[My current therapist doesn't feel like the right fit]

Thanks It felt really good afterward that I did it.

 

That is all that matters. If you aren't looking forward to seeing your therapist then you aren't sitting down with the right person. Although you are talking about very intimate things, keep in mind that they are professionals that provide a service for which you are a customer, and if you are dissatisfied then you are just as free to cancel on them as you would be for a dentist that you fear is doing a bad job on your teeth.

[RE: The Art of Penis Negotiation - Banning Bitcoin]

This would make that 1 bitcoin worth less than $900 dollars as the actuall usefulness (or possible future usefullness) to the consumer has been greatly decreased.

 

It's not like bitcoin is exactly mainstream at the moment. For the vast majority of people it is useless today (as they have no idea how it works or how to use it) so I don't see how banning it would make the situation worse. Now if it were banned, that would increase its value for those currently using it. The utility of transferring money electronically with minimal transaction fees is huge. I think the only reason it's not bigger is that many people see it as a scam or a bubble. If the government were to ban it (like Russia did) that would be an affirmation that it is a disruptive technology and criminals would be even more into it than they already are. 

 

The commodity of currency would be worth far less when its ability to freely be used as currency is hampered. Is this logical?

 

All things being equal, but they never are. You should be comparing a banned bitcoin to the dollar. A ban won't stop individual transactions, currency transfer, value store, etc. As people watch the price of things in dollars going up and the price of things in a bitcoin black market going down, which do you think they will gravitate towards?

 

 

I haven't heard the call yet so I'll come back after I hear the arguments in more detail but they seem pretty weak at first glance.

[Group conversation on infantilization]

Oh man this is cool, I like the spontaneous organizing here. I'd love to join you guys for a convo sometime! I have to agree that infantilization is worse than being neglectful, it's actively destructive in the same way that a vampire or leech feeding off your body and sapping your energy would be. The worst part is how subtle it is: If you challenge it you will hear something disarming like, "but I care about you, I just want the best for you!". It's much harder to process for the child and fight against.

 

The comment you made comparing the intelligence of infants to that of dogs struck a chord with me, because I always felt more like a pet than an individual with my parents. They did the bare minimum for me and would yell and hit when I displeased them. I have a cat myself that I feed and clean up after, and it makes me wonder why they bothered to have children rather than get an animal. At times he's loud and annoying if he wants something from me, but obviously I don't do much more than play with him a little and let him outside. He can be cute but that's pretty much the extent of what he's capable of bringing to the table. The parallels to my childhood are stunning.

 

(The McDonalds example was hilarious btw)

 

I'm off to watch Tangled now lol.

[Definition of free will]

A fly lands on my leg -> I choose to swat it -> it flies away unharmed

 

That's a causal story. The circumstances of the fly on my leg cause me to decide what I would like to do about it which results in the fly getting away because I missed.

 

Is this not causal? Of course it is. The idea that causality == determinism is not true.

 

And to use your example to explain what I mean specifically.

 

A fly lands on my leg > I am irritated and choose to swat it > I realize that if I swat it I will end up with a stain on my leg/pants (looking at future consequences) > I then decide to shoo it away rather than swat it

 

To the observer though, this process looks like:

 

A fly lands on my leg > I shoo it away with my hand

 

Determinists look at the last situation and say, "AHA! It's all causal. The fly landed on his leg and then he shoo'd it away". It's like, yes, he would never have shoo'd it away had the fly not landed on his leg beforehand, but that doesn't mean that was the only action he could have taken.

 

Am I explaining this clearly?

[What are you listening to right now?]

A chill tune.

 

[Definition of free will]

Okay, so how can you claim to have free will if all its inputs are from previous causes? What's free about it if what is you is simply the sum of various inputs along the causal chain? The post of yours I replied to seemed to confuse complex systems (e.g. memories, the perception of our own mortality, reason itself, etc) with free will. These things do not in themselves support a free will view, as it seems to me they all have inputs and outputs along the causal chain just like anything else complex.

