're really defining will based on experience. If you're gonna come at it from the point of view of "I/we/etc can't predict the outcome of our efforts" that seems much more interesting to ground effort to will even in a deterministic world. If you're coming from it from a experiential novelty perspective: I have walked down tracks that have changed my future outlooks thats not really an attack on determinism, but rather something much more transcendent about the nature of reality something like a continuous unfolding which reminds me of Deleuze on Leibniz, or Hegel PoS.

You're absolutely not wrong in that if you do nothing you aren't going to be anything different. Having said that the most radical forms of the eastern tradition are basically that choice is the most philosophically valid.

God I hate reductionist physics!! How dare they don't take the aura and chakras model of humans seriously just because the auras and chakras manifest at a higher level of organization than the particles of physics??? These people should go back to r/atheism and leave the real discussions of free will to us aura believers!!

>>16782533
>you're really defining will based on experience
The same way everyone defines everything.

>that seems much more interesting to ground effort to will even in a deterministic world
We don't live in a deterministic world as far as anyone can tell. What's so interesting about grounding things in fantasy?

>>16781789
Free will is essentially magic.
Its mechanisms are nebulous and its definition is never in any way operational.
You will also find that most proponents of free will are ideologically (or religiously) motivated.

>>16782507
You do realize that the fact that you don't have an argument strongly indicates that either whatever you're talking about is false, or you don't have an understanding of the topic, right?

>>16782550
>Its mechanisms are nebulous and its definition
Which mechanisms and which definitions?

>>16782537
It's not as if atoms or subatomic particles were an inherent entity of reality. Reality self-evidently has some most basic mechanism even below the level of what we get down currently like bosons or energy even, but everything above that is simply a human simplification/grouping. Using our currently understanding to draw conclusive inferences is mistaken. We're still at the level that we barely know anything.

>>16782551
I made several arguments ITT. Where's yours? All I see is some circular crap where you attempt to brand reality with your dumb opinion, then ask how reality would be different if your opinion was wrong. Braindead.

>>16782556
>Reality self-evidently has some most basic mechanism even below the level of what we get down currently like bosons or energy even
It's not at all self-evident that there is a "basic mechanism". To the contrary, this clockwork universe mindset becomes more dubious the more Physics advances.

File: 585b1880406ff0e1221c39158(...).jpg (48 KB, 960x540)

48 KB JPG

>>16782533
>that choice is the most philosophically valid
>experiential novelty perspective
How can one make a choice they cant comprehend?

False dichotomies are used by the Uni-Party, where both choices have an overlapping fundemental attribute thats not made apparent. Making the choice both predetermined and meaningless.

>>16782558
No, I accepted your premise that we don't have free will, and in that frame of reference I asked what difference a person would experience if they spontaneously got free will.
It's as simple as a practical hyophetical can get to explain how you conceptualize the difference between having and not having free will, but you didn't mention anything that would uniquely specific to free will you just said a bunch of irrelevant things about globohomo brainwashing.
The thing you're trying to refer to as free will might be some other concept, and it could be an issue of miscommunication between you and the other anons.

>>16782556
>Using our currently understanding to draw conclusive inferences is mistaken.
Would you prefer using future understandings to draw conclusions in the present, instead? You might find that to be difficult :) Or perhaps you prefer using primitive understandings to draw conclusions?
On the contrary, it is only by making guesses based on current understanding that you can make progress.
>We're still at the level that we barely know anything.
Actually, we know a lot - basically, we understand the basics of everything which goes on in everyday life.

File: istockphoto-2004779040-612x612.jpg (19 KB, 612x449)

19 KB JPG

>half empty
>half full
Neither.

Its three phases of matter, liquid, solid, and gas.

>>16782561
You misread my intention with "mechanism", I didn't say the world works like clockwork and yes that's true that the deeper down we get the more counter-intuitive it seems.
But I don't think it's as crazy to say that we have no way to know if we've only penetrated 5% of the stack of layers of how reality works physically so far, as opposed to saying that there is no "basic mechanism" (which would imply the stack is infinite).

>>16782568
>I accepted your premise that we don't have free will
But I didn't pose such a premise and you made no sign of accepting it. You said:
>If I suddenly gained free-will...
Implying the default position is that there is no free will and something would have to noticeably change for it to manifest. Which is retarded regardless of what you were trying to do. Moving on.

>>16782569
The emphasis wasn't on current, it was on conclusive.
I'm not saying we should use an understand that isn't current, I said the conclusion we draw is not conclusive in the slightest.

>>16782575
Are you OP? Am I talking to the right person? I thought I talked to someone who think we have no free will.

>>16782574
>But I don't think it's as crazy to say that we have no way to know if we've only penetrated 5% of the stack of layers of how reality works physically so far, as opposed to saying that there is no "basic mechanism" (which would imply the stack is infinite).
>which would imply the stack is infinite
It would only imply this if you take for granted that it's "mechanisms" all the way down and then interpret "no basic mechanism" in that specific context. I think talking about mechanisms becomes more and more meaningless the further down you go. Maybe there is some base reality but its understanding is becoming less and less amenable to mechanistic thinking.

>>16782579
No, I'm not OP. Ok. I think I see what you were trying to do. It just seemed like you were addressing some pro-free-will opponents rather than OP.

>>16782576
Whether you call it "conclusive" or not is not important. What's important is to make inferences based on current understanding rather than hoping that things will forever remain mysterious and beyond science.

>>16782581
I'm not using mechanism in the sense of something being Newtonian physically, I used that word to mean phenomena or process or interaction. What word should I have use that is the superclass of Mechanics, so you don't vehemently misinterpret me?

>>16782583
Well I quoted OP in my first post...

>>16782586
Hmm... I don't know. Maybe "fundamental model" or "base logic" or something. I didn't vehemently misinterpret you. I misinterpreted you normally. You just felt it vehemently. :^)

>>16782330
>Yes that is correct, most models of the "soul" get directly falsified by split-brain patient observations.
oh you're that retard on /his/
>one needs to simply take a Darwinian stance on life to realize that, even in a universe with no free will, life would benefit from emulating something very similar to it (pattern recognition and prediction)
babble

>>16782458
>it has nothing to do with reality 'cause I says so
Riveting discussion. Truly the intellectual heavyweights of 4chan.

