Everything is predetermined

[Reclusemaxxer]

Your entire life was predetermined from the moment you were conceived there’s no such thing as free will there is only fate and you can’t change your fate no matter what you do you’ll only be prolonging the Inevitable that’s why I gave up because I’d be a mad man to keep trying knowing that I’ll never succeed at this rigged game called life

 

[Copexodius Maximus]

It was determined from at least the Big Bang, if not before.

 

[Liptusg]

u got a source for that info?

dedicated to the new information philosophy

Problems in Philosophy and Physics Solved?

www.informationphilosopher.com

Determinism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yes, he does. It's literally the scientific consensus of every single physicist.

 

[Reclusemaxxer]

u got a source for that info?

My life is proof that free will doesn’t exist cause if it did I wouldn’t be a lonely reject rotting in his room everyday

 

[Liptusg]

ACHKSUALLY that's fake news sweaty

Foiled by IT yet again, I can't believe it.

 

[Deleted member 42964]

Well, that's a very religious absolutist view on life. The truth is the future doesn't exist, so it's not predetermined. For something to be determined, it has to exist. The future does not exist. You do choose what to do. There's no such thing as a superior force that determines your actions.

 

[Reclusemaxxer]

Well, that's a very religious absolutist view on life. The truth is the future doesn't exist, so it's not predetermined. For something to be determined, it has to exist. The future does not exist. You do choose what to do. There's no such thing as a superior force that determines your actions.

Well, that's a very religious absolutist view on life. The truth is the future doesn't exist, so it's not predetermined. For something to be determined, it has to exist. The future does not exist. You do choose what to do. There's no such thing as a superior force that determines your actions.

Determinism is the reason we’re here

 

[Deleted member 42964]

Determinism is the reason we’re here

You were not determined to exist. Also, if everything is predetermined, nobody can be held responsible for their actions, so murderers shouldn't be punished because free will does not exist and they had no choice in the matter. Of course, I'm not saying murderers should be punished. I do not believe in the value of human life and I believe murder is morally justifiable, but my point is that if things are predetermined, people aren't responsible for their evil actions either.

 

[Liptusg]

Well, that's a very religious absolutist view on life. The truth is the future doesn't exist, so it's not predetermined. For something to be determined, it has to exist. The future does not exist. You do choose what to do. There's no such thing as a superior force that determines your actions.

Religion invented the meaningless, undefined concept of "free will", Determinism is the scientific consensus. How did you even manage to be so uneducated as to reverse the two?

The future doesn't exist, so nothing is predetermined.....Right. So whenever I pick up a rock and release it 1000 times in a row, it could move up, or right, or left, or down, and nobody can say it's course has already been determined, because future does not exist. Makes sense,

 

[Quarantined]

nah there's such a thing as luck, like winning the lottery or other things
but otherwise yes

 

[Liptusg]

You were not determined to exist. Also, if everything is predetermined, nobody can be held responsible for their actions, so murderers shouldn't be punished because free will does not exist and they had no choice in the matter. Of course, I'm not saying murderers should be punished. I do not believe in the value of human life and I believe murder is morally justifiable, but my point is that if things are predetermined, people aren't responsible for their evil actions either.

He absolutely was determined to exist. Throwing your statements in the air does not make you right, you need to have some slight understanding of what you're talking about. Do you have any clue as to why Adequate Determinism is the consensus of the vast majority of scientists?

>nobody can be held responsible for their actions

Correct.

> so murderers shouldn't be punished because

Murderers are jailed for utility and societal stability. The legal system is fundamentally a utilitarian system, even if part of that utilitarianism is satisfying the subjective emotions of various human claimants. Do you need to blame a mousqito for its actions in order to swat it?

 

[Deleted member 42964]

Religion invented the meaningless, undefined concept of "free will", Determinism is the scientific consensus. How did you even manage to be so uneducated as to reverse the two?

The future doesn't exist, so nothing is predetermined.....Right. So whenever I pick up a rock and release it 1000 times in a row, it could move up, or right, or left, or down, and nobody can say it's course has already been determined, because future does not exist. Makes sense,

Correct, it hasn't been determined. Of course, we could also enter a semantic war of the meaning of the war "predetermined", but if the future doesn't exist, there's no such thing as a predetermined result to your experiment. First of all, because you are the one choosing to make the experiment.

On the other hand, religion also talks of "God's plan", which is exactly what you are defining here. According to religion, God has the blueprint for our lives drawn up. He creates people and he is omniscient. Therefore, he knows what every person he creates is going to do beforehand. Therefore, free will is nonexistant. Religion created the concept of God's plan, which is exactly the same as your determinist philosophy on essence.

 

[Liptusg]

nah there's such a thing as luck, like winning the lottery or other things
but otherwise yes

Your so-called 'luck' and the predetermination of particle chain reactions ( AKA the whole universe ) are not mutually exclusive. The winner of the lottery would always be the same winner no matter how many times you 'rewind' the past, because the chain of events that led to him stopping by the lottery booth/store that day and for the right card to have been present at that time because several other people already picked the right amount of wrong cards.

It's just the the Lottery winner ha s no *foreknowledge* of the determination.