 

All inputs are not from previous causes, that's what I've been saying this whole time lol. For human beings previous causes are one factor, a very strong factor obviously, but not the only one. Reason and imagination are examples of inputs that are not limited to prior causes alone, if they were then you could not actually call them reason or imagination. (you would say they are the illusion of thinking and creativity, because it is all the result of antecedent causes)

 

Those complex systems are what make free will possible and also distinct from the choices of other animals, I'm not confusing them for free will. I'm not sure what part of that was unclear, but let me know.

 

You are looking at the past and only seeing some of the events that led to a particular course of action. You aren't seeing all the possibilities that the human had considered before making their decision because those aren't visible. 

 

This is the argument as I understood it, actually. And that is only true for a conception of reason that relies on free will. Perhaps both are simply complex systems (a computer could of course say 'I don't have free will', if given the correct inputs). Anyway as we discussed earlier it seems to me that qualia do not preclude a non-free will position; I would say that the reasoning process, just like any other, has an input and an output, although I, or you, may not experience it that way (well evidently we don't).

 

If everything I do is the result of prior events, then any claim I make of choice or thought that is not determined by history is an illusion. Your computer example is great, because we aren't even under an illusion that they are thinking or reasoning when executing programs. We acknowledge that they cannot do those things BECAUSE they are given prior instruction through programming. So if we are given the same 'instruction' through prior causes, then we are no different from machines in that regard.

[Definition of free will]

It's pretty simple, really. Every thing that occurs in the universe, from an exploding supernova to my apparent decision in 6 words' time to use a comma, is part of this causal chain. In order to be consistent, we cannot exclude ourselves from the causal chain we observe. It doesn't matter how much forethought you think you can put into something, all those thoughts, all those firing synapses, are just part of a single causal chain. Unless, somehow, the essence of what is 'you' is somehow able to inject a thought from outside that causal chain. Basically, unless you can magic inputs into existence, you cannot possibly have free will.

 

So, yeah, your argument is easy to understand, but is inconsistent with the universe as we understand it. And as I've said before, determinism does not preclude complexity, again as is evident from the universe itself. Complexity exists all over the universe without any apparent 'will' to control it. Why would we be so different?

 

And yes I know this is superficially a performative contradiction or whatever. But, y'know, there can be truth beyond performance.

 

I'm pretty sure you just replied without reading anything that I posted, or at the very least skimming it. The whole point of my post is that this 'will' exists as part of the causal chain, not outside of it, so why are you strawmanning me?

If you believe whatever you believe because antecedent causes forced you to believe it, then it makes no sense to say that you reasoned it through. The reasoning is epiphenomenal in this case (as I describe in my previous post) and is not itself causal. So all you know is that you have beliefs with no satisfiable conditions of satisfaction.

 

If you are a determinist, then no, nothing is true. All your arguments are static on a TV screen.

 

This is the insane thing about determinism that its advocates don't seem to understand. If causality obliviates free will then reason goes down too, and if you can't reason then you can't know the truth anyway. I for one am not going to be talked out of possession of my own mind.  

The problem with this line of reasoning is that at best it suggests strong cause and effect and not actually determinism. If determinism is true, then we cannot know it because we cannot experience the world outside of our deterministic environment. For us to see that it is in fact deterministic, there would need to be some plane of existence that is higher than ours, i.e the God plane or Olympus, from which we can see all the dominoes that have fallen and all the ones that are going to fall. Simply put, the argument does nothing and is at best self defeating.

 

The worst part about it is that free will can't exist without a deterministic universe. There is no such thing as truly random or 'outside of causality', if there was then we wouldn't be debating it because matter would be too unstable and unpredictable to support us. The very consistency that allows us to be around is the same consistency that lets us predict the future and makes free will a possibility. And yet people point to time being linear and consistent as if that's an argument AGAINST free will. 

[Grandfather disowns his daughter for disowning her gay son]

But is it possible that the grandfather raised her peacefully and without religion, but as a free thinking human being, lets say she decided to join a church because she liked the charity aspect of it.  

 

What do you think is more likely, what you said or her being bullied and raised with religion? We don't know the reasons why of course, but if I were to bet on it, I don't think she was raised with peace and tolerance.

[Can a guy have female friends?]