>>16782593
>I have a fucking soul because it's what my fucking religion teaches me!
Amazing reasoning

>>16781789
Is this what your neurons are telling you?

>>16782585
That's not a scientific or logical argument, you're appealing to emotion, "we can't lose our faith in reaching the scientific singularity one day when models and objectively reality finally meet, because if that they never came that would be sad".
Even though you're the science guy in this thread you don't seem to be too aware that in science you're working with models, and don't seem to be aware or understand the implications of Tarski's undefinability theorm on any deductive science.

>>16782473
>This affects politics as well as the justice systems, and laws that we all must abide by. It's a major issue and it won't easily be solved.
No, since politics and laws have little to do with metaphysical matter of things, they are driven by utility.

>Plenty.
No, you're misinterpreting that quote tremendously.

Ffs anon I'm an opponent of free will as a concept and I am straight up amazed by how wrong all of your takes against it are. So much so that I'm halfway to changing my mind.

>>16782589
Fair but I'm not trying to imply a "model", I'm trying to the refer to the "thingy" per se that that model would describe.

>>16782604
>I'm trying to the refer to the "thingy" per se that that model would describe.
Thing-in-itself? Śūnyatā? The Monad?

>>16782601
Well, you were making an emotional argument about what things we were allowed to do or not do, so I was offering an alternative and explaining how scientific progress happens - by making guesses based on current understanding.
>you don't seem to be too aware that in science you're working with models
I think it's you who are not aware that plenty (or most) of scientists are scientific realists and no one is the "we can't kno nuffin" type.
> don't seem to be aware or understand the implications of Tarski's undefinability theorm on any deductive science.
That's funny. Go ahead and explain what you think these "implications" are. I'm sure it will be very amusing to see your misunderstandings.

>>16782607
Thanks. Monad would be closest, but I didn't want to use some metaphysical notion, though even if I had been more careful and said "base essence" someone could pendant about that and misinterpret implications I don't intend.

>>16782509
>You don't understand the formation of higher-level abstractions. If there is no connection between the abstraction layers, then the abstraction is false.
There can be a solid logical connection between the two and it still be the case that a defensible assertion about apparent qualities of reality on one level becomes completely untenable on the other. This can go both ways simultaneously. It doesn't help your case that determinism seems false when you dig deeper down, not just when you look from above.

>>16782614
When you're talking about the bare essence of reality as opposed to models you're in any case delving into metaphysics, no matter how you phrase it.

>>16782597
Free will being true or not is independent of science. I know this is hard for pseuds like you to understand, but until you can provide a unifying theory of everything, you can sit down and stfu.

>>16782611
My statements did have a deontic aspect but none of my arguments appealed to emotion.
>I think it's you who are not aware that plenty (or most) of scientists are scientific realists and no one is the "we can't kno nuffin" type.
I'm aware that most scientists can't emotionally handle that what they are doing is not as undoubtably unfutile as they would like to be, so they give in to the temptation and become what you described. However this is again a bad argument, two-fold actually, you're both appealing to common practice and appealing to authority.
>That's funny. Go ahead and explain what you think these "implications" are. I'm sure it will be very amusing to see your misunderstandings.
Goading me is a funny way to hide the fact that you have no idea about the theorem.

>>16782632
>My statements did have a deontic aspect but none of my arguments appealed to emotion.
Ah I see, so you can treat my statements to be deontic too, then :)
>you're both appealing to common practice and appealing to authority.
Actually, it is neither since what I did was tell you that most scientists are scientific realists when you claimed that "being the science guy" in this thread should imply that I should hold some radically instrumentalist view of science. So I was just correcting a misconception of yours, not making an argument for scientific realism.
>Goading me is a funny way to hide the fact that you have no idea about the theorem.
Aww that's sad, I was hoping you would go into some schizo rant about how this theorem in formal logic has all sorts of metaphysical implications in favor of your "can't kno nuffin" worldview.

>>16782602
>No, since politics and laws have little to do with metaphysical matter of things, they are driven by utility.
if they were driven purely on utility they would be way more draconian
>Ffs anon I'm an opponent of free will as a concept and I am straight up amazed by how wrong all of your takes against it are. So much so that I'm halfway to changing my mind.
free will concept is meant to isolate each of us from the outside, to justify responsability and punishment, punishment which is meant as a deterministic factor funnily enough.
when it is your fault it implies there's nothing from the outside that determined you break the law. that was a choice you freely made and that's the grounds of punishment.
but if you kill someone under threat of losing your own life it is not considered your fault, it shifts to whatever forced you do it.
this way, politics can run behavioral shaping policies that result in what the group needs while being absolved from any wrong doing. implying you have a choice to do or not do some things, they can ignore how their policies shape everyone's experience, and then use the free will concept to punish the ones who drew the short stick and inevitably pop off in ways that are bad for the group.
if the discussion changes to group leaders managing everyone's experience such that it results in certain behavior/choices things become way more complicated/expensive, which is not desired. so the free will idea is a way of legally punishing someone doing something bad which is a consequence of how things work out based on genetics + experience.

@16782641
>gets steamrolled by literally everyone ITT
>still tries to act smug

>>16782645
>i hate free will because it implies i'm responsible for my actions
Certainly explains the deep emotional investment in retarded determinist metaphysics.

>>16782646
Let it go fren, you lost

>>16782645
and it is no accident it was adopted so strongly by religion which is a society shaping and control instrument. the concept is meant to control your behavior and choices, so as to manage some things that must be done at group level

>>16782650
I am not a determinist, I believe the universe has a nondeterministic quality to it, and thus one's choices can never be predicted to 100% certainty.