 

[Deleted member 42964]

He absolutely was determined to exist. Throwing your statements in the air does not make you right, you need to have some slight understanding of what you're talking about. Do you have any clue as to why Adequate Determinism is the consensus of the vast majority of scientists?

>nobody can be held responsible for their actions

Correct.

> so murderers shouldn't be punished because

Murderers are jailed for utility and societal stability. The legal system is fundamentally a utilitarian system, even if part of that utilitarianism is satisfying the subjective emotions of various human claimants. Do you need to blame a mousqito for its actions in order to swat it?

"Do you have any clue as to why Adequate Determinism is the consensus of the vast majority of scientists?" I don't care what's the consensus of the vast majority of scientists. I speak for myself and not scientists. Just because somebody is a "scientist" doesn't mean he's right. Look at scientists from a couple centuries ago and see they weren't right in many things. I don't care for the "scientific consensus"

And yes, I do agree the legal system is utilitarian. It is also based on dogmatic quasi-religious moral subjective rules accepted by society, such as right and wrong, and it classifies in an authoritarian arbitrary way certain actions as right or wrong.

 

[Liptusg]

Correct, it hasn't been determined. Of course, we could also enter a semantic war of the meaning of the war "predetermined", but if the future doesn't exist, there's no such thing as a predetermined result to your experiment. First of all, because you are the one choosing to make the experiment.

On the other hand, religion also talks of "God's plan", which is exactly what you are defining here. According to religion, God has the blueprint for our lives drawn up. He creates people and he is omniscient. Therefore, he knows what every person he creates is going to do beforehand. Therefore, free will is nonexistant. Religion created the concept of God's plan, which is exactly the same as your determinist philosophy on essence.

I notice that you are avoiding the question, because you are well aware that you have done practically zero research on the subject - Do you know why adequate determinism, if you would just google it, is agreed upon by the vast majority of scientists? If you comprehended the physics involved, we wouldn't be having this conversation. This is less about an appeal to authority than the fact that in this case, the scientists in authority have actually studied the rationale and empirical deduction of the universe's working way, way more rigorously than you have and arrived at the only observable conclusion.

>"Correct, it hasn't been determined"

It has absolutely been determined because effect can only follow from the cause. ( The cause in the dropped rock's case being the angle of your hand and gravity ) The cause determines the effect, and every cause is preceded by the effect of another cause ( Butterfly Effect ). Secondly, you keep using the word 'choose' and 'choosing', but I can bet you a million bucks that you would never be able to empirically define any of those words. Thirdly, most religionfags are not Calvinists. God being a tyrant is not contradictory to their belief in human "free will". Humans under Pharaoh's rule can think the same thing.

 

[Deleted member 42964]

My life is proof that free will doesn’t exist cause if it did I wouldn’t be a lonely reject rotting in his room everyday

I mean, when saying that you are referring to something that is out of your control. You don't decide if other people reject you. There's other things over which you have control, don't you?

 

[Deleted member 39864]

dedicated to the new information philosophy

Problems in Philosophy and Physics Solved?

www.informationphilosopher.com

Determinism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yes, he does. It's literally the scientific consensus of every single physicist.

In your first link, at the bottom it says that adequate determinism is a requirement for free will.

So your first link by no means says that free will doesn't exist.

 

[Liptusg]

I mean, when saying that you are referring to something that is out of your control. You don't decide if other people reject you. There's other things over which you have control, don't you?

This notion of "control", which by the way has no discernable definition and no objective properties other than being a linguistic phantasm, is devoid of meaning. People who refer to 'control' without thinking about the mechanics behind it too much probably believe that, for example, the OP has 'normal control', and clinically retarded low-functioning autist who screams at the ceiling all day or someone old coot with dementia has 'less control', and a cat or an ant has 'minimal control' or 'no control' at all.

In reality, in the actual physical world, all three operate under the exact same laws of physics and have no more or no less 'control', in fact, the control does not exist at all. If the believer could extrapolate his understanding of a jellyfish or a lion's causes of behavior and actions to humans, they would be on the right track.

There are neurotransmitters, there are impulses, and there's the environment, and they're all just engaged in an ongoing chain reaction that began since the Big Bang. I shit and pee and drink and eat because my brain sent the compelling impulse. I notice things that my retina happened to focus on at any given second due to light, primal imperatives, and so on. I think and talk about the things I think and talk about due to highly complex, imperceptible, yet very present DNA-coded neural functions which were developed from primordial communication and pack socialization behaviors.

If I "decide" to get up and go fishing right now instead of continuing to chat, that's because 5782 different factors related to my energy levels, my brain's attentiveness, neurochemical balance, and the input I'm receiving has prompted me to do so.

 

[Liptusg]

In your first link, at the bottom it says that adequate determinism is a requirement for free will.
View attachment 640850

So your first link by no means says that free will doesn't exist.

