/general/ | /photos/ | /projects/

- [Home] [Catalog] [Search] [Thread List] [Manage]

[Return]
Posting mode: Reply
Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Link
Subject [
Comment
File
Password (for post and file deletion)
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG
  • Maximum file size allowed is 12000 KB.
  • Images greater than 200x200 pixels will be thumbnailed.

No.8053  
What many people see as 'fate', can be reinterpreted as 'Genetics' and 'Environmental conditions' of a person, and in ways, fate is just a way to encapsulate that idea in layman's terms.

Humans are animals. Just like any animal, how 'successful' they become is affected by their genetic makeup and the conditions they live in. That 'success' could be defined in many ways, from 'being able to run faster' for a horse, to 'having lots of money' for a human. But if you look at it in strictly biological terms, 'success' is ultimately either increasing the probability of survival or reproduction.

Humans are exceptional creatures because they have free will. What is meant by free will? One could say free will is 'being able to go against the whim of your genetics and environment'. For example, when a person is on a diet, they use their willpower slim down. When people exercise free will, they oppose the circumstances imposed on them by their genetics and environment.

Let us use the previous example of a fat guy slimming down. His genes program his body to feel painful hunger when his belly is empty. If he were any other non-intelligent animal, he would go look for some chow, but fat guy is a human and knows better than that. Later, he becomes thin, and girls generally prefer skinny men as partners, increasing that man's probability for reproduction.

However, one could argue that the man ultimately does not exercise free will. One, he slims down with the purpose of increasing his probabilities of reproduction, which is a desire encoded in our genes. Two, the intelligence and information that gives him his free will, is itself encoded in our genes, a product of millions of years of evolution. In other words, his free will is imperfect.

What constitutes perfect free will, then? One could say being completely freed from the tendancies that our genes impose on us. If the beforementioned fat man had perfect free will, he would be just as likely to leap off a cliff or eat his own leg, as he would diet. To us, perfect free will is meaningless or stupid. The concept of doing something that does not increase our chances of survival or reproduction is incomprehensible to us. The ultimate cause of free will imposes restrictions on us which help us survive- otherwise we would have been wiped out by stupid things such as leaping off cliffs long, long ago.

Humans have so much potential in them, but don't notice or don't bother to work on it. Donald Trump, Albert Einstein, Michael Jordan and the average person have fairly similar genes. Yet, the difference in success between the average person and the first three is gigantic. Yes, their environment had a part to play in their success, but it was largely how well they exercised free will that led to their success. You could be as rich, smart or strong as you wish to be, so long as you had enough discipline to do it.
>> No.8054  
>If the beforementioned fat man had perfect free will, he would be just as likely to leap off a cliff or eat his own leg, as he would diet.

So your argument is that lacking a sense of self-preservation constitutes a lack of 'perfect free will'? That we have to completely disregard survival instincts to be truly free?
Sounds like suicidal talk to me.
>> No.8055  
People leap off cliffs and die every year.

You're dumb and whoever you got this from is, too.
>> No.8063  
>>8054
Depends on what you think is perfect free will. I would say perfect free will is to be able to do anything within your physical capabilities without hindrance.

>> No.8064  
>>8063
Name me one thing that's within your physical capabilities that you could not do due to lack of free will.
>> No.8066  
Success has nothing to do with free will. It depends on who you are and how lucky you get.

Besides, Donald Trump, Albert Einstein and Michael Jordan became great via completely different methods.
Trump recognised how to entertain people. Einstein wrote down his theory of relativity and was lucky enough to have Eddington back it up with the experimental evidence he would never have gotten round to himself.
Jordan learnt how to play well.

None of them are really 'free will' cases.
>> No.8067  
Outliers is a fairly relevant book.
>> No.8077  
Intelligence < Hard Work < Luck
>> No.8079  
Hard work is nothing without direction, and that comes from intelligence
>> No.8158  
>>8077
Hello, this is Anežka´s superego speaking. You are a twat.
>> No.11050  
this logic is stupid.... according to your thinking I fail at life since I dont want kids EVER ... not everyone needs a kid or needs to reproduce to survive...

surviving to me is live to an old age and pass on quietly in my sleep..
>> No.11051  
File: neji-hyuuga.jpg -(46.5 KB, 640x480) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
47612
There is no such thing as free will.

Your choices are determined through chemical processes in your brain.

You think you make choices, but in any given situation, you would never make a different choice than the choice you make in that situation.