File: divine-light-severed.jpg (103 KB, 1280x720)

103 KB JPG

>holding people responsible for their own actions is a behavioral engineering and control instrument
>these poor criminals are not responsible for their own actions
>they just have broken brains
>we can't punish them for things they're not responsible for, that's evil and immoral
>we just need to fix their broken brains so that they act the way our moral and progressive and enlightened society of normalcattle expects them to

You can always tell when someone was raised by a manipulative single mom who used brainwashing, guilt-tripping etc. to micromanage his behavior as opposed to just spanking him or something when he got way too out of line.

>>16782641
>belittles the Tarski's undefinability theorm as "this theorem in formal logic"
Do you realize just how much this reveals about your ignorance? Don't you know that all science relies on mathematics in order to be "scientific" to begin with? Don't you know that the foundation of mathetmatics in Principia Mathematica were formalized with formal logic? Don't you understand that Tarski's theorem hold for any formal model?
Once you're able to stop denigrating the theorm you should go and read a book or two and understand it.

>>16782654
no no, it shifts responsability to making sure their experience doesn't make them do bad things. you try to control what is possible to control.
there's endless studies linking lived experience to crime, that's no mistery. what the fuck??? we KNOW bad experiences increase the crime rate, statistically. that's the usefulness of the free will concept, even if they fucked you over you must accept that like a good boy and shut the fuck up and do nothing about it.
fixing it post event is hard or maybe even impossible. tree grows a certain way, way harder to ungrow it and grow it back the right way. which makes it even more clear why you must take care it grows properly in the first place, because it's way harder to fix later. or maybe even impossible.
that's how you keep people locked up forever, they make a mistake, they go in an environment which accentuates whatever turned them bad, and use that as justification for why you have to keep them in there forever. you put everything on their free will you have no fault problem solved. cheapest option.
the state of things is maintained based on these factors, cost and flexibility of doing what people up to want to with no responsibility of their own. but when you try to you get endless walls of group responsibility and philosophy

All the arguments from free will believers itt so far:
>reductionist fiziks bad!
>there are srs free will models! take them srsly! no i won't name any!
>u can't kno nuffin so free will reel!
>tarski's thm prufs free will bcuz... won't say!
>u anti-human, godless go back to r/atheezm!

>>16782660
This post wasn't too mature of you.

>>16782659
>it shifts responsability to making sure their experience doesn't make them do bad things
That's just Hebrew for "it's our responsibility to control their behavior, not theirs" + "give us infinite funds for social programs".

>>16782660
Should it be the point where we accept the fact that even if what you say is true, you don't have strong enough a command of it to convince anyone, and that we can't convince you?

>>16782275
>>16782365
>>16782454
>>16782621
These still stand solid and unchallenged.

>>16782665
ah cmon this whole "their responsibility" actually means "they should fucking take it and shut the fuck up" bullshit just spare me the bullshit
>That's just Hebrew for "it's our responsibility to control their behavior, not theirs"
it's exactly the other way around, it's cheaper to manage like it is now than making sure everyone has an upbringing which doesnt' increase the chances they'll turn to crime. this is quite simple to understand. it's about money/resources and the freedom to manufacture certain types of people which are lucrative. criminals are lucrative, poor spirit broken people are lucrative (they work for basically nothing all their lives). this is just social engineering assisted by old primitive philosophies that are lucrative for the people up top.

>>16782668
>ah cmon this whole "their responsibility" actually means "they should fucking take it and shut the fuck up" bullshit just spare me the bullshit
No. It means they can do whatever they want about it and face whatever consequences they manage to secure for their actions.

>it's exactly the other way around
If you don't want to control their behavior, why should you try to manipulate the conditions to change their behavior? I hope you understand everyone, all over the world, is utterly fed up with your particular ethnic minority. This will have consequences. You will be held accountable.

>>16782658
Science relies on lots of things like technology, division of labor, telescopes, microscopes, and mathematics (which you can call a type of technology). So? What point are you trying to make?
>Don't you know that the foundation of mathetmatics
I'll have to stop you right there. There is no "the" foundation of mathematics. The fact that you don't realize this makes you look dumb.
>Don't you understand that Tarski's theorem hold for any formal model?
No, it only holds for some formal logics. But so what? What point are you trying to make?

Try to articulate what you're saying more clearly so that you end up looking like less of an idiot next time.

>>16782666
I think you'll first have to reach the point where you realize there are multiple people arguing against you

@16782674
>gets steamrolled by literally everyone ITT
>starts hallucinating that he is a part of some collective bullying a single poster

>>16782681
Is not quoting the posts you're replying to some sort of superstitious belief of yours? Like the free will belief?

>>16782671
>No. It means they can do whatever they want about it and face whatever consequences they manage to secure for their actions.
but people who have control over their lives decides what lives they're going to have, and then they are forced to free will shut the fuck up about it.
just because you don't force someone at gun point do something in particular doesn't mean you're not manipulating their choices. take away everything from the table and leave them with two choices, both similarly shitty one a bit better you know what they'll statistically choose. you actually perfected that art, while still claiming "their free will brah nobody forced them".
>If you don't want to control their behavior, why should you try to manipulate the conditions to change their behavior?
for the same reason you lock them up? you are locking people up for doing bad things, which I'm not advocating against btw, do take out people who are committing crimes. doesn't matter why they do it, above everything else, the most important thing is the group needs to stop them committing crimes. we agree on this bit, I'm not saying anything different.
but it is the group's responsability of offering them the upbringing that minimizes the chances of them committing crimes, and when possible fixing any genetic issue that makes them commit crimes, provided their upbringing experiences were at certain standard.
>I hope you understand everyone, all over the world, is utterly fed up with your particular ethnic minority.
what the fuck are you even talking about? I'm white
>This will have consequences. You will be held accountable.
for what? for not agreeing with you? are you insane?

>>16782686
>but people who have control over their lives decides what lives they're going to have
No one has "control over their lives". It's all completely in their head. In your head. You've been conditioned into becoming a biobot "oppressed" by pure abstractions, not by "people who have control" but by your own deformed ideology and your own manipulative single mom.

