Then refute them.

Can you imagine this 98 IQ schlub going toe-to-toe with Peterson on a debate stage. Christ, that would be a massacre.

This is completely wrong, and you missed the entire point of relativity. Einstein showed that two events spatially separated can never be objectively interpreted as occurring simultaneously. The entire perception of time depends on the observer. Thus, it is not absolute. Seriously. For some reason, you don't listen to my explanation, and your ego is getting in the way, so go ask your physics professor. Otherwise, I will find a reference and leave it for you to read. I don't see how you are stll claiming this notion of absolute time makes sense. Also, if you are talking about something that can't be perceived by any observers, then that's beyond the realm of scientific inquiry. So I can't say anything about those things except that you need them to be mathematically consistent.

Well, is it a persons fault for being made the way they were? Should someone take credit for their blessings in life?

The fact you came into this thread with such a stance, suggests to be that you don't want/like the idea of this possibility being how things are, which hits right at my entire point of how I think some people want to delude themselves into believing something, for whatever the reason may be.

But anyway, there's too much momentum built up in the direction of you focusing on my username, and myself being a victim for us to have a discussion on the topic... though for the record, my username was meant as a source of self inspiration for myself

He was wrong about it. There is no absolute time. Not sure if srs...

I think he's talking about some kind of underlying, unobservable, preferred structure of how things "really" are. I have no idea. We can't observe that anyway. We observe relative time.

You seem to be emotional about me questioning someone you hold dear. I'd suggest you question your idols. Peterson is someone who I like, but he's saying things that are just simply not good arguments. And I won't just go along with what he's saying because I like the guy.

Let's start with what he said about moving a hand, and how we cannot decide to just stop the movement of our hand because there's so much momentum. By that statement alone, it's clear to me that he's overlooking, or is just unaware of the fact that the idea of determinism goes much deeper than that...

It's not that he doesn't just have no "free will" to stop the movement of his hand simply because of momentum... with the idea of determinism, it's literally that he had no choice in whether he would begin to move his hand or not in the first place.

He also has this idea that freewill is much more limited in the present than it is further out into the future... again he's ignoring the fact that with the idea of determinism, there's nothing you could do, no action you could possibility make, that would change what was essentially "destined" to happen from the moment of the big bang, to "the end of time"

I'm open to ideas here, and something that needs to be pointed out here... I personally will continue living my life as if I have free will, I will act as if my "will" is not of this universe or constrained by it... because there's always a chance we don't know what the fuk we're talking about.

And I cannot be certain of anything, for all I know there's something vital we're overlooking... but Peterson's examples used to refute free will are really not good at all.

But ur will to pick up a pen was the sum of everything youve done and been a part of. Think thats the argument for determinism. If everything isnt random, then u can determine what will happen after. It is like rewinding an explosion, and each piece of shrapnel, sound, etc will go back perfectly. If given the same exact variables, everything will be exactly the same. So even after being awared on said subject ur like Ill now have free will. Determinism will say, everything that will happen is already in the process of happening. Will is determined by physical properties, such as structures in the brain and chemicals giving thought. Will is not outside of the physical.

Things like this:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riet...utnam_argument

Illustrate that the "present" state of the universe depends on the observer.

Well said, yeah... that's the idea of it. Pretend that explosion were to happen again with everything being in exactly the same place... would any piece of shrapnel end up in a different place compared to the first explosion?

And we are like those pieces of shrapnel, our trajectory destined to go exactly a certain way, is what determinism argues. Even if we say “well i have free will! And determinism will not change that!”, that was already determined by a culmination of all the variables already in place.

I never said an amount of determinism doesn't exist. You are dealt a card in life through your genetics and your upbringing. You don't have a say about either of those things. But where you and the determinists faulter is failing to understand it is your choice as to what you can do with the cards you've been given.