My bad for linking it then, I just copied the first result, but it seems to be more of a pop philosophy collage and made some errors in conflation, ones which are not repeated in Wikipedia or the scientific magazines. I'll very concisely explain the source of their error too: If you click the 'Requirements' link, they'll assert that one of the requirements for free will is for indeterminism ( aka the opposite of Determinism ) to be true. Then they will assert that because adequate determinism is a branch of determinism which concedes the possibly of indeterminism in quantum physics, but not in macrophysics ( Which is in itself, by the way, just a theory that still competes with ones like Superdeterminsim for example in explaining quantum mechanics ), then that means "free will" requires adequate determinism rather than strict determinism.

The flaw in their logic is that no neurologist or scientist ascribes any role to quantum physics in organisms, which function as macro-constructs composed of immutable particle whose underlying subatomic framework is irrelevant, and also the fact that the randomness of quantum mechanics is in itself contradictory to 'control' or 'free will'.

Again, the specific websites does mix up its semantics. Wikipedia and other more prestigious publications don't present it that way.

Determinism | Definition, Philosophers, & Facts

Determinism, in philosophy and science, the thesis that all events in the universe, including human decisions and actions, are causally inevitable. Determinism is usually understood to preclude free will because it entails that humans cannot decide or act otherwise than they do.

www.britannica.com

>"Determinism in this sense is usually understood to be incompatible with free will, or the supposed power or capacity of humans to make decisions or perform actions independently of any prior event or state of the universe. Philosophers and scientists who deny the existence of free will on this basis are known as “hard” determinists."

>"In contrast, so-called “soft” determinists, also called compatibilists, believe that determinism and free will are compatible after all. In most cases, soft determinists attempt to achieve this reconciliation by subtly revising or weakening the commonsense notion of free will. Contemporary soft determinists have included the English philosopher G.E. Moore (1873–1958), who held that acting freely means only that one would have acted otherwise had one decided to do so (even if, in fact, one could not have decided to do so), and the American philosopher Harry Frankfurt, who argued that acting freely amounts to identifying with or approving of one’s own desires (even if those desires are such that one cannot help but act on them)."

Note that 'Adequate Determinism', which is 'Determinism with caveat for subatomic mechanics' in the field of physics, is not equivalent to Soft Determinism, and even the most famous Soft Determinists are mostly just mincing words while admitting that "Well, those humans couldn't help but act on their desires anyway, buuuut I'll just call that free will"

And one more from Scientific American which goes into it:

Is Free Will an Illusion?

Don't trust your instincts about free will or consciousness, experimental philosophers say

www.scientificamerican.com

 

[Saint Cho]

That phrase has been my profile signature since I joined this forum.

 

[Deleted member 39864]

My bad for linking it then, I just copied the first result, but it seems to be more of a pop philosophy collage and made some errors in conflation, ones which are not repeated in Wikipedia or the scientific magazines. I'll very concisely explain the source of their error too: If you click the 'Requirements' link, they'll assert that one of the requirements for free will is for indeterminism ( aka the opposite of Determinism ) to be true. Then they will assert that because adequate determinism is a branch of determinism which concedes the possibly of indeterminism in quantum physics, but not in macrophysics ( Which is in itself, by the way, just a theory that still competes with ones like Superdeterminsim for example in explaining quantum mechanics ), then that means "free will" requires adequate determinism rather than strict determinism.

The flaw in their logic is that no neurologist or scientist ascribes any role to quantum physics in organisms, which function as macro-constructs composed of immutable particle whose underlying subatomic framework is irrelevant, and also the fact that the randomness of quantum mechanics is in itself contradictory to 'control' or 'free will'.

Again, the specific websites does mix up its semantics. Wikipedia and other more prestigious publications don't present it that way.

Determinism | Definition, Philosophers, & Facts

Determinism, in philosophy and science, the thesis that all events in the universe, including human decisions and actions, are causally inevitable. Determinism is usually understood to preclude free will because it entails that humans cannot decide or act otherwise than they do.

www.britannica.com

>"Determinism in this sense is usually understood to be incompatible with free will, or the supposed power or capacity of humans to make decisions or perform actions independently of any prior event or state of the universe. Philosophers and scientists who deny the existence of free will on this basis are known as “hard” determinists."

>"In contrast, so-called “soft” determinists, also called compatibilists, believe that determinism and free will are compatible after all. In most cases, soft determinists attempt to achieve this reconciliation by subtly revising or weakening the commonsense notion of free will. Contemporary soft determinists have included the English philosopher G.E. Moore (1873–1958), who held that acting freely means only that one would have acted otherwise had one decided to do so (even if, in fact, one could not have decided to do so), and the American philosopher Harry Frankfurt, who argued that acting freely amounts to identifying with or approving of one’s own desires (even if those desires are such that one cannot help but act on them)."

Note that 'Adequate Determinism', which is 'Determinism with caveat for subatomic mechanics' in the field of physics, is not equivalent to Soft Determinism, and even the most famous Soft Determinists are mostly just mincing words while admitting that "Well, those humans couldn't help but act on their desires anyway, buuuut I'll just call that free will"

And one more from Scientific American which goes into it:

Is Free Will an Illusion?

Don't trust your instincts about free will or consciousness, experimental philosophers say

www.scientificamerican.com

Well, they point to a single soft determinist, G.E. Moore, he doesn't necessarily say "they couldn't help but act on their desire". Technically, he says, they were free and "even if". So that points to two scenarios.