>>16782686
>for the same reason you lock them up?
And this is bullshit, by the way. You lock criminals up to keep them away from you, not to make them behave differently. They can kill each other in prison for all anyone cares.

>>16782689
>No one has "control over their lives".
oh stop it lmao they clearly have control over their upbringing through budgets and policies just spare me your "we dindu nuffin" nonsense

>>16782691
You're "oppressed" by abstractions because you're conditioned to be helpless cattle with no free will. It's that simple.

>>16782693
>shut the fuck up and accept it, it's cheaper for us plus we need to demonize someone
actual translation

>>16782673
>technology, division of labor, telescopes, microscopes, and mathematics
You make a false equivalence by implying mathematics to be simply at the level of being one of many tools used for science, but I see why you did this weak move, you're actually more clever than I thought, you did that so you could claim that Tarski's throem only holds for some non-standard logical systems not all. Normally reading that my first instinct would be to ask you to then provide a model that can define its own truth in itself but then you could go ahead and say that models don't have to do that because we define truth with telescopes and division of labor, mathematics itself is just used for scribbling things succinctly.
That was very sneaky of you, but at least not that I know how dishonest (or just a scientific realism cultist) you are I can leave this thread without wasting any more time on you.

>>16782694
Human cattle lives in a virtual reality. There's no common ground whatsoever here. The dynamics you're enslaved by don't exist in my mind and don't exist in the real world.

>>16782697
notice how mad you are for the simple fact that I mentioned everyone should have a proper upbringing. you melting down about that makes it clear who the demon is

>>16782698
>everyone should have a proper upbringing
Called it about your manipulative single mom. But here's a challenge for you, nigger: since you believe in some kind of mystical force (capitalists? Trump? aliens?) that controls everyone, you should be able to name 1 (ONE!) behavior it can force me to do and 1 (ONE!) behavior it can stop me from doing.

Hard mode: explain the mechanism by which it will happen.

>>16782700
wtf so if anyone notices anything wrong with the environment they're automatically deranged? how does that track? you're insane
maintaining a certain environment guarantees certain results at statistical level. you will guaranteed have 70% uptick in criminality in that area based on these policies which make for a shit upbringing. you don't know which one of them, but on the whole the numbers get quite precise. sort of like radioactivity half life.
you can start fucking around trying to make a point at individual level, build your strawman and btfo it. I suspect where you're going with this.
anyway, you're either ideologically brainwashed either you know very well what you are doing and why. sorry for you if you're in the first category.

>>16782696
Those are some interesting mind-reading skills, but at least it's good that you realized that truth isn't defined through formal logic
>I can leave this thread without wasting any more time on you.
I'm sure everyone will deeply regret not getting the chance to see anon's secret proof of free will using tarski's theorem

>>16782706
Didn't read. Notice how I correctly predicted your inability to do this:
>>16782700
>you should be able to name 1 (ONE!) behavior it can force me to do and 1 (ONE!) behavior it can stop me from doing.
>Hard mode: explain the mechanism by which it will happen.

>>16782710
>name precise things that I can btfo anyway or else what you notice at group level is not real it's fake
cmon man, drop it. you're throwing people in the volcano so others have it good, that's what it's all about and you're not going to drop that. most people do not change/learn, they settle in certain ideologies that justifies their views, which are based on their previous experience. that's why people dying was a good thing so far, you go away and new people with new minds with new information with different lived experience take over and run this shit further along, historically in a better way for everyone.
the whole point of science and new understanding is mainly for new people, for kids, learning new stuff. it's not meant to change your mind, you're set, you found your cozy place. if it suits you then you're never going to give it up. there's no point where people said "ok I'm good don't need more", or "must give some of this shit away it's too much", nah, they mental gymnastic that shit to justify holding to it or even taking more. we know every system is defending itself no matter its legitimacy

>>16782714
Didn't read. Notice how I correctly predicted your inability to do this:
>>16782700
>you should be able to name 1 (ONE!) behavior it can force me to do and 1 (ONE!) behavior it can stop me from doing.
>Hard mode: explain the mechanism by which it will happen.

Regardless, you and all your likes know what's coming and you're fully responsible for your own actions and their natural consequences. :^)

>>16782716
>bruh gotta take care of people else they turn bad
>what? your kind needs to go *proceed to threats* but "nobody is doing anything to you" but "you will pay"
you are legitimately fucking insane. this is who is holding these kinds of "free will" views. interesting

>>16782718
You see? There's nothing behind your talmudic chanting. When asked to provide a single example of what the people who control my life can force me to do or stop me from doing, you fall apart. You shit out paragraphs trying to avoid this simple request.

Regardless, you and all your likes know what's coming and you're fully responsible for your own actions and their natural consequences. Wait and see how much "mommy didn't raise me right" helps you when natural consequences knock on your door. :^)

>>16781832
Sounds like cope

>X% of [insert lowlife demographic] will do Y under circumstance Z
>it's heckin' statistics!
>therefore circumstance Z "forced" them to do Y
>even though (100-X)% simply didn't do Y under circumstance Z
>i'm not responsible for my actions
>give me infinite shekels for """social programs"""
You can't tell me these "people" didn't have it coming when what they're most afraid of and warn against every day, finally happens.

>>16782720
>There's nothing behind your talmudic chanting.
I am not into that thing but you seem obsessed with it
>and their natural consequences
ah, free will but if people don't do what you want them to do with their free will there's "consequences" so they better use that free will for exactly what choices you want them to make "or else". lmao. so you just validated what I said earlier, it's pure and utter bullshit and it's meant as a determining factor that you hide behind. way to out yourself
>Wait and see how much "mommy didn't raise me right" helps you when natural consequences knock on your door. :^)
yeah, not deranged at all. again, great way to validate everything that I said. I wonder what kind of experiences determined you to end up like this.

>>16782726
You see? There's nothing behind your talmudic chanting. When asked to provide a single example of what the people who control my life can force me to do or stop me from doing, you fall apart. You shit out paragraphs trying to avoid this simple request.