I think this is the real heart of the matter. People's interpretation of the word "friend" is very broad.. We could use a few more words in the English language besides friend and aquaintance. Any ideas??  There is a huge difference between intimate and superficial friendships. I'm a lesbian and can't have intimate friendships with other women (no matter their sexuality) without being attracted to them eventually. At that point, if she's straight, the relationship has to end up being superficial. If it's another lesbian I'm close with, it would be insanity to just want friendship since it's rare enough to find another lesbian, much less one to feel comfortable with and relate.  I have some straight male friends, but they've told me that they'd be with me romantically if they could. It's easiest for me to have intimate friendships with gay men. So, yes, intimacy is a huge trigger for sexuality. At some point if you're in a friendship with someone who's gender matches your attraction, the natural process of deepening that relationship will lead to wanting more.

 

Thanks for the input. I don't have any lesbian friends so I'm going to correct myself based on this. I thought that perhaps if I saw the woman as 'unavailable' I might not be affected the same way, but it's probably just wishful thinking

 

You are right about the distinction between intimate and superficial, that is where the main disagreement is here.

[Definition of free will]

Yeah absolutely, that cleared things up for me too. I was just reiterating on what Searle was saying, that logically if the mind is a product of the body rather than something distinctly separate from it, then it must have some neurological basis in the brain. I see how my analogy could give the wrong idea though, maybe I can clear it up or create a better one.

 

Honestly, I have a hard time understanding consciousness as some weird artifact or by-product rather than an integral part of the "biological machine", so I hadn't considered the idea you mentioned (epiphenomenalism).

[What are you listening to right now?]

Here's something fun

 

[Can a guy have female friends?]

Some of it is my baggage, I'm sure, and having had a female therapist for the past (almost) 4 years, disclosing very personal things and sharing my insecurities and vulnerabilities, it's been loaded and complicated at times for me. But I have at least some idea of how much of that is my own baggage and where it's just reality.

 

Yeah things can get confusing there even when you know it's a professional relationship. Without that clear line of separation it's much worse.

 

Mostly I mean feeling attracted to someone who is not going to date me and trying to manage my own discomfort around that.

 

And the reasons why, right? Since if it's a temporary thing, like she thinks you have some issues to work out or aren't financially stable, these are things you can work to improve in the hopes that a future romantic relationship is possible. If it's something permanent like, "You just aren't my type" then that is going to be something that lingers in the friendship. I don't see how you couldn't feel awkward and miserable from that point on, to feel strongly for someone and have your feelings go unrequited for failing to meet her standards. 

 

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think anyone who says it wouldn't bother them is likely just telling themselves that it shouldn't matter, in a mistaken attempt to overcome their own nature. 

[Definition of free will]

For me free will means that in the past we were free to behave differently than we actually did. 

 

Yes of course we were. Had we made different choices it would have been a different past. Given the exact same history, circumstances, etc (if you could "rewind" time) the actions would also be exactly the same. Human beings are not random, I don't go from making breakfast one day to attempting to murder someone for sustenance the next. We use reason and logic to make decisions. And given all the exact same factors, we would make the same decisions, but that doesn't mean we have no control over our decision-making.

 

For example I bought my Nexus 4 smartphone because it met certain criteria, namely it was the best phone on the market at the time for the price. If I rewind time then my criteria for choosing a phone would be the same, and the Nexus 4 would have the same characteristics, so naturally I'm going to choose it again. That's not the same as not having any choice. (I could easily change my criteria and therefore my resulting choice, or I could be influenced by a new phone coming out that meets my criteria better)

 

Now since you can't actually rewind time, that's not a useful way to look at it. Any change you make (including repeating the same action a second time under similar circumstances) is going to affect the future outcome. What I'm saying is, since you can never ever get the exact same conditions (even thinking about it changes the variables) what you are saying seems to have no relevance to the real world.

 

Free will is about looking into the future to anticipate where we will be and using that information to guide our actions to a particular end, through our ability to conceptualize. If we did not have our abstract thinking capacity then we would be looking at the next 20 minutes trying to figure out where to get the next banana from, like other apes.

 

However, since we can think in terms of lifetimes, our will is free relative to other animals. Our capacity for choice/planning/etc is greatly enhanced by this ability. 