Free will is just an illusion.

If you would receive the chance to do your entire life over again without keeping the knowledge from your current life, if you grow up on the same environment and face the same situations, you will make the same choices as you have in your current life.

You think you make the choices, but you are bound to make the choices you make, and the mind only tricks you into believing the illusion that you made that choice.

There is no such thing as free will.
>> No.11060  
>>11051

Cool straw man argument, bro.
>> No.11068  
>>11060
How is it a strawman argument? It's a direct refutation of the base of OP's argument.
He argues that you can become succesful by exercising your free will well enough. I'm refuting that by denying the vary basis of the argument: humans have no free will, therefore they cannot exercise it to become successful.
>> No.11080  
>>11068

But your not denying free will. All that post said was that if everything was the same, everything would be the same. If no new information or stimuli existed then, yes, it is unlikely our lives would be any different. Doesn't change the fact that we exercised our decision making abilities, our 'free will', to make the choices we did.
>> No.11084  
>>11080
Let me put it this way: You have no choice in what choices you make. You just agree to them. No matter how many times you would get the choice, under the same circumstances, you could never make a different choice. The chemical processes in your brain tells you to make that choice, and you can't do anything else.

Sure, this also means that the choices are made for you in the way you would want them to be made, so you would agree to every choice. But you could never have made any different choices than the choices you made; you are bound to the choices you are made to make by fate.

That is the illusion of free will. You think you make the choices, but you never had the possibility to make any other choices than the ones you are fated to make.
>> No.11088  
>>11084
So common sense, foresight and reasoning are all caused by chemical reactions in the brain?
The reason I don't go to my kitchen, pick up the biggest knife and go on a murderous rampage isn't because I know it's a completely retarded thing to do, but because the chemical composition of my brain is different to that of a mass-murdering psycho?

You're talking shit.
>> No.11090  
>>11084

Yeah, this is entering 'God exists' territory. You say free will doesn't exist, I say it does. Neither of us can prove the other wrong so it just comes down to a matter of belief. I like to believe I have control over myself, and that what you spout is self-serving nonsense designed to give people an excuse for their shortcomings and failures.

But thats just, like, my opinion man.
>> No.11091  
>>11088
YES!
>> No.11092  
>>11088
Actually...that's basically why.
>> No.11093  
>>11088
Then how do you explain mental disorders? When a person's brain is damaged, they can become completely different people. In certain cases, they even become insane. Was their free will knocked out of their bodies or something?

Your brain makes your decisions for you based on the information you have (stored in your brain) and the emotions you feel (regulated by the hormones in your body). You just watch and agree with your "own" decisions as you live your life.

>>11090
Except there's proof of this, and as neuroscience advances more and more, it becomes more and more clear that everything in the brain is regulated by chemical processes, not your will. At the point neuroscience is currently at, it's safe to say we have confirmed this, and we're only delving into the details about what processes cause which reactions from the brain.

For a long time, people have thought that your will causes the brain to do things, but it has been the opposite all along; your will is shaped by processes in your brains, not the other way around.
>> No.11096  
So if I go downstairs right now to make a drink, you're saying that chemicals will decide whether I make a cup of coffee or grab a can of coke?
That the composition of molecules in my body has already decided which drink I shall be slaking my thirst with, and my choice does not come in to it at all?

What if I don't go and get a drink at all and sit here thirsty instead?
>> No.11097  
>>11096
Yes and no. If beforehand you were thinking, 'I want coffee' or 'I'd like to have a coke', then it has already decided. If it hasn't, it waits until it has enough information to make a proper judgment. The moment you feel like you have decided is the moment when your brain has decided for you.

Even if you do not go get a drink, that was a choice your brain had already made for you.
>> No.11098  
>>11097
If there's no free will then why do we punish murderers and rapists?
They had no control over what they were doing, it was all the chemicals in their brain's fault; we should treat them as the victims and offer them counselling instead, right?
>> No.11099  
>>11098
We should punish them so it instills in them a fear of punishment if they take the same actions again. This fear will make the brain less likely to repeat those decisions, as according to its new information, it will lead to negative results.

The fact that there is no such thing as free will doesn't invalidate anything in psychology, as the 'something happens to person' -> 'person responds in a certain way' relations remain.