>>16782725
>(total - 1) do crime
>"see that one didn't do crime, the rest could have easily chosen not to, that one is proof everyone else could freely choose to not do crime"
>"bruh you're starving them"
>"MF YOU WILL PAY!!!! FOR POINTING IT OUT!!!!"
these are your logicians

>>16782725
>>even though (100-X)% simply didn't do Y under circumstance Z
clearly, the inadequate socioeconomic circumstances prevented them from engaging in their preferred behavior. you can't beat the system, you're forced to behave one way or another

Are all free will believers anti-semitic, misogynistic and psychotic like this anon?

>>16782728
i'm just trying to lurk but I'm losing the plot, what is your stance on this topic?
u seem like the more reasonable one, but i feel like can't quite put my finger on you

>>16782732
>THOU SHALT SUCK THE CIRCUMCISED JEWISH COCK BECAUSE YOU CANT MAKE A CHOICE NOT TO, GOY

>>16782733
Which specific topic? I think I've been quite clear about my stance regarding the fantasy of invisible powers "forcing" people to act in predetermined ways. It's a choice. You can be influenced but you can't be forced. Maybe only at gunpoint - but even then, people have demonstrated that not even the threat of death or torture can "force" one to do something they simply decide not to do.

>>16782736
yeah, but i had a hard time distinguishing which posts were from you and which ones not

>>16782739
The absolute best and absolute worst. :^)

>>16782645
>if they were driven purely on utility they would be way more draconian
That's unfounded. We know empirically that laws and politics characterized by harshness exceeding their enforceability end up just eroding their own credibility, and thus losing utility. If laws are too draconic to maintain even a semblance of being actually enforced in practice, then nobody takes those laws even somewhat seriously, they become a facade for the actual, much looser unspoken law.

>free will concept is meant to isolate each of us from the outside
No it's not. There's no inherent contradiction even between an action being deterministic and it being done out of free will. It's a consistent position.

I don't think there's a such a thing as a free will either, but people who do make much better point ITT than you do, and I think it has a lot to do with your position being assembled as a consequence of your moral stance on assignment of blame. Pretty much what >>16782650 said. It is self-evident for any adult that you don't need to be the solitary or even the main cause of an event in order to claim responsibility for it. Responsibility in general has little to do with precise justice - social responsibility is dominated by social utility, while personal responsibility is a means of producing meaning.

>>16782722
Thats your NPC reaction to keep your choices deterministic.

Sneer, make a baseless emotional projection, feel empowered in your ingorance, remain in outer darkness. Pure ego driven sense of self...in order to become aware of objective reality you will have to let you false persona die.

...I literally just said that...

>>16782736
>he fantasy of invisible powers "forcing" people to act in predetermined ways
Ah yes, the fantasy of brain chemistry! I too do not think the brain works based on invisible "chemicals"

>>16782745
>brain chemicals are totally forcing everyone to do... you know, the thing
>no one knows what the thing is gonna be, but trust me, bro
>i'm a (((social scientist)))

>>16782745
>brain chemistry
Lmao not this popsci meme, pls

>>16782748
Oh, so the fact that the brain works on chemistry is too 'popsci' for some people now?

>>16782745
>brain chemistry forcing people to act
Wait, so you are separate from your brain chemistry? What are (you) then? A non-material spirit trapped in your body controlled by neurotransmitters and so forced to suffer their external control?

>>16782750
>i know how a car works
>it works by having fuel in the fuel tank
>time to hear my opinions about the dynamics of high-speed racing

>>16782750
It does not work "on" chemistry, any more than a car works "on" flywheel.
Anyone who takes chemistry as pars pro toto for the whole brain's functioning is a low IQ pop sci guzzling retard

>>16782743
>It is self-evident for any adult that you don't need to be the solitary or even the main cause of an event in order to claim responsibility for it.
That's just social consensus. Has nothing to do with science. You can track the root cause of something.
Let's take AI, creators train it and deploy it. It suggests someone kill themselves and they do it. Is it the fault of the AI or is it the fault of its creators? If we could punish AI, and we'd "know" it "feels" the punishment, we'd stop at punishing it. But lacking that...we'd go for the next thing, its creators, for failing to train it such that it doesn't lead to that scenario.
We drop the blame on the cheapest, on the least cost, on the patsy, not on who's actually responsible. Now...they did it knowingly or not is another debate, we account for that in justice, premeditation or mistake etc.
The patsy is always good enough for everyone, it's something everyone will accept, with the least cost. That happens because people accept it. If we'd try to punish the AI, now, people wouldn't accept it, because we "know" that fucker ain't feeling pain/regret.

>>16782752
Take your meds.

>>16782755
>Let's take AI, creators train it and deploy it. It suggests someone kill themselves and they do it. Is it the fault of the AI or is it the fault of its creators?
Prove that this is anyone's fault and not someone's decision to commit suicide.

>>16782752
You can clearly have desires and wishes which are not in accordance with what your brain makes you do anyway. For example, you might really not want to take a shit right now but your brain chemistry wouldn't care about that.

>>16782759
>i shit myself because of brain chemistry
Most American Post Award.

>>16782755
>That's just social consensus
>Has nothing to do with science
Wait, why would social consensus have nothing to do with science? Is social consensus a fictional or supernatural phenomenon?

>Let's take
I think there's an emotional take on le society here and I don't care to figure out what's the point it's driving at.

>>16782759
Let me retierate >>16782754

>>16782754
This is just a non-argument. Calling something popsci doesn't make it false.

>>16782757
If you bias someone into doing something it doesn't mean you are not responsible for it.
This ideology is sooo weird for me, was not aware it existed. So shit people hide their shit behavior behind it. Of-course they'd have a whole ideology built around it. Why did I expect anything else.

>>16782761
>Is social consensus a fictional or supernatural phenomenon?
It's mostly primitive

>>16782763
Interpreted strictly, your chemistry take is wrong. Interpreted loosely, your chemistry take says nothing at all. Taken either way, your post is pop-sci trash.

