Do any of you guys have interest in philosophy?

[Epicenter]

I dont need to see that.

I already know we men r programmed to surpass our known limits. We do it everyday, from the moment we r born, then crawl, then staggered around awkwardly to walk and then finally able to run.

Is it free will in that context? No. It is a program, our genetic program.

But the mind, it's ability to think, to analyse and explore what is, what's unknown and what's yet to be, is a choice you make within that program.

As I've said before, why didn't u choose to sell drugs for a living ? Or why don't u eat human flesh or even worms ? (Some society would consider this delicious).

Because it is a choice and that is free will.

But I do recognise that for the vast majority of men, they do not exercise this right.

Look at all the moaners in this forum, suppress their minds a little and they'll start to crumble, moan and cry.

As far as I can see you agreed that we are robots. Robots can not have a free will. It acts according to its programming. It has a range of options like a car that is controlled by its AI. Because of different situations every AI evolves different.

If you think humans or men are different than robots then I don't agree.

The reason why I am not eating worms is because of my programming I had no choice. Robots have different programs and they face diffent environments. I have been programmed by my environment and genetics.

On a bigger picture I probably don't know anything with my small monkey brain probably all that is here is basically an illusion.

Life is monkey business

 

[Epicenter]

The difference is a man can change his mind. He can observe and extrapolate. He can build a city or virtually anything in his mind and make it happen.

The fact that we are programmed by a suppressive society doesn’t mean a fixed condition and that he is doomed to fate.

However, if you don’t know you are running on a survival program that starts recording, even in the womb, to potentially bring about your survival based on environmental input, you can’t change it. Nobody in this thread said it was a snap or even remotely easy.

If you are an animal, then I should consider you a swamp rat? Animals can’t build things in their mind and then build it in the real world. Beavers or dogs don’t make things outside their stimulus response minds. No beaver can build a simple dog house and no dog can build a lodge.

That dog won’t hunt.

It's all human narcissism. People thought computers can't beat men in chess. Now men are on the level of chimps against computers.

Humans are chimps with a slightly bigger brains. That's it. That does not make men outside of cause and effect. Men are bound into this chain. Thoughts have to come from somewhere. You don't have control about what thoughts come to your mind. Things just happen like the solar system. It happened. It did not create itself with free will.

Men are robots (animals) though quite weak and stupid ones.

 

[Epicenter]

Hahaha. You’ve been reading some seriously goofy shyt. People are not fixed conditions. Now go fail more soundly. Carry on.

This might suit you better:

 

[Epicenter]

This might suit you better:

Didn’t even look at or watch it. I don’t have any holes in my thinking as it pertains to this. Let’s do an experiment. All you have to do is answer two questions with simple well thought out answers.

Why can’t a dog build a dog house and why?

Why can a man start with nothing but an idea, design it, then build it and have it contribute to his survival and the survival of his species and how does that work?

If you can’t answer them, then you are a fake. If you think you can answer them, then make sure you post an observable tried and true experiment to verify.

Because men have more intelligence in some areas. It is the answer to both questions.

Why can't men beat computer in chess? Because computer have more intelligence in some areas.

Humans barely survive. All the time humans are on the edge of a nuclear holocaust or another way to kill himself. Men can't be happy because men are pathetic chimps. It is a pathetic life full of misery and suffering. What does building anything help humans when they are miseralble c..ts?

 

[Travel memoir21]

Solomon's proverbs/wise sayings in The Bible, KJV, is a good one.

I go back to it from time to time.

 

[Epicenter]

Hahaha. Indeed you are. But you flunked. Those are pretty apparent for anyone to see. You can bark up any tree you want. Anyone here since what 2005 must be the supreme authority. Hahaha. You are Dismissed.

At least I answered your stupid questions. That is quite charitable from my part.

 

[Chamber36]

Interesting my old thread gained so much traction

I am reading Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged right now. Gigantic book. Must say you can tell it's written by a woman, it really reads like a novel, and the characters are all black and white. Its a good read though if you want to know how the mind of an ambitious altruistic person works.

