Do you think it's possible for women to feel love?

[endoftheskies]

Even in what you would call “pure” unconditional love, there exists a tacit set of contingencies since the person must remain the individual you recognize and value. This aligns with the sorites-like paradox I mentioned. At what point do changes in identity, behavior, or circumstance transform love from seeming unconditional to conditional? The closer you look, the harder it becomes to identify a truly unconditional love in a practical, meaningful sense.

Again, this would be fine if people existed continously, i.e there was an change into from A -> B -> C -> D. But your identity is how you existed at that very moment, and the very nature of your being which is contigent on labels, and how people recongize you as you. There is no point in changing one's identity, like your example suggested until one becomes irrecongizable. You exist with others, and others use that identity to identify you. Thus, unconditional love is the smallest identity which you can be recongized by. And such an identity does exist, which disproves your paradox.

 

[AtrociousCitizen]

You completely miss the point. I am talking about determinism as being abject and able to be calculated or accounted for. The simple truth is that the search space is too large and humans are incapable of being determined by casual phenomena for this to happen. I am not saying that emergent properties would violate laws of physics, but I am saying that emergent properties might have properties that contradict properties at the base level, due to their organization of their new logits of units which leads to new things. Your point about complexity is moot and is unnecessary. Again, human beings cannot be determined by casual phenomena, the simplest proof is that, human beings have an wide array of diverse beliefs, personalities and ideas, and have free will not being able to determined by most casual phenomena and conditions. Beings with two identical simliar conditions can have an different life or ending point, which leads to an inherent contradiction as any argument centering on determinism ought to realize.

This is irrelevant to the metaphysical claim of determinism. Determinism is a statement about how the universe evolves. Simply put, it does not require humans to predict every outcome, which means that, as I said, a system can be chaotic and computationally intractable, yet perfectly deterministic. Human thought, personality, or behavior is implemented physically in the brain. If emergent properties existed that violated physical law, it would imply non-physical causation, which is not the case. I wrote all of this in my previous reply, so it would be appreciated if you actually took the time to take in the things I wrote instead of accusing me of missing the point.

 

[Calamari Sun]

kek love is for Chad only

 

[endoftheskies]

This is irrelevant to the metaphysical claim of determinism. Determinism is a statement about how the universe evolves. Simply put, it does not require humans to predict every outcome, which means that, as I said, a system can be chaotic and computationally intractable, yet perfectly deterministic. Human thought, personality, or behavior is implemented physically in the brain. If emergent properties existed that violated physical law, it would imply non-physical causation, which is not the case. I wrote all of this in my previous reply, so it would be appreciated if you actually took the time to take in the things I wrote instead of accusing me of missing the point.

Determinism is not an statement about how the universe evolves. It is an statement of how systems evolve and can be changed in certain manners. Again, for an system to be deterministic, we ought to have it output the same values or achieve the same values on the same input, this is the smallest definition which encompasses most deterministic system, that given an set of conditions, that we should expect to reach A. At best, this is unknownable given the vastness of the search space involved, and at worst, this is contradicted due to the complexity and emergent properties of beings, Emergent non-deterministic properties can be evolved from deterministic process and insitutions, and cannot be reduced due to them, and without contradicting those micro-level processes. My argument is that cognotive functions and the simple non-determinism of the human mind do not posess an inherent contradiction to the micro-level processes which produce those upper layers, your argument is about epistemological non-determinism, the idea that we cannot fully understand systems governed by complex systems and complex patterns.

 

[endoftheskies]

This is irrelevant to the metaphysical claim of determinism. Determinism is a statement about how the universe evolves. Simply put, it does not require humans to predict every outcome, which means that, as I said, a system can be chaotic and computationally intractable, yet perfectly deterministic. Human thought, personality, or behavior is implemented physically in the brain. If emergent properties existed that violated physical law, it would imply non-physical causation, which is not the case. I wrote all of this in my previous reply, so it would be appreciated if you actually took the time to take in the things I wrote instead of accusing me of missing the point.

a bit tired of all of this talking and arguing.

 

[AtrociousCitizen]

Determinism is not an statement about how the universe evolves. It is an statement of how systems evolve and can be changed in certain manners. Again, for an system to be deterministic, we ought to have it output the same values or achieve the same values on the same input, this is the smallest definition which encompasses most deterministic system, that given an set of conditions, that we should expect to reach A. At best, this is unknownable given the vastness of the search space involved, and at worst, this is contradicted due to the complexity and emergent properties of beings.