>>16782759
>You can clearly have desires and wishes which are not in accordance with what your brain makes you do anyway.
Anon everyone actually HAS desires and wishes which are not in accordance with his own self. I mean, what kind of an absolute bitchass gay autismo faggot idea is
>"Anything I can disagree with is external to me!"
?

>>16782766
>Interpreted strictly, your chemistry take is wrong
Go ahead and explain why it's wrong

>>16782763
It's not me calling it popsci which makes it false, what do you think I am, god?

>>16782765
And?

>>16782767
So why don't you freely will yourself to stop shitting?

File: Are you.gif (878 KB, 500x232)

878 KB GIF

>>16782769
>what do you think I am, god?

>>16782764
>i'm not responsible!
>the economy biased me!
>the AI biased me!
>the brain chemicals biased me!
>someone else should be held accountable!
>no, i don't care what "biased" them
>i'm not responsible, they are
>saying otherwise is a weird ideology
Your ideology is not just "weird" to most people. Your ideology will make them do to you what you spend every day fearing. You're biasing them. :^)

>>16782768
The brain is a multi-level system where chemistry is one crucial layer, but not the whole story:
At the molecular level, neurotransmitters, ions, receptors, enzymes, and second‑messenger systems mediate signaling — this is the "chemistry" part.
At the cellular level, neurons and glia use electrical signaling (action potentials, membrane potentials) produced by ion flows across membranes — an electrochemical process.
At the circuit level, networks of neurons with particular connectivity patterns produce computations, rhythms, and information processing.
At the systems and cognitive level, interactions among brain regions give rise to perception, memory, decision making, emotion and consciousness — these are emergent phenomena that can’t be fully explained by listing molecules alone.
Developmental, genetic, environmental, and experiential factors shape structure and function over time; so do biomechanics (e.g., blood flow, tissue mechanics) and embodied interaction with the world.

If you still don't want to admit being wrong, then go ahead and explain classical conditioning with only using chemistry.

>>16782771
Not an argument. One cannot will himself to teleport either.

>>16782768
>Go ahead and explain why it's wrong
Distorts the physical causality.

>>16782770
Well sacrificing people for better crops has no scientific backing but people did it anyway because it felt better for weird old reasons which have nothing to do with science.

>>16782775
Teleportation violates some laws of nature but not shitting even when you really don't want to doesn't, as far as i know.

>>16781789
OP, do you believe in infinity?

>>16782774
Did you generate this with chatGPT?
>>16782776
?

>>16782777
The way that practice emerged, was implemented and eventually phased out most definitely has everything to do with science. Same with any other social consensus. Even social consensus caused wholly entirely by people being stupid and insane is scientific, because there's a pattern and a method to how people are being stupid and insane.

>>16782779
You keep shitting yourself because you got fucked in the ass a thousand times too many. Getting that asshole tight again violates every physical law. Either that, or you just choose to shit yourself because you enjoy wallowing in shit and smelling your own shit. Both equally likely. Both may be applicable.

>>16782779
>Teleportation violates some laws of nature
Bullshit argument regardless of that.

>>16782784
I think you're mistaking me for your mom

>>16782782
Yeah, when you see em dashes it usually means ChatGPT, I told it give short non-yappy explanation of the brains layers besides chemistry with the levels being molecular, cellular, circuit and cognitive, then I added the challenge.

>>16782773
>Olympic sprint runner thinks paraplegics are a government psyop
I can see it now, you are incapable of putting yourself in different shoes.
Everyone chooses based on available information and hardware abilities. Plenty rich kids raised with no consequences for their actions doing a lot of shit things because they lack the hardware that would determine them not do it. It is not a choice, it's a consequence.
The whole issue stems from you not knowing or understanding how choices are made, and you have a primitive (and quite religious) perspective on it, so you can entertain your ideology especially if it suits you.
My whole point is not excusing criminals behavior, my point is making you understand what created them, knowing the why enables you to take actions which make for less criminals in the future. But I now see you are enjoying creating criminals, it's lucrative for your well being as well as other purposes (like having someone to demonize among others), it's comfy for you. Makes you feel better if you see someone shittier than you.
That rich dude getting out of his expensive car to piss on a homeless dude comes to mind after talking to you for a while. As long as criminals are lucrative for you and your own you see no reason to change the state of things. Unless that criminal happens to be someone close to you, that's when they should be excused and suddenly you gain understanding and empathy.

>>16782783
Oh for sure but then you missed my point. Should have understood it as "based on old science". They clearly think it's "science" of sorts, my point was that it's wrong.

>>16782782
You assert that chemicals in the brain are a root cause directing brain processes, which leads to actions. This is objectively incorrect. I almost want to say you're mistaking causes for effects, but that wouldn't be quite right either. Talking about what's causing what in this context doesn't even make sense. It's a system of feedback loops with cross-influences on different levels of abstraction.

>>16782787
Okay, but your chatGPT post agrees with me that it's controlled by chemistry. Cells are made up of molecules, circuits are made up of cells, etc.

>>16782788
>>Olympic sprint runner thinks paraplegics are a government psyop
Hey, you know what? That's fair enough. I agree that when it comes to agency, some people are olympic runners while others are like... not paraplegics, no. You're not a paraplegic. You're morbidly obese. It's a lifestyle choice. One you're spending hours of your time and dozens upon dozens of paragraphs actively reinforcing.

>>16782790
>It's a system of feedback loops with cross-influences on different levels of abstraction.
How can abstractions influence each other? I don't think that makes sense

>>16782793
>if it makes me feel good about myself I'll take it
Ok that can be a strategy to get through to some of you.
Dont' tell me you never even considered it can be harder for others to make the choices you made. Surely you cannot possibly think all people have the very same bias on everything it only comes down to this mysterious "free will" thing that some mfs just refuse to use the "correct way".

>>16782788
>Olympic sprint runner thinks paraplegics are a government psyop
Do paraplegics consider themselves less of people and less in control of themselves than other? Do you?

>It is not a choice, it's a consequence.
Not a contradiction. Any choice can be a consequence.