 

 Of course, nature is interactive, and the conscious intentions are part of the casual chain.

 

I don't think you understood my point in saying that. Since a rock is reactive, the way it interacts with causality is very limited and relatively easy to predict. Once you add another dimension to it like with biological organisms, you get interactivity, which is another mode of relation to causality. Now, not only are you affected by prior causes, but you can actually BE a cause in a direct sense. Animals obviously take it to another level with their memory capacity and limited intelligence, the natural result of which is expanding the pool of possible actions based on their greater prior history and capacity for future planning. 

 

And human beings take it to the most complex level we know of atm: We are able to conceptualize things like time and act accordingly, to compare our states to possible ideals, which results in a limitless potential for action. (well, limited by our imagination at least) This is why we call that capacity free will and why animals do not have it. It's just a term to explain what we see which clearly separates us from other beings. It describes the result of an obvious phenomenon, a higher order of intelligence. There is no magic or mysticism involved, but at the same time human behavior is not determined like a rock. (we would need to be purely reactive in order for that to be the case)

[Moral rules and (non) enforcement]

For example, person X attacks person Y, is generalized to: a human being imposes his personal preference on another human being, based on the assumption that the difference between the two human beings is not ethically relevant. 

 

Oh well yeah. It takes specific instances and generalizes them into principles. If you don't do that then what you have is not a moral rule, just "Here is what I did in Y situation". 

 

I expect a standard to be either:

a) applicable for a specific goal, for example a safety standard: if you want to be safe, then do this.

b) applicable regardless of our goals, so a moral standard, such as: don't steal.

But to say a standard fulfill the goal of being compliant, then this does not give us any information about the standard, because it is true for any standard.

 

The standard applies to the goal of being good, but morality itself is not being good but a description of the rules that distinguish it from evil. 

 

The UPB theory of Stef in the UPB-book seems to imply it.

"The proposition before us is thus: can some preferences be objective, i.e. universal? ............. Thus when I talk about universal preferences, I am talking about what people should prefer, not what they always do prefer." (p.33)

From the little truths of “I should not murder” we can get to the great truths such as “the initiation of the use of force is morally wrong.” (p.96) [emphasis added]

If his theory does not intend to imply a moral obligation, then I have really misunderstood him.

 

If you keep reading that bit on page 33:

 

Thus when I talk about universal preferences, I am talking about what people should prefer, not what

they always do prefer. To use a scientific analogy, to truly understand the universe, people should use the

scientific method – this does not mean that they always do so, since clearly billions of people consult

ancient fairy tales rather than modern science for “answers.” There is no way to achieve truth about the

universe without science, but people are perfectly free to redefine “truth” as “error,” and content

themselves with mystical nonsense.

 

 

In other words, if your goal is to understand the universe, then you should use the scientific method. In the same way that if you want to be good, you should do X. There is no obligation to be moral though.

[Definition of free will]

I've probably just misunderstood, but I think I disagree with your analogy here.

 

I actually spend about 40+ hours a week writing javascript, which I love, and if I understand it rightly, it's a literal reduction all the way down to the bit. The same javascript always produces the same bits. Unless, maybe, you're using new Date() or Math.random(). I don't know enough about computer science to say...

 

Well by my analogy I meant that all conscious functions are caused by neurological processes, that they are not separate things but the same thing translated to a higher form. (mind/body problem) The bit perfect part is you taking my analogy too far hehe. (I'm not saying that it can't be reduced to that level since I obviously don't know, but I doubt it maps 1:1 like computer code does)

 

John Searle's point is that, unlike javascript, consciousness is irreducible to the actual synaptic firings. There are neuronal activities which enable people to experience the color red, but the actual conscious experience of the color is not literally reducible to whatever neuronal subsystems that are involved in vision.

 

Looking into a pool of water and seeing a straight metal rod appear to be bent, is something we can check to see if the perception is the reality: that the rod is in fact not bent, but straight. We can't, however, do this same sort of check with consciousness itself. This is not a matter of just not having the right tools, it's actually to do with the nature of consciousness. You can't, for example, say that I'm not seeing red when I am. The perception as it relates to reality may be an illusion, but the actual conscious experience: red, is not an illusion, it just is.