You can be born with chit genetics and a chit upbringing, but use discipline, persistence and hard work to reach a level of success and wealth. Or, you can be born with an incredibly high IQ and a great childhood, and do nothing with it and never amount to anything.

like lucifer said, the world is not technically deterministic because there are random fluctuations at the quantum layer, and the quantum undergirds all the layers that emerge from it. when you have trillions and trillions of quantum particles, the random fluctuations average out so that on a macro level we very rarely get deviations from the predictions of newtonian mechanics.

but the randomness is still there from a scientific perspective.


some people argue with sam harris' position that there is no free will by saying that our 'self' that chooses our actions operates off of quantum mechnanics so isn't shackled to the determinism that comes with newtonian mechanics.

this isn't a substantive point because randomness of our thoughts and decisions doesn't mean they arose due to free will. by definition they were random and so were not chosen. it's like saying a dice has free will.
you're essentially saying that two men can respond differently to the same stimulus, therefore free will exists.

the conclusion is a non sequitur. two different men have completely different brains at the moment the stimulus was applied, therefore they chose different responses to it. if their brains were the same, if their neurochemistry aligned completely, they would have chosen the same response (e.g. both be hard working).

we know that thoughts are determined by the brain's activity, science has shown this beyond shadow of a doubt. however - even if science hadn't shown this, the problem of free will is solvable with just pure logic. i wouldn't even say logic, but common sense. how on earth could you choose a thought before you think it? and if you don't choose thoughts before you think them, how do you have free will?

Determinist would say it doesnt matter what carss you were dealt. Because both the cards and what you decide to do with those cards is already determined. The variables that lead you to do, or not do, with with your given cards, were already in place and the choice to do or not do, is an illusion. “Choice is an illusion, created by those with power, and those without.”

This is exactly my POV. 100% agree.

Almost everything you just said is predicated on things that cannot be proven. Free will is easily demonstrated.


sl;kdfjklsdjglkjdlgjsdfjsdlkfjl;skfjwfkjw;

Did I have to type that? What was the purpose of that? There was none. I decided to do it.

Your brain computed to respond that way in response to stimuli...

you 'feel' like you decided to do it. but our illusions about the world don't always align with reality. read my response to your post above.

It's not the easiest thing to grasp, but for example, you know when you know a thing or two about lifting... or in your case, bjj, and then some new person starts talking about the subject, and you know they don't really know what they're talking about... but they themselves are convinced they know what they're talking about? Well that's you right now in regards to the idea of determinism, I don't know how much thought you have put into it, but it's clear from how you talk about it that you don't really "get it" yet.

What the 3 of you are doing is defining determinism in such a way that it is not falsifiable. Your definition of free will cannot be proven because you define it that way.

another way of viewing the free will argument is the following :

the feeling that we have free will gives us a huge amount of evolutionary benefit. the reason is because it is the concept that reinforces the justice system that every successful society in the history of the world has had.
this is because the idea that someone else has the free will that you do creates hatred for that person when they do something harmful. you believe they chose their actions, so whatever it is choosing their actions deserves to suffer.
for example, someone mugs your mother or sister and stabs them. you want this guy to suffer and go to jail to be buttraped by tyrone because you assume he chose this action. in historic times you would have been more likely to seek revenge and rid society of this 'monster', and therefore done society a HUGE benefit all because you THINK we have free will.

so free will drives hatred (wishing other people to suffer) so easily, and that is why it was so useful evolutionarily.

but in reality that man who attacked your sister didn't choose his brain state that made him want to do that. if you assume he didn't have free will, why would you want anything other than for him to be cured of his evil mindset, and live a long and happy life? if your best friend was afflicted by a brain tumour and his personality completely changed so that he started misbehaving, you wouldn't want him to suffer for it, it's not his fault right? you would therefore want him to be rehabilitated and happy. well, a brain tumour is just a crude example of a genetic & environmental stimulus that determines your brain state and therefore your actions. noone is more culpable for their actions as your best friend was for his.

thing is, the illusion of free will was necessary to bootstrap the functioning of societies. it got the idea of justice off the ground. but it isn't required for the system to run. we want to get rid of things that are dangerous to society because they will create harm. this doesn't necessitate that you believe the thing has free will. we want to stop floods, earthquakes, tornados. we would remove them from society if we could and we don't posit that they have free will. similarly, we can remove criminals from society on the basis that they are likely to act like they have again, without positing that they have free will either.

in fact, free will is actually maladaptive for a truly ethical worldview. free will creates RETRIBUTIVE justice. it makes you want someone tosufferfor their actions, because theydeservethe pain - theychosetheir actions after all.

i'm always more suspect of beliefs if they are useful, especially evolutionarily beneficial. because a useful belief will be believed and propogated regardless of whether it is true or not (e.g. religion is incredibly useful)

in a way this is an argument against free will because it there is such a strong reason evolutionarily for why we would develop the illusion that it exists.




when an assertion isn't ultimately testable, you can still move along the spectrum of likelihood of that assertion being true. on one side the chance of it being true is 99.99%, on the other side the chance that it is false is 99.9%.

we do this with things like god's existence. i can't prove that god doesn't exist but the empirical and logical evidence is such that i am 99.9% sure he doesn't exist.

you didn't respond to our arguments btw.