1. Humans are acting on their desires, and they are such that they can help but act on them.
2. Humans are acting on their desires, and they are such that they cannot help but act on them.

So, he doesn't necessarily narrow it down to scenario 2 only, you seem to be trying to argue that though.

Furthermore:

It's literally the scientific consensus of every single physicist.

How many physicists have ever existed in the history of the world? You claim every single one of them? How do you know there aren't any that disagreed with determinism? Do you have the names of every single physicist, and evidence of all their beliefs?

 

[Liptusg]

Well, they point to a single soft determinist, G.E. Moore, he doesn't necessarily say "they couldn't help but act on their desire". Technically, he says, they were free and "even if". So that points to two scenarios.

1. Humans are acting on their desires, and they are such that they can help but act on them.
2. Humans are acting on their desires, and they are such that they cannot help but act on them.

So, he doesn't necessarily narrow it down to scenario 2 only, you seem to be trying to argue that though.

Furthermore:

How many physicists have ever existed in the history of the world? You claim every single one of them? How do you know there aren't any that disagreed with determinism? Do you have the names of every single physicist, and evidence of all their beliefs?

They point to the most prominent examples they can find, it's Encylopedia Britannica, and there aren't that many soft determinists because it's not a very solid position. They also literally tell you in the paragraph I quoted that Soft Determinists differ in their attempts to 'revise or weaken' commonsense notions of free-will, which is tantamount to mental gymnastics in more flower language. Whatever 'free will' they attempt to insinuate while still relying on scientific principles does not match the public's common sense of what 'free will' is.

You are completely misinterpreting everything that you've been reading. Let me help you out:

G.E Moore claims, in a feat of tortured and pointless sophistry, that 'acting freely' means that if someone was asked to pick Strawberry or Chocolate Iceream, and they picked Chocolate, then if they would've chosen the Strawberry if their brain decided to do so, even if it it is not possible for their brain to do so because it's hardwired to favor the chocolate, then that was a 'free action' for unclear reasons known only to Moore.

And according to frankfurt, "free will" is when you love yourself and think your desires are awesome. Again, for reasons known only to Frankfurt. Which is why those two lunatics who were educated 200 and 80 years ago are the only two mentioned.

>"How many physicists have ever existed in the history of the world?"

Enough to know that adequate determinism is the current scientific consensus, just like I know gravity and the third law of theromdynamics are.

 

[nightbane]

My bad for linking it then, I just copied the first result, but it seems to be more of a pop philosophy collage and made some errors in conflation, ones which are not repeated in Wikipedia or the scientific magazines. I'll very concisely explain the source of their error too: If you click the 'Requirements' link, they'll assert that one of the requirements for free will is for indeterminism ( aka the opposite of Determinism ) to be true. Then they will assert that because adequate determinism is a branch of determinism which concedes the possibly of indeterminism in quantum physics, but not in macrophysics ( Which is in itself, by the way, just a theory that still competes with ones like Superdeterminsim for example in explaining quantum mechanics ), then that means "free will" requires adequate determinism rather than strict determinism.

The flaw in their logic is that no neurologist or scientist ascribes any role to quantum physics in organisms, which function as macro-constructs composed of immutable particle whose underlying subatomic framework is irrelevant, and also the fact that the randomness of quantum mechanics is in itself contradictory to 'control' or 'free will'.

Again, the specific websites does mix up its semantics. Wikipedia and other more prestigious publications don't present it that way.

Determinism | Definition, Philosophers, & Facts

Determinism, in philosophy and science, the thesis that all events in the universe, including human decisions and actions, are causally inevitable. Determinism is usually understood to preclude free will because it entails that humans cannot decide or act otherwise than they do.

www.britannica.com

>"Determinism in this sense is usually understood to be incompatible with free will, or the supposed power or capacity of humans to make decisions or perform actions independently of any prior event or state of the universe. Philosophers and scientists who deny the existence of free will on this basis are known as “hard” determinists."

>"In contrast, so-called “soft” determinists, also called compatibilists, believe that determinism and free will are compatible after all. In most cases, soft determinists attempt to achieve this reconciliation by subtly revising or weakening the commonsense notion of free will. Contemporary soft determinists have included the English philosopher G.E. Moore (1873–1958), who held that acting freely means only that one would have acted otherwise had one decided to do so (even if, in fact, one could not have decided to do so), and the American philosopher Harry Frankfurt, who argued that acting freely amounts to identifying with or approving of one’s own desires (even if those desires are such that one cannot help but act on them)."

Note that 'Adequate Determinism', which is 'Determinism with caveat for subatomic mechanics' in the field of physics, is not equivalent to Soft Determinism, and even the most famous Soft Determinists are mostly just mincing words while admitting that "Well, those humans couldn't help but act on their desires anyway, buuuut I'll just call that free will"

And one more from Scientific American which goes into it:

Is Free Will an Illusion?