I want to read Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Crime and Punishment and Meditations by Marcus Aurelius next. Along with that I will be reading my standard game books too. Just to optimize myself mentally.

I wonder... do we:

1. Find happiness and satisfaction within ourselves.
2. Follow our dreams and become the Übermensch, surpassing the commonfolk (also a Randian idea, I think).
3. Just work hard and make a lot of money.

I think the answer is somewhere between 1 and 2. I am sure I'll find the answer within the books I mentioned.

 

[Spaz]

As far as I can see you agreed that we are robots. Robots can not have a free will. It acts according to its programming. It has a range of options like a car that is controlled by its AI. Because of different situations every AI evolves different.

If you think humans or men are different than robots then I don't agree.

The reason why I am not eating worms is because of my programming I had no choice. Robots have different programs and they face diffent environments. I have been programmed by my environment and genetics.

On a bigger picture I probably don't know anything with my small monkey brain probably all that is here is basically an illusion.

Life is monkey business

This will be a complicated process to explain or even expand on.

But on some level, no, more like on many level u r correct.

For women, it is with 100% certainty that despite what they say or do, they always fall back to their basic programming = the feminine imperative.

For men, it is a bit complicated there. If I would take a ballpark figure, I'd say up to 97% of men in one form or another are just going abt doing their programming.

The 3% that has transcended their minds will think beyond much of everyone else.

These are the creators of era's, culture's, scientific breakthroughs, etc.

Were they born into that role and thus genetically wired, yes and that influenced how they think which is a choice aka free will. They could think of something else and didn't achieve much or they choose something else and achieved a lot.

Hence the reason why I keep on posting this :-

Ur inherent personality (and ur upbringing) + how u think + how u do things (or act) = true results.

The results of anything is achieved through the above process, each influences the other to ultimately produce ur desired results or the results u witness daily in ur life.

If the results is not satisfactory then a man should then look at how he thinks to influence how he does things, am I right ?

After all you cannot change ur inherent personality (ur genetics) nor ur upbringing.

If u do agree with the above formulation on how results is achieved then you would know that freewill is a choice and man makes that choice even when he's influenced by his genetics, but then base on the above formulation, he could also change course should he decides to, is it not also true ?

However if u do not agree with the above formulation, do state why or what is wrong.

 

[Epicenter]

Interesting my old thread gained so much traction

I am reading Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged right now. Gigantic book. Must say you can tell it's written by a woman, it really reads like a novel, and the characters are all black and white. Its a good read though if you want to know how the mind of an ambitious altruistic person works.

I want to read Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Crime and Punishment and Meditations by Marcus Aurelius next. Along with that I will be reading my standard game books too. Just to optimize myself mentally.

I wonder... do we:

1. Find happiness and satisfaction within ourselves.
2. Follow our dreams and become the Übermensch, surpassing the commonfolk (also a Randian idea, I think).
3. Just work hard and make a lot of money.

I think the answer is somewhere between 1 and 2. I am sure I'll find the answer within the books I mentioned.

I wanted to make a thread myself but I thought I go for yours so it does not feel too narcissistic that is why your thread came alife.

There is no standard model for happiness. Probably there is not much happiness but a lot of suffering. I would go with Epicurus but people are different. So you have to try to figure out what kind of person you are. Like a mouse in lab you have to experiement. Books alone are not enough.

 

[Epicenter]

This will be a complicated process to explain or even expand on.

But on some level, no, more like on many level u r correct.

For women, it is with 100% certainty that despite what they say or do, they always fall back to their basic programming = the feminine imperative.

For men, it is a bit complicated there. If I would take a ballpark figure, I'd say up to 97% of men in one form or another are just going abt doing their programming.

The 3% that has transcended their minds will think beyond much of everyone else.

These are the creators of era's, culture's, scientific breakthroughs, etc.