How is it easily demonstrated?

That's not what I said at all. I said that two men can respond to two different stimulus in opposite ways that contradict the determinist narrative.

Man A) Chit genetics, chit childhood. Works hard, makes good choices, exercises discipline. Makes something of himself and acquires a degree of success and wealth
Man B) Great genetics, great childhood. Lazy, unmotivated, entitled, resentful. Makes little to nothing of himself.

These are two OPPOSITE stimuli, not the same.

There's two differences between man A and man B
Difference 1 is self evident. The first made good CHOICES while the other did not.
Difference 2, man B has much greater potential than man A because of his genetics and childhood. The glass ceiling on what he can achieve if he makes good choices is much higher than man A.

There is a degree of determinism that exists. You are dealt a genetic hand of cards in life. But your ability to make the most of them is on you.

I could find you counter examples to Man A and man B. Someone that has great genetics and a great childhood that is incredibly successful or someone that has chit genetics and a chit upbringing that fails miserably. The difference between all 4 of these people is their choices.

If your definition of "free will" is a mind that exists outside of time and space and therefore receives no stimuli but can make decisions anyway, then again I assert you're proposing a definition of free will that by definition cannot be proven. You're taking the cards off the table; much like a theist who's definition of God cannot be proven.

Simply observing that stimuli exist is not irrefutable evidence of absolute determinism. Also, there is not a fixed outcome of any given stimulus. This is the main difference between animals and men. Animals operate off of pure "instincts": pre-determined reactions to a given stimulus. Ex: if your dog is a retriever breed. You throw a ball. It is compelled to go after it and pick it up. It's genetics compel it to do so.

Humans on the other hand have a choice as to how they respond to a given stimulus. You're in a fight with your woman. She slaps you across the face. You feel the anger and violence welling up inside of you. Your instinct is to meet physical force with greater physical force. In a split second, you make a choice to remove yourself from the situation and let the both of you cool off. You had a choice in HOW you responded to the stimulus.

I did it in post 75. I type something completely random for no reason what so ever other than to do it; to show that it can be done. I could be making bizarre facial expressions right now as I'm typing this; again, for no reason whatsoever other than me choosing to do so.

Won't be enough, it's gonna take him a while, but this is the learning process that is required for him to get it

No, it is because you entered this thread and wanted to prove randomness.

I never asserted that free will is the ability to act outside of influence and I'm not aware of any philosopher that has tried asserting as much. I am not saying the mind is free of influence. Obviously there is a tremendous amount that influences what we do. But influence =/= absolute determination. It only influences the choice that we ultimately make in a given moment.

I mean, look at the language you're using. It would appear to me even you believe in free will. You're talking about "that shows your decision making process is a continuation of what came before". You acknowledge a decision making process. Just because previous experience informs future decisions, it does not follow that therefore free will doesnt exist. You use previous experience to make better choices going forward. Our brains are hard wired that way for pattern recognition.

Again, i am not saying no degree of determinism exists. I freely acknowledge that it does; in tandem with our decisions/choices/will

I agree with everything in this post. I think we may be getting wrapped around the spokes on this on the semantics.

My definition of free will isnt that your choices are completely independent of all influence, only that you DO have a choice. Every action and reaction is influenced by stimuli, not determined by them.

Do you people regularly post in the general misc proper? I'm not really familiar with a lot of the names here, and the intuitive discourse on philosophical sport is surprisingly fluent.

Anyways, I'm watching this video now and this guy doesn't seem to be undermining determinism at all. I don't know what OP's problem is with what he's getting at.

prolly knows more about it than your gay bitch azz

Generally avoid the misc misc these days and just post in the crypto threads. Any attempt to have meaningful conversation on the misc is typically met with ad hominems and general retardation.