Don't trust your instincts about free will or consciousness, experimental philosophers say

www.scientificamerican.com

what do you think of sam harris' take on the illusion of free will

 

[Izayacel]

nah there's such a thing as luck, like winning the lottery or other things
but otherwise yes

 

[Liptusg]

what do you think of sam harris' take on the illusion of free will

That he's right, obviously. As a neuroscientist, he understands it well enough.

 

[Deleted member 39864]

>"How many physicists have ever existed in the history of the world?"

Enough to know that adequate determinism is the current scientific consensus, just like I know gravity and the third law of theromdynamics are.

you ignored the other parts of my question:

You claim every single one of them? How do you know there aren't any that disagreed with determinism? Do you have the names of every single physicist, and evidence of all their beliefs?

G.E Moore claims, in a feat of tortured and pointless sophistry, that 'acting freely' means that if someone was asked to pick Strawberry or Chocolate Iceream, and they picked Chocolate, then if they would've chosen the Strawberry if their brain decided to do so, even if it it is not possible for their brain to do so because it's hardwired to favor the chocolate, then that was a 'free action' for unclear reasons known only to Moore.

Very basic scenario. There are other more complicated scenarios. What happens if someone is angry at someone and fuming, they may or may not decide to punch said person in face. What evidence do you have that free will doesn't exist there? You would have to assume that somehow, despite there being an incentive to both actions, they don't have free will.

Lastly: Stephen Hawking points out problems in determinism:

Scientific Determinism: What It Is & Why It's Problematic

Is the future predetermined? Is free will an illusion? Here are Stephen Hawking's insights on the limitations of scientific determinism.

www.shortform.com

 

[nice_try]

The future is determined by the present.
You live in the present and can change it.
Use this knowledge wisely.

 

[turbosperg]

there’s no such thing as free will there is only fate

Fate and free-will are both bankrupt ideas.

What truly drives things and people is randomness, derived from brownian motion and quantum fluctuations.

 

[Liptusg]

you ignored the other parts of my question:



Very basic scenario. There are other more complicated scenarios. What happens if someone is angry at someone and fuming, they may or may not decide to punch said person in face. What evidence do you have that free will doesn't exist there? You would have to assume that somehow, despite there being an incentive to both actions, they don't have free will.

Lastly: Stephen Hawking points out problems in determinism:

Scientific Determinism: What It Is & Why It's Problematic

Is the future predetermined? Is free will an illusion? Here are Stephen Hawking's insights on the limitations of scientific determinism.

www.shortform.com

You don't understand the fundamentals of the concepts that you are talking about and reaching around for articles that you've only skimmed over and cherrypick titles that do nothing to support your futile contrarianism.

>"You ignored the other parts of my question"

Do you know what a 'consensus' is? It's not synonymous with the word 'unanimous', or 100% assent. 'Adequate Determinism' is literally just the modern model of the Laws of Physics that are taught to anyone seeking a physics degree - namely, cause and effect macrophysics and quantum uncertainty.

>Very basic scenario. There are other more complicated scenarios

Your additional scenario is just as simplistic, and complexity is non-sequitur here. That's like me telling you that because of how the Law of Gravity works, if you are on planet Earth, and you let go of a rock, it's going to be drawn toward the center of the earth. And then you ask me "But what if I drop 4 oranges, 1 horse, while my Chinese friend drops 2 feathers?", and I answer back - "All of them are going to be drawn toward the center of the earth because that's a universal hallmark of gravity" ( Yes, including your Helium balloon, it's being pulled by gravity just like the atmosphere and clouds are but can float higher than the air, once it reaches space, it's going back down, even if it isn't punctured )

Now again, I must insist that you cease avoiding my question because you know you don't have the capacity to answer them - You keep using the word 'decide', do you even fucking know what it means? Do you know what 'decisions' are? How they work? Where do they come from? Do you know what 'will' is? Where it is, what makes it tick? We have a universe that is composed of matter. Your body is matter, your brain is matter, etc. Until you are able to articulate to me what kind of matter do you imagine 'will' and 'choices' to be made out of, and what kind biological mechanics create them in your brain, you should probably , because you're talking to someone who actually DOES know the underlying attributes of HIS beliefs, while you are spouting words that you can't even grasp the meaning behind.

Your angry person will resort to punching if his current neurochemical state is adrenaline-pumped enough and if his genetic psychological profile is sufficiently aggressive to select the 'Fight' response from the human 'Fight or Flight' evolutionary instinct in that specific scenario, based on the level of external input applied to it. Same way a dog "decides" whether to bark or to bite. It's not because of some magic word that you can't even define properly, it's because of the inner workings of their brain which are impacted by previous factors like genetics and experience.

Lastly, I know all about Stephen Hawking's stances, which is why you really shouldn't have just frantically googled for backup while neglecting to read the contents and comprehending them. Stephen Hawking IS a Determinist, namely an adequate determinist, and would firmly reject the reliance of primitive dullards on amorphous terms like 'will' which they can't even grasp. Just because you can't SEE how something happens ( I.E what happens inside the brain of an angry person which moves his body to either react or retreat ) does not mean you can just make up magic words to explain it. You are no different than a caveman explaining weather phenomena by saying "Gods".