 

Hmm, this seems to contradict what I heard in the video but I may be misunderstanding something. Starting at 5:57, Searle says the following:

 

I think that has a simple solution too, and I'm going to give it to you. And here it is: All of our conscious states without exception, are caused by lower level neuro-biological processes in the brain, and they are realized in the brain as higher level or system features.

 

Oh oops I see in my prior post I said consciousness when I should have said conscious functions. I think I get what you mean now. I'm not saying that all of consciousness is encapsulated in a particular part of the brain, but that the various parts that make up consciousness are reducible. Does that make sense?

 

 

 

Determinists seem to claim that a reducible account from consciousness to neuronal activity is possible here in these gaps, and thus free will is an illusion.

 

Well I think more specifically their claim is that not only is it reducible to neuronal activity, but that this neuronal activity is necessarily determined by antecedent causal factors in the environment and nothing else, and that's why free will/choice is an illusion. The first point I'm more inclined to agree with (to some extent it has to be, even if its not a 1:1 relationship since the mind is not separate from the physical body) but the second is just silly.

 

And that's why any account of determinism that is simply "the universe is causal" is a red herring and does not actually address free will at all.

 

Yeah that's what I was talking about at the end of my longer post. This is really obvious just looking at the existence of life. (which is not just reactive but interactive) 

[What are you listening to right now?]

Another beautiful instrumental piece by Oskar Schuster.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmdkHv5fYvc

[Libertarian Police Department]

“Not yet. But mark my words: we’re going to figure out who did this and we’re going to take them down … provided someone pays us a fair market rate to do so.”

 

“Easy, chief,” I said. “Any rate the market offers is, by definition, fair.”

 

 

Ok, that was hilarious.

[A little LOL]

Lol, I like the "O" face. Judging by that I'd say she's looking at college loans.

[Grandfather disowns his daughter for disowning her gay son]

The only thing I'm unclear about is how the mother is prejudiced against gays here while the grandfather is not. I assume it's a religious thing where they are picking different parts of the bible to take seriously, and in that case the grandfather is just as culpable for infecting his daughter with that brand of mental illness. 

[Malls empty in Venezuela as economic woes bite]

I am so conflicted hearing stories like this. On the one hand I feel awful for the people who have to suffer under these conditions, but on the other hand you would think that after seeing the results of this war on price, people might be more clear on the causes of their economic trouble.

[Definition of free will]

[John Searle Videos]

 

Great videos. I love how he explained conscious functions as a low level neurologically based processes being translated to some higher level form. I always viewed it that way as well but I thought of it in terms of programming. Look at machine code vs a high level computer language like python or javascript. The higher level instructions mean the exact same thing as the translated machine code, but we wouldn't call them the same thing, because one is human readable and the other isn't. In the same way I look at conscious processes as corresponding to lower level neurological activity in the brain, but in a form that is advantageous to us if that makes sense.

[Definition of free will]

Hey, you know, that may be a great description of free will as we experience it - the continual input and output from person to environment could well be what we call free will. But even given that - the reciprocity as you called it - the causal chain is still linear. I mean, it can't be any other way. The arrow of time only goes in one direction.

 

But as you say, we can very well describe the complex interplay between what we call a person and its environment to be free will. That it is still operating in a linear causal chain (again, which is must do) precludes the existence of a free will outside of that chain.

 

Intelligence I would suppose is a different arrangement of neurons impacted by given environmental factors. Just like all these other qualia. None of these things is necessary 'spared' by determinists. What determinists assert, in short, is that we do not in fact have choices. This does not preclude the existence of complex systems.

 

I had to take a break from this thread to avoid a mental breakdown but I really wanted to address this. What about the linearity of the causal chain precludes free will? Again, I just don't understand where this line of thinking is coming from. The linear aspect is what makes free will possible!@#!

 

Time goes one way, yes, absolutely, but since it has a predictable consistency we know that and can plan for that, we are able to affect causality by interacting with it differently. A rock has past movement altering its future course in the present, but we can predict how events will unfold and guide our actions accordingly, in addition to being guided by past experiences. And unlike other animals we can do it in an abstract way, which is how we are aware of our own mortality. (and which gives us a much more advanced capacity for planning) Why is that hard to understand? 