Were they born into that role and thus genetically wired, yes and that influenced how they think which is a choice aka free will. They could think of something else and didn't achieve much or they choose something else and achieved a lot.

Hence the reason why I keep on posting this :-

Ur inherent personality (and ur upbringing) + how u think + how u do things (or act) = true results.

The results of anything is achieved through the above process, each influences the other to ultimately produce ur desired results or the results u witness daily in ur life.

If the results is not satisfactory then a man should then look at how he thinks to influence how he does things, am I right ?

After all you cannot change ur inherent personality (ur genetics) nor ur upbringing.

If u do agree with the above formulation on how results is achieved then you would know that freewill is a choice and man makes that choice even when he's influenced by his genetics, but then base on the above formulation, he could also change course should he decides to, is it not also true ?

However if u do not agree with the above formulation, do state why or what is wrong.

Ur inherent personality (and ur upbringing) + how u think + how u do things (or act) = true results.

There is no 'freedom' in any of these elements. For example how you think is not under your control. The deal is done in your subconsiousness. When you look deeper there is no 'you'. The 'you' is just a concept. Your brain is basically full of neurons who do their thing that is following laws of nature or maybe acting randomly but there is no 'freedom' for them to act the way they 'want'. The result is 'you'. 'You' are the game that is programmed by nature. The 'you' is as real as a computer character.

Nothing in the world has any real 'freedom'. In normal life when we talk about freedom we think about technical limitations that is relative freedom but not absolut freedom.

I probably butchere the terminology. These guys should be better at it:

Is 'free will' an oxymoron?

Is it important to check our definitions? E.g., Is the term 'free will' a misnomer or oxymoron (e.g., 'cold fire')? I.e., How can a 'will' actually be 'free'…

onlinephilosophyclub.com

Is 'free will' an oxymoron?

• Quote

Post by Dan_1985 » July 12th, 2016, 5:19 am

Is it important to check our definitions? E.g., Is the term 'free will' a misnomer or oxymoron (e.g., 'cold fire')?

I.e., How can a 'will' actually be 'free' - and free of what?

'Will' assumes an agent with preference while 'free' suggests independence of cause or condition. How can you coherently combine the two? If an agent performs without depending on preference, is this 'will'? Is to have 'will' not to be free (like to be fire is not to be cold)?

The notion of freedom is troubling because action would be spontaneous: not depending on anything, things would just happen (there would be no need for will). Yet, the fact that a decision occurs at one time and not another suggests that there is will (or some causal trigger).

Furthermore, if a function of an agent were capable of being performed spontaneously (or freely), then 'will' would be both senseless and endless. There would be no point in acting because those actions could perform themselves, and thus occur ad infinitum. It would also be pointless to say that the action 'was performed' because the inferred agent would be redundant. The action I need to first perform in order to be considered an agent depends on me first being an agent in order for it to be considered an action.

 

[SargeMaximus]

I love philosophy and Alan Watts. For me, I’m very practical tho so things like “The Emperors Handbook” and even “How to win friends and influence people” are no good since they may be practical but they are gonna turn you into a beta if you follow them.

 

[Epicenter]

Talking about chimps

 

[Spaz]

Ur inherent personality (and ur upbringing) + how u think + how u do things (or act) = true results.

There is no 'freedom' in any of these elements. For example how you think is not under your control. The deal is done in your subconsiousness. When you look deeper there is no 'you'. The 'you' is just a concept. Your brain is basically full of neurons who do their thing that is following laws of nature or maybe acting randomly but there is no 'freedom' for them to act the way they 'want'. The result is 'you'. 'You' are the game that is programmed by nature. The 'you' is as real as a computer character.

Nothing in the world has any real 'freedom'. In normal life when we talk about freedom we think about technical limitations that is relative freedom but not absolut freedom.

I probably butchere the terminology. These guys should be better at it:

Is 'free will' an oxymoron?