>"...the molecular basis of biology shows that biological processes are governed by the laws of physics and chemistry and therefore are as determined as the orbits of the planets. Recent experiments in neuroscience support the view that it is our physical brain, following the known laws of science, that determines our actions and not some agency that exists outside those laws ...so it seems that we are no more than biological machines and that free will is just an illusion (Hawking and Mlodinow, 2010). Emphasis added. "

Now if you actually bothered to read your article, you'd know that Stephen Hawking is pointing out problems with **the ability of humanity to formulate a scientific theory that would allow them to FORSEE the exact course of the universe based on determinism**, because humanity still can't calculate all the necessary variables to do so. He is not saying that there is a problem with the validity of determinism itself . Please read what you're linking next time so I don't need to waste time on doing it for you.

 

[partycat]

Your entire life was predetermined from the moment you were conceived there’s no such thing as free will there is only fate and you can’t change your fate no matter what you do you’ll only be prolonging the Inevitable that’s why I gave up because I’d be a mad man to keep trying knowing that I’ll never succeed at this rigged game called life

I have been aware of this on some level since I started school (~4yrs old), I have spent most of my life trying to act out against my pre-determined fate of being a friendless loser with varying degrees of success
The hand that you are dealt at the moment of your conception (primarily your genetics, your family's wealth/resources & your family's status) determines I would say a good 90-95% of how your life is going to go , I have done my best throughout my life to controlmaxx the remaining 5-10% but I will probably never be a "normal person" with a "normal life", not that the normie life is anything to be envious of anyway particularly after the age of ~25
If you were dealt a decent starting hand in life, you never really have to try; the harder you have to try, the more over it is for you, if it ever began for you in the first place
If you were dealt a shitty starting hand in life, maxxing out all areas of your life probably will not result in ascension but it will become slightly easier for you to cope, knowing that you tried as hard as possible. That was the case for me anyway; I was dealt a starting hand that meant that I would never get to be a "normal member of society" and get to have friends etc. but by looksmaxxing, gymmaxxing, dietmaxxing, healthmaxxing & studymaxxing, to name but a few, I have managed to overcome some of my pre-determined life-outcomes (which probably would have been sui, becoming a fag, becoming a tranny, becoming homeless, not going to university & getting a degree, being sexually abused, getting killed, going ER in a video game such as GTA Minecraft or Roblox, becoming addicted to substances, getting put in prison for very long time or the rest of my life or getting put in psych ward for very long time or the rest of my life, or worse still being a wagecuck and/or a betabuxx )
Here is a tip that works for me most of the time: hide your face as much as you can in every area of your life. I get treated much better by other people when they cannot see my face (i.e. audio calls & instant messaging), particularly in situations involving organised groups of people, which is where I have always fallen short and been bullied due to being a sub-human. Also the plandemic has meant that I can wear a mask in public to hide my face

 

[SayanimCel]

Gay fatalist cope - the fact that you are self-aware enough as a human to make the statement that your life is pre-determined means you have some degree of agency over aspects of your life, meaning it isn't completely pre-determined

 

[Liptusg]

Gay fatalist cope - the fact that you are self-aware enough as a human to make the statement that your life is pre-determined means you have some degree of agency over aspects of your life, meaning it isn't completely pre-determined

Gay scientifically illiterate superstitious cope - Because my IQ is too low to figure out that just because a human's brain can successfully deduct, aided by empirical input from their senses, that everything including themselves and their own brain are governed by a system of cause and effect means that pre-determinism is false, that the human brain is magical and can violate the laws of physics that apply to inorganic matter and even animals, and that a gibberish word I pulled out of my ass called 'agency' which I'm too retarded to even define ( Because it doesn't have any scientific structure whatsoever ) is what's responsible for an organism's actions.

 

[Deleted member 39864]

Do you know what 'decisions' are? How they work? Where do they come from? Do you know what 'will' is? Where it is, what makes it tick? We have a universe that is composed of matter. Your body is matter, your brain is matter, etc. Until you are able to articulate to me what kind of matter do you imagine 'will' and 'choices' to be made out of, and what kind biological mechanics create them in your brain, you should probably , because you're talking to someone who actually DOES know the underlying attributes of HIS beliefs, while you are spouting words that you can't even grasp the meaning behind.

Your body and brain are matter, but is consciousness matter? No, I don't believe so. What makes one conscious and another thing unconscious? We can use our conscious minds to determine our decisions and our will.

Also, will can be defined as:
The mental faculty by which one deliberately chooses or decides upon a course of action

Your angry person will resort to punching if his current neurochemical state is adrenaline-pumped enough and if his genetic psychological profile is sufficiently aggressive to select the 'Fight' response from the human 'Fight or Flight' evolutionary instinct in that specific scenario, based on the level of external input applied to it. Same way a dog "decides" whether to bark or to bite. It's not because of some magic word that you can't even define properly, it's because of the inner workings of their brain which are impacted by previous factors like genetics and experience.

Anyway to prove that claim? I call bullshit. You are trying to paint humans as robots, who can't control themselves when they are fuming to a certain degree. You also don't account for the situation one is in, and other factors they may consider, such as laws, social consequences, their perception of morality. The burden of proof is on you here to prove this is deterministic.