>My whole point is not excusing criminals behavior, my point is making you understand what created them
Any sort of behavior being created by something doesn't externalize that behavior from the one who participates in it. If you got horny because a girl showed you her boobs, that doesn't meant that when sex happens it's her fucking herself, instead of you having sex with her.

>But I now see
That's a lot of gay yapping my man.

>>16782794
>How can abstractions influence each other?
Quote the part of my post that says this, you dumb groid.

>>16782799
Lmao, I just did. Looks like your brain chemistry failed you.

>>16782791
It said "one crucial" which it is, but does not say "the crucial" or "the most crucial", it's as crucial as any other layer, so it is not at all merited to say it "controls the brain".
A conjunctive task is not "controlled" by any one link in the chain.
Is not dying while tight rope walking "controlled" by the fourth step? No.

>>16782797
It's not about me. It's about you, you absolute degenerate. You're the one with a mad emotional and ideological investment in overturning basic human sensibilities.

>Dont' tell me you never even considered it can be harder for others to make the choices you made.
I absolutely considered this. I've acknowledged the existence of biobots many times ITT. But this isn't something Trump and capitalists did to you. It's something your mother did to you when you were little and you've been actively making worse ever since.

>>16782800
Are you mentally ill? Bad brain chemistry?
>cross-influences on different levels of abstraction.
>abstractions influence each other
Are these statements equivalent?

>>16782789
I get that, but then separation of cause and responsibility can have strong factual reasoning behind it even if as a social practice it emerged out of people agreeing in their stupidity. Overall, something coming out a social consensus doesn't just make it bullshit. People started performing human sacrifices out of a religious consensus, but same with washing their hands.

>>16782802
Do you agree that the actions of cells are controlled by the actions of molecules? It would only be a "chain" if the actions of cells was independent of the actions of molecules.

>>16782789
>sacrificing people
>based on old science
More like based old science frfr

File: brainlet-cube.png (185 KB, 567x502)

185 KB PNG

>Do you agree that the actions of cells are controlled by the actions of molecules?

>>16782798
>Do paraplegics consider themselves less of people and less in control of themselves than other? Do you?
Well clearly, they're not in control of their legs. Others don't even know they even have them (metaphorically speaking here).
The problem is this thing becomes more abstract, harder to pinpoint or to prove. If anyone is claiming choosing something is hard for them you can accuse them of lying. Because it is not easily provable to peers. If everyone sees the paraplegic that's obvious for everyone, none can contest their inability to sprint. I mean you could try but people will look at you funny.
>that mf can clearly spring he's lying to us
>bruh what?
But without being able to quantize their ability for certain choices it's easy to dismiss it in front of other peers
>this mf is lying
>yeah not clear he should be able to, I can, why can't he?
If there was a way for everyone to objectively perceive their ability of choosing something, people would agree just like noticing the paraplegic.
Now, even some of them manage to do incredible feats without control of their legs, my point is about the expectation to, not absolute possibility of.

>>16782804
>Are these statements equivalent?
Are you stupid? The first one implies the second

>>16782806
Do you agree that social dynamics are controlled by the actions of individuals? :^)

>>16782797
>Dont' tell me you never even considered it can be harder for others to make the choices you made.
It doesn't matter how hard it is tho. Your choices are your choices. Even if you did something because the circumstances made any other option unattainable, you cannot undo it out of yourself. Even if you shit your pants due to brain chemistry or bisacodyl, you still shit your pants.

>>16782810
I can tell you grew up in a very poor socioeconomic environment based on your reading comprehension and inability to assess implications. Just accept your face. The System made you a retard and a retard you shall remain. :^)

File: it keeps happening.jpg (55 KB, 736x414)

55 KB JPG

>>16782804
>>16782810

>>16782809
>Well clearly
Man fuck you.

> If anyone is claiming choosing something is hard for them you can accuse them of lying. Because it is not easily provable to peers.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the point I made.

>>16782814
>>16782811
I'm sure you think you're winning some argument in your head.

>>16782806
So why do you stop there, why don't you go lower and say it's simply "Brain Physics"? Is the action of the molecules independent of atoms or protons or quarks or bosons or quantums?
If you want to be imprecise then don't be arbitrarily and indignantly imprecise.
But if your brain chemistry doesn't let you not be a little contrarian bitch then my challenge still stands, explain classical conditioning with only referring to chemical interactions.

>>16782816
>Man fuck you.
What? They are unable to move their legs, they cannot sprint like others can. They are not on equal footing (no pun intended).
If you are in a race and you have a 10HP shit car and you are against a 1000HP race car, you are at a disadvantage. You are on equal footing having a 1000HP race car yourself. Are you insane?

Can Americoons just hurry up and start rounding these "people" up already? Haven't you had enough of people-not-responsible-for-their actions stabbing you in the neck? Haven't you had enough of this gaggle of not-responsible-for-(((our)))-own-actions Schrödinberg's Whites, who unleash these brown mongrels unto you, then demand you pay double to upkeep the urban zoo and keep the brown animals happy?

>>16782817
I accept your concession on both points. Your deranged ideology lacks basic coherence and you know nothing whatsoever about neurology.

>>16782821
You are on science forum not on an emotional support one. I'm not sure what you're expecting here. Plus I didn't laugh them off or anything like that. What's wrong with you?

>>16782819
>What?
It's just that you're a massive asshole desu.

>a disadvantage
And do you think that disadvantage in action makes someone less in control of himself? Less OF himself? Are YOU insane?

>>16782826
>makes someone less in control of himself
Might be some miscomunication as I'm ESL but I understood that as phisically, which is true, they literally lack control of their legs, less in control of themselves, in the body sense. Now I realize you probably meant mind? Sorry really no jab intended.

File: model.png (268 KB, 400x300)

268 KB PNG

>>16782819
>10 HP vs 1000HP
>hmm yes I think I will compete against this Dodge Viper with my half a Model T

>>16782818
You can go lower and say that if you want to but those lower levels but I think going to the level of chemistry is sufficient to explain all of the brain's behavior under normal circumstances (for example, unless the brain is hit by nuclear radiation or something, where details of physics will become important). The same can't be said for the other links in your chain, especially the "cognitive" part.
>explain classical conditioning with only referring to chemical interactions.
Which part of conditioning is supposed to be impossible to explain through chemistry?