 

And No no no no. Choice is a requirement for human intelligence. The ability to make choices implies the ability to anticipate causality. We make decisions based on expectations and plan in order to bring those expectations to fruition. If choices were ephemeral, how would planning work? Clearly part of intelligence has to include keeping track of choices relative to our plans. If our choices weren't recursive in this way, how would we ever succeed at anything beyond simple tasks? (I'm talking about the shallow form of planning that a chimpanzee requires for simple tool-making compared with the depth of planning required for building a motherfucking space shuttle)

 

I believe the difference between a calculator and a human is consciousness, not free will. Consciousness is what is required for the type of understanding you described.

 

Oh I love this. So free will is an illusion because you know, brain chemistry + causality and stuff, but no, consciousness isn't! How are things like consciousness and reason exempt from causality then? If they are just as determined as choice, then how they not also illusory? You can't pick and choose what phenomenon you like as exempt from this rule, let's have some consistency here...

 

So it basically comes down to consciousness, matter, and energy non-deterministically causes the future?

 

I believe the one thing I still don't get how a non-deterministic cause can have no element of random to it.

 

The universe is deterministic/causal (i.e. predictable) but we are aware of that and can use that to our advantage (due to time being linear). Human beings are not random. Think of it in terms of a purely random number generator vs a pseudo-random one that uses various seeds to improve the randomness of the results. The former does not exist, we are of the latter type, and the seeds we use to generate our pseudo-random decisions come from the past, our present state, and our imagined future. (even our attempts to make changes influence the future changes we attempt to make) What makes us special relative to other animals is just our ability to abstract and how that widens the pool of possibilities available to us.

 

The main problem that occurs in debates like this is when you assume that just because the universe is deterministic, that everything within it responds to causality in the exact same way. The very fact that life exists contradicts this idea, and yet determinists plow on in apparent ignorance of this crucial point.

 

 

 

Btw, I think I'm going to periodically return to this thread just for the humor of it.

[Moral rules and (non) enforcement]

What the UPB theory shows is that some preferences, when generalized in a certain way, cannot be universalized. If UPB wants to be a valid ethical theory, then aspects that are ethically relevant should not be generalized away.

 

UPB is not an ethical theory. It is a framework for evaluating ethical theories using logic. I have no idea what you mean by "when generalized in a certain way". 

 

You imply morality is optional in two senses:

1) it is possible to violate the moral imperative. I agree, it is not physical law.

2) the moral imperative applies only if you want to be good. I disagree. It are especially those that do not want to be good, that need the moral imperative.

 

An imperative is when you declare an action to be necessary. A moral imperative certainly exists if your goal is to be good, but what is the basis for a moral imperative (for morality to be necessary in other words) when you do not have that goal?

 

I see the same problem of circularity here (morality ~= virtue ~= goodness).

 

I'm not seeing circularity at all. Can you explain that a bit better?

 

Morality = The standards/principles/rules that distinguish between right and wrong

Virtue/Goodness = Behavior in accordance with those moral standards

 

So one word describes the standards themselves, while the other describes behaviors that follow those standards. 

 

If the implication of UPB is not intended to be a moral obligation (an "ought"), what would you say are its implications for our personal life or for society?

[facts] --derivation--> [uPB content] --application?--> [our life]

So this question is not about the derivation or content of UPB, but about its application.

 

Where are you getting the idea that UPB results in a moral obligation? The application of UPB is evaluating proposed moral theories for basic consistency. 

[Can morality exist without people?]

You hit the nail on the head, but didn't you mean no and no?

 

Lol yes I did. Thank you for the correction.

[Vengeance and out sun bathing the lizard. Sociopathy is nothing to Envy]

Reminds me of what Stefan always says about repressing emotions, that you can't selectively choose what emotions you want to experience, it's all on or off like some huge lever. I didn't think about that in terms of sociopathy, what they must also be losing along with their conscience. Definitely going to be avoiding these people as much as possible.