Lastly, I know all about Stephen Hawking's stances, which is why you really shouldn't have just frantically googled for backup while neglecting to read the contents and comprehending them. Stephen Hawking IS a Determinist, namely an adequate determinist, and would firmly reject the reliance of primitive dullards on amorphous terms like 'will' which they can't even grasp. Just because you can't SEE how something happens ( I.E what happens inside the brain of an angry person which moves his body to either react or retreat ) does not mean you can just make up magic words to explain it.

You can't see what happens either. "Conciousness" is not a magic word.

>"...the molecular basis of biology shows that biological processes are governed by the laws of physics and chemistry and therefore are as determined as the orbits of the planets. Recent experiments in neuroscience support the view that it is our physical brain, following the known laws of science, that determines our actions and not some agency that exists outside those laws ...so it seems that we are no more than biological machines and that free will is just an illusion (Hawking and Mlodinow, 2010). Emphasis added. "

Now if you actually bothered to read your article, you'd know that Stephen Hawking is pointing out problems with **the ability of humanity to formulate a scientific theory that would allow them to FORSEE the exact course of the universe based on determinism**, because humanity still can't calculate all the necessary variables to do so. He is not saying that there is a problem with the validity of determinism itself . Please read what you're linking next time so I don't need to waste time on doing it for you.

That is not in the article, I have no idea where you pulled that quote from.

Also, many of those experiments are flawed and have been scrutinized.

Study Tackles Neuroscience Claims to Have Disproved ‘Free Will’

Some researchers have argued neuroscience studies prove that free will is an illusion. But a new analysis of these studies shows that many contained methodological inconsistencies and conflicting results.

news.ncsu.edu

Does free will exist? Neuroscientists debunk popular argument against free will | Neuroscience

For decades, a groundbreaking brain study fueled opinions about whether we have free will over our actions. The conclusions drawn from this experiment, how | Neuroscience

www.labroots.com

 

[Deleted member 39864]

OP and @Liptusg , your mindset is basically just another form of fatalism, this has been addressed.

I understand very clearly, it's obvious what you're saying, and it doesn't make sense from my perspective.

I looked up the definition of Fatalism too before I responded:

Definition of FATALISM

a doctrine that events are fixed in advance so that human beings are powerless to change them; also : a belief in or attitude determined by this doctrine… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

It's really just fallacious logic that can't be tested or proven.

If someone chooses to wealthmaxx you will say "It was your fate to wealthmaxx"

If they stop one month after, give up and choose to LDAR, you will say "It was your fate to LDAR and give up"

If two months after that they go back to wealthmaxxing and become a high five figure earner, you will say "It was your fate to wealthmaxx again and be successful at it"

If three months after that their business fails and they spiral into depression and go back to LDAR, you will say "It was your fate to fail again and LDAR"

If four months after that they go back to wealthmaxxing with a new strategy and become a six figure earner, you will say "It was your fate to wealthmaxx and become a six figure earner"

AND ON AND ON IT GOES.

It's really just a disingenuous and fallacious way of describing peoples CHOICES and their RESULTS.

It's you taking HINDSIGHT and then INVOKING "DESTINY". All you are doing is "stating the obvious", a simple statement of "X happened", but then you add onto the statement and make it "X was destined to happen".

There's no point in me arguing this any further, I guess it was my fate to stop wasting my time

OR.......... or............... maybe I respond again and then it was my fate to respond another time (if you can't see how retarded and fallacious this is, I don't know what to tell you smh)

 

[BlkPillPres]

Your entire life was predetermined from the moment you were conceived there’s no such thing as free will there is only fate and you can’t change your fate no matter what you do you’ll only be prolonging the Inevitable that’s why I gave up because I’d be a mad man to keep trying knowing that I’ll never succeed at this rigged game called life

Your argument doesn't make sense. Your "destiny" could very well be that you keep trying regardless and you become successful, but you are instead choosing a different destiny where you do nothing and fail.

Multiverse theory states that there are an infinite number of universes where you have made every single decision possible. So ironically all you are doing is choosing the destiny you want. Every possible destiny is "set in stone", however the one you arrive upon is 100% your choice.

There is no "absolute destiny".

You could literally kill yourself after reading this message and that would be "destiny 1" or you can keep living (which i know you will) and that's "destiny 2". What you are basically arguing is that it's DESTINY that you won't kill yourself and that's completely fallacious and 100% false. It's you being afraid to die that's keeping you from killing yourself, don't blame "destiny" for that, that's a personal choice.

Most people that kill themselves are afraid to die, they just hate their lives more than they are afraid of dying.

You plan on doing nothing with your life anyways, so you might as well just kill yourself, but you won't because you are afraid to die. It has nothing to do with destiny, you are just making convenient excuses. Nothing is set in stone, the timeline is not a single like, but it's multiple interconnected lines that branch out into their own seperate branches in a never ending "forward" direction.