>>16782825
>What's wrong with you?
I just actually directly interact with physically disabled people and have a few in my family. Which does emotionally bias me in this case, but you being a massive asshole is still a solid fact.

>>16782832
>I think going to the level of chemistry is sufficient to explain all of the brain's behavior under normal circumstances
This is completely wrong. Neuroscientists don't believe this. Only public-educated mongoloids like you do.

>>16782833
You cannot possibly think they are not at a disadvantage in the case of a sprint race anon. This is not making fun of them, what the hell? Using your own logic we shouldn't build ramps for them as there's nothing wrong with them. Are you insane? Again, I did NOT mean in the mental sense, I do not think they are lesser or something, but they do not have control over some parts of the body. It's not their fault or something or worth less as human beings. Stop putting words in my mouth.

>>16782832
If you imply it's possible then go ahead and do it.

>>16782829
>Now I realize you probably meant mind?
It's not about mind or body. That's the whole point. Broken people are still complete people. Being at a disadvantage doesn't mean they have any less of a capacity for choice and responsibility - it applies to disabled people, and to racing, and to anything else. The approach you describe directly dehumanizes anyone at any kind of a "disadvantage" or anyone who is biased or affected by anything.

File: working-class-scum.jpg (23 KB, 460x349)

23 KB JPG

>people who make shit life choices are literally cripples, just like paraplegics who need society to build ramps for them
>we need to build ramps for these people
>and by "we", i mean you
The final state.

>>16782840
>Broken people
That's shitty of you, I never said they are "broken", that's a weird word use right there.
The whole point I was trying to make is that humans do not believe you cannot do something they can do if that implies you're getting easier treatment than they get. Which usually needs to be really fucking obvious for them to accept, else they can simply acuse you of lying. Comparing to paraplegics had the purpose of showing how peers cannot possibly deny it because it's quite obvious.
There's so many mental choices that are very hard for people to make, based on genetics and previous experiences. Somehow this is mostly irrelevant today, everyone is expected to perform equally on that front, just because it's hard to prove it's way harder to make certain choices. If it were as obvious as phisical traits, people would go easier.
For example (and I'll again be seen as inconsiderate) ... retards. Like actual retards. You're not expecting much because it's quite obvious.

>>16782838
Here's a rough sketch:
Exposing the animal to some stimulus modifies the chemistry of its brain which rearranges some brain circuits to make it respond in some other way. The details need to be filled in by neuroscientists or whoever studies this but this is what the explanation will look like in the end.

>>16782842
they lack the perspective you got, or maybe they lack your genetic fortitude.
think if you're born with certain abilities you're worthy of praise for them? you aren't, you didn't do anything for them. but people still managed to build ideologies around it, special souls that gods favor for being intrinsically "better" somehow

>>16782845
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ag1o3koTLWM

>>16782844
>There's so many mental choices that are very hard for people to make, based on genetics and previous experiences.
That's true. But those choices as still the choices of those who make them, regardless of how hard is it, and so are the consequences.

>Somehow this is mostly irrelevant today, everyone is expected to perform equally on that front
That is fucked up, there's no reason why people should not receive help with such choices, but those are still their own to make. No amount of difficulty and no amount of assistance makes them someone else's choices or actions.

>>16782845
I'm with >>16782847 on this one, some deepm intensive cringe.

>>16782844
so how do you objectively differentiate between these theoretical mental cripples and people who are simply getting what they deserve?

>>16782845
You fucking nigger, the brain is as much controlled by chemsitry as the crematoria in Auschwitz

>>16782846
Your jealousy and rage is palpable, the way you project your infinite entitlement is funny.

>>16782848
The problem is even more complicated, what matters is how useful those choices are.
Take a murderer, they do it for whatever reason. If they do it on someone close to you, it's bad and should be punished. But if they do it on your enemy, they should be rewarded.
There's no absolute moral call, it's always about how useful some choice is, to whoever has the power of doing anything about it.

>>16782847
Yes, that's an appropriate response to the demystification of human and animal behavior I think. It's kind of funny in a tragicomedy sort of way.
>>16782849
It might sound cringe but what were you expecting? That the explanation would involve magic?

>>16782852
>the way you project your infinite entitlement is funny.
peak trolling

File: 1748830490609788.png (109 KB, 1536x2048)

109 KB PNG

>>16782854

>>16782855
You're not special and you don't deserve any special treatment. Whatever "help" you think society owes you for being the degenerate that you are, it owes me double for being among its more valuable members.

>>16782856
Not an argument :^)

>>16782850
I never said anything about not taking measures against people with aberrant behavior. That's not my point, I am not trying to advocate for that. As in the group should do something to stop that behavior.
My point was about taking certain actions that make for the least humans exhibiting such behavior. Root cause being experience+genetics, there's two aspects you can work on. Experience is easier to control to some degree, genetics way harder atm.
You can start kicking the car that's not running right until if makes you feefees better, but makes more sense to fix the assembly line such that you never have to kick the stupid built car that doesn't work as it should.

>>16782860
I know, it's undeniable you're a moron.

>>16782862
>I never said anything about not taking measures against people with aberrant behavior.
neither did i. so how do you objectively differentiate between these theoretical mental cripples and people who are simply getting what they deserve?

>>16782857
>I need damaged people to make me feel better about myself, please don't stop creating shit people so I have more value

>>16782863
See my earlier post for how brain chemistry explains how you were conditioned to make this post

File: 1727646284104186.png (146 KB, 777x656)

146 KB PNG

Call me a brainlet but I don't think it matters whether this reality is deterministic or not, from our perspective.

>>16782864
I was not talking about that, not sure why you keep insisting on it. Pay me if you want info on different subjects. Atm I'm offering free counseling on how to avoid manufacturing them, not what to do with the ones that have already been assembled.

>>16782866
I'm conditioned to state facts.