It is a metaphysical claim about how physical reality evolves, independent of human knowledge or computational limits. Human calculation of outcomes is not necessary for determinism, nor being able to produce exact results; it only requires that all events follow physical laws.

Even if emergent properties can introduce novel patterns or behaviors, they cannot contradict the underlying physical laws without invoking non-physical causes. This is very basic physics and logic. You cannot undermine physics, which means that all human behavior (which are physical beings), is predetermined, since the laws of physics are predetermined.

 

[Xul]

I know its not

 

[AtrociousCitizen]

smallest identity which you can be recongized by.

What do you mean by this?

 

[endoftheskies]

It is a metaphysical claim about how physical reality evolves, independent of human knowledge or computational limits. Human calculation of outcomes is not necessary for determinism, nor being able to produce exact results; it only requires that all events follow physical laws.

Even if emergent properties can introduce novel patterns or behaviors, they cannot contradict the underlying physical laws without invoking non-physical causes. This is very basic physics and logic. You cannot undermine physics, which means that all human behavior (which are physical beings), is predetermined, since the laws of physics are predetermined.

Your argument is of that non-reductive physicalism and of epistemological non-determinism. My argument centers on the idea that that emergent processes cannot be reduced to an set of chemicals or chemical wirings, that they have certain properties and unique ones that at the higher level produce them. The non-determinism of humans, their inability to be categorized by casual phenomena. You have not yet shown the dualism required for non-physical causation. The bound does not go against emergent agency or does not suggest that emergent agency could just be reduced to an bunch of atoms and protons firing against them. My entire point is that the very complex systems that produce human consicousness are bound by physical laws but cannot be reduced to them due to their emergent natures and new features/applications, firstly, the search space is too large for it to be counted, and secondly, no such information would be viable nor would it contradict the free will and agency of humanity. For when reducing all human agency to chemical wirings or protons/neutrons, you lose all of the emergent properties undertaken by such an search.

 

[endoftheskies]

What do you mean by this?

Have you done real analysis before?(the math field)

 

[endoftheskies]

Your argument is of that non-reductive physicalism and of epistemological non-determinism. My argument centers on the idea that that emergent processes cannot be reduced to an set of chemicals or chemical wirings, that they have certain properties and unique ones that at the higher level produce them. The non-determinism of humans, their inability to be categorized by casual phenomena. You have not yet shown the dualism required for non-physical causation. The bound does not go against emergent agency or does not suggest that emergent agency could just be reduced to an bunch of atoms and protons firing against them. My entire point is that the very complex systems that produce human consicousness are bound by physical laws but cannot be reduced to them due to their emergent natures and new features/applications, firstly, the search space is too large for it to be counted, and secondly, no such information would be viable nor would it contradict the free will and agency of humanity. For when reducing all human agency to chemical wirings or protons/neutrons, you lose all of the emergent properties undertaken by such an search.

At this point, I will gladly concede the argument, for one, I just don't want this to keep going on and to be based on nomenclature and semantics at that point. Your prose is eloquent, and I admire it greatly. Thank you for your time and facing off against my criticisms and opposition against your ideology.

 

[dirlewanger88]

When they are tuned into a false sense of compassion

 

[Hoodpreet]

No, and the idea that unconditional love magically begins to exist at some threshold of looks is one of the stupidest and most corrosive ideas brought to this community by Tiktokkers.

Women don't even love their own children unconditionally; they could not love a man as such either. Look at what happened to Tom Brady, Steph Curry, or Ilia Topuria (the former being a pure Chad and the latter two being Tyrone & Chadshvili off of status respectively). Chad is only loved so long as a bigger fish doesn't show up

 

[LeFrenchCel]

Only for chads

 

[Copexodius Maximus]

I'm continuing in my quest to gather as much data about the .is userbase as possible (I'm a fed) and I'll report my findings in one large post when I'm done.

In spite of what the replies say, I'm STILL absolutely a glowie.

This question was insipired by my exchange with @Nicusor_delaBraila talking about NGU and his relationship with his wife:






You can see we didn't fully agree on the matter, so I thought it would be interesting to see what the rest of you guys thought, what your stance was.

Yes obviously Chad as stated above, but also especially for their offspring and blood relatives though.

 

[EnragedMestizocel]

Can a sociopath love?

 

[El Inhumano]

Reducing love to ‘only for Chads’ feels like an oversimplification of something that’s obviously more complex I feel

 

[nystagmuscel]

Women are niggers