Is it important to check our definitions? E.g., Is the term 'free will' a misnomer or oxymoron (e.g., 'cold fire')? I.e., How can a 'will' actually be 'free'…

onlinephilosophyclub.com

Is 'free will' an oxymoron?

• Quote

Post by Dan_1985 » July 12th, 2016, 5:19 am

Is it important to check our definitions? E.g., Is the term 'free will' a misnomer or oxymoron (e.g., 'cold fire')?

I.e., How can a 'will' actually be 'free' - and free of what?

'Will' assumes an agent with preference while 'free' suggests independence of cause or condition. How can you coherently combine the two? If an agent performs without depending on preference, is this 'will'? Is to have 'will' not to be free (like to be fire is not to be cold)?

The notion of freedom is troubling because action would be spontaneous: not depending on anything, things would just happen (there would be no need for will). Yet, the fact that a decision occurs at one time and not another suggests that there is will (or some causal trigger).

Furthermore, if a function of an agent were capable of being performed spontaneously (or freely), then 'will' would be both senseless and endless. There would be no point in acting because those actions could perform themselves, and thus occur ad infinitum. It would also be pointless to say that the action 'was performed' because the inferred agent would be redundant. The action I need to first perform in order to be considered an agent depends on me first being an agent in order for it to be considered an action.

Freewill is a higher level activity that can't be captured nor explained away by merely stating genetics or a few videos supporting ur views.

The formulation i gave u previously clearly states a conscious choice one makes on a variety of possibilities - that choice alone is freewill.

 

[Epicenter]

Freewill is a higher level activity that can't be captured nor explained away by merely stating genetics or a few videos supporting ur views.

The formulation i gave u previously clearly states a conscious choice one makes on a variety of possibilities - that choice alone is freewill.

For a chance that free will exists 'you' have to exist but 'you' don't exist. There is no 'you' or 'I'

 

[Spaz]

For a chance that free will exists 'you' have to exist but 'you' don't exist. There is no 'you' or 'I'

Karl marx tried that and the commie states failed miserably, why ?

Because men have free will, thats why.

 

[Epicenter]

Karl marx tried that and the commie states failed miserably, why ?

Because men have free will, thats why.

For thousands of years people believed stupid stuff you know why? Because humans are animals. Animals want basically food f..k and make kids. The more humans learn the more depressed they become because animals are not created to be smart. They want to live like chimps playing around and having a bit of fun and not studying math for 20 years.

 

[Spaz]

For thousands of years people believed stupid stuff you know why? Because humans are animals. Animals want basically food f..k and make kids. The more humans learn the more depressed they become because animals are not created to be smart. They want to live like chimps playing around and having a bit of fun and not studying math for 20 years.

And how exactly does this prove ur contention that freewill is not freewill but a set of programmes?

What u subscribe to is best described as determinism or indeterminism, akin to what happens in nature and throughout the known universe, and somehow u applied this to human higher level of thoughts.

 

[Epicenter]

And how exactly does this prove ur contention that freewill is not freewill but a set of programmes?

What u subscribe to is best described as determinism or indeterminism, akin to what happens in nature and throughout the known universe, and somehow u applied this to human higher level of thoughts.

Why would you believe that you are not part of nature? You are not much different than a rock. Just some atoms or quarks doing their thing.

Even on a basic level animals feel more 'free' than people as they 'follow their nature'. Men seem to be like fish out of water. Quite depressing.

 

[Epicenter]

Thus the murderer acquitted and not really guilty. Pedophile’s are acting per their instincts and not guilty. Racism is inherent in white people via genetics. and people are production robots. Races should be exterminated. Etc. Hahaha

You are talking to a Bolshevik incarnate.

Pedophiles act on their instincts so do the guys who jail or kill him. What is the problem?

 

[Epicenter]

Philosophy is like an annoying rabbit hole.

No matter how deeply you delve into a subject, there's always a 'deeper meaning', or somebody has a 'more interesting' take on the subject.

Just shutup and eat your gelato.

Yes it is annoying. living like a dog is actually more fun at least in theory.