They had no control over it, but if left unpunished they are too likely to repeat their crimes, therefore we must punish them.
>> No.11100  
File: WHAT DID I DO.png -(545.2 KB, 800x600) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
558256
>>11098
Also, if you are trying to play the 'we punish them because they ARE EVIL' card, every crime has a motive. Nobody sane would murder somebody just for fun, something pushed them over the edge. They may be less of a victim than the actual victim, but the very fact that there was something that pushed them over the edge makes them victims in a way as well.
>> No.11105  
>>11100

You might've contradicted yourself on accident. You started saying every crime has a motive, but then say that nobody sane would murder another for fun. So really it's anyone who is sane has a motive for crime. This is an important distinction because sanity is still fairly vague and difficult to judge when someone is sane for acts of crime. This is also saying that anyone who doesn't have a motive must be insane, closing the ears on any counterargument.

Motive can also hazy. Is this a premediated, X commits a crime directly because of Y, or does is it including things like growing up in a bad environment but not necessarily a direct reason? The military provides training for the explicit and glorious purpose of having someone kill another person, does this also count as pushing someone over the edge into insanity or does this count as motivation? Not every soldier really cares about defending their motherland.

Last, we do have some desire to murder another for fun. Videogames, a major entertainment media, rake in oodles of money on this premise. Of course the virtual avatars aren't real people and it would take an extra push to commit a real murder. There are just two things I'd like to question; if we didn't depend on each other to survive and there were no crimes against it, would murder be mentally acceptable for us and if it takes motivation to murder another for fun then shouldn't we have some natural aversion to shell $50 for games that are all about murdering without real motivation?
>> No.11106  
File: 1280877193740.jpg -(23.3 KB, 400x400) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
23820
>>11105
>This is also saying that anyone who doesn't have a motive must be insane, closing the ears on any counterargument.
Yes. The very absence of a motive in a murder marks insanity. With 'insanity' I mean the person cannot control his or her own actions. A sane person needs a reason to kill; however, there are people who cannot control themselves and kill people without thinking about it. That is insanity. An insane person is by default a victim of insanity.

>Motive can also hazy. Is this a premediated, X commits a crime directly because of Y, or does is it including things like growing up in a bad environment but not necessarily a direct reason? The military provides training for the explicit and glorious purpose of having someone kill another person, does this also count as pushing someone over the edge into insanity or does this count as motivation? Not every soldier really cares about defending their motherland.
Anything counts as a motive, and 'poor, no childhood, etc' never leads someone to kill another person - it may only weaken a person's aversion to the idea. In the end, there is SOME trigger that pushed him over the edge - be it losing their job, having their partner divorce them or even just simple insults. Something happened that hurt the person deep enough for him or her to commit murder. They were hurt before they hurt others, even if their reaction was out of proportion or aimed towards the wrong people.

>Last, we do have some desire to murder another for fun. Videogames, a major entertainment media, rake in oodles of money on this premise. Of course the virtual avatars aren't real people and it would take an extra push to commit a real murder. There are just two things I'd like to question; if we didn't depend on each other to survive and there were no crimes against it, would murder be mentally acceptable for us and if it takes motivation to murder another for fun then shouldn't we have some natural aversion to shell $50 for games that are all about murdering without real motivation?
Yes, we are naturally excited by (simulations of) life-or-death situations. However, any sane person would know the consequences of killing another person, which is the reason why there needs to be something to push them over the edge to commit a murder. By committing murder in this society you are not only taking a life, you are also practically throwing your own life away. To make that sacrifice, you must have been deeply hurt; a victim.

Your example is unrelated in this case. If people had absolutely no use or need for other people, then yes, there wouldn't be a barrier for murder, and people would kill even without a proper motive, as life-or-death situations are just exciting. However, in this society, you will face severe repercussions if you murder somebody, hence making it possible for only the most deeply hurt of people to commit a murder. Only a victim would be desperate enough to throw their own life away to take that of another.
>> No.11115  
>>11106
None of this disproves the existence of free will.
Mentality is not strictly chemical, regardless of your beliefs; the person who takes to the streets and murders someone because they have been 'pushed to far' has made a choice to do so somewhere along the line, it is not due to his brain's composition changing subtly due to stress.
>> No.11127  
>>11115
Except that post was aimed to the possible notion that criminals are not victims, not to the main topic of free will not existing, so it doesn't prove anything at that point.

For the free will not existing point, see other posts in this thread. Enough has been said about that, I think. Only people who are in denial (i.e. most of the world) can not conclude there is no such thing as free will.


Delete Post []
Password