 

[Liptusg]

@wintercel

Consciousness, by its scientific medical definition, is the activity of your body's empirical senses, fed by external input and received by your brain via the nervous system. Sight, hearing, touch, smell, and so on. It is absolutely matter - a conglomerate of electrons and chemicals active inside your brain which is perpetually running various functions, similarly to how matter makes your Windows turn on. That is why if you were to take a gun and fire a bullet to blow your idiotic brain off, your Consciousness, along with your "free will" and "agency" and "choosing sorcery" ( which are just neurons reacting to whatever external input comes your way based on your DNA ) would all be gone, because only matter can interact with other matter, namely the molecules of a metal bullet in this case. Maybe you should try that out in order to enlighten yourself.

>The mental faculty by which one deliberately chooses

You keep using illogical, inexplicable socially constructed terminology that you don't even understand in order to describe whichever meaningless word you were spouting in the first place. What is a mental faculty? Do you even know, or do you just repeat things without fully comprehending them? What created the process of choosing? What elements in the universe and the laws of physics make up the phenomena of 'choosing'? I'm getting tired of debating someone who can't even articulate his position properly.

Once again, none of your articles show anything that you think they're showing - they're mostly quibbles about specific experiments and their conclusion, but they are absolutely not denunications of the fully body of science behind Determinism as a whole, which is what you seem to think they are. I already quoted Stephen Hawking telling you that your 'free will' doesn't exist and that humans are biological computers. Believe me when I say, you are NOT smarter than Stephen Hawking. You did not 'think it through' more than he did.

Everything that I say has already been proven, and you should open a fucking book if you weren't aware of it. Cause and Effect? Proven and taught in every single academic institute. Neurons? proven. Electrical signals? proven. Neurochemicals and their effect on behavior? Proven. The prefrontal cortex and it's effect on human actions, which is why lobotomized humans are barely functional and lack your retarded 'free will' to act like other humans? Proven.

I can tell you where they all originated from, what rules and laws govern their activity, where in the body they are specifically located, how external stimuli affects them, what type of matter they are made from, how they interact with the rest of the universe, and so forth. So now do me a favor and try to explain what a 'mental faculty' is, what 'choosing' is, what 'agency' and 'free will' are, in an empirical fashion, or just stop talking. Your dear "BlackpillPres" did not refute Stephen Hawking, nor every other determinist in the world, and his argument is just as retarded as yours. Once you admit that you are unable to explain what 'choosing' is without making up more words that you can't scientifically explain in the process, I'll even do you the courtesy of telling you why his so-called 'critique' is non-sequitur.

 

[Liptusg]

Your argument doesn't make sense. Your "destiny" could very well be that you keep trying regardless and you become successful, but you are instead choosing a different destiny where you do nothing and fail.

Multiverse theory states that there are an infinite number of universes where you have made every single decision possible. So ironically all you are doing is choosing the destiny you want. Every possible destiny is "set in stone", however the one you arrive upon is 100% your choice.

There is no "absolute destiny".

You could literally kill yourself after reading this message and that would be "destiny 1" or you can keep living (which i know you will) and that's "destiny 2". What you are basically arguing is that it's DESTINY that you won't kill yourself and that's completely fallacious and 100% false. It's you being afraid to die that's keeping you from killing yourself, don't blame "destiny" for that, that's a personal choice.

Most people that kill themselves are afraid to die, they just hate their lives more than they are afraid of dying.

You plan on doing nothing with your life anyways, so you might as well just kill yourself, but you won't because you are afraid to die. It has nothing to do with destiny, you are just making convenient excuses. Nothing is set in stone, the timeline is not a single like, but it's multiple interconnected lines that branch out into their own seperate branches in a never ending "forward" direction.

Let me try to drill some sense into your fragile, misguided primate brain which refuses to acknowledge anything that isn't instinctually 'obvious' to it. I'll educate you via baby steps, so that you might start spotting the purely emotional and superstitious flaws in your worldview. You and your fellow cultists are very fond of employing socially constructed terms which have zero basis or coherency, while never being introspective enough to realize why.

"You are instead choosing a different destiny!!!", I'm CHOOOOOOOOSSSING, I'M COOOOOMING. That clinically retarded 5 year old child taking a shit on the floor? He's CHOOOOOOOOOsing to take the shit. Human actions are Chooooooosen, that's how human behavior works.

Can you tell me WHY he is choosing that destiny? Why would someone choose destiny 1 instead of destiny 5? Why would another human organism choose destiny 8 under similar conditions? Do you know why? You could only answer this question if you had a single fucking idea of what your favorite word on the planet "Choosing" really means - it means nothing. Absolutely nothing, it is the same as "Glororbubu". Devoid of meaning.

Which is why I guarantee 100% that you'll never be able to tell me WHY someone is chooooosing what they're choooosing.

 

[BlkPillPres]

Can you tell me WHY he is choosing that destiny? Why would someone choose destiny 1 instead of destiny 5? Why would another human organism choose destiny 8 under similar conditions? Do you know why? You could only answer this question if you had a single fucking idea of what your favorite word on the planet "Choosing" really means - it means nothing. Absolutely nothing, it is the same as "Glororbubu". Devoid of meaning.

Which is why I guarantee 100% that you'll never be able to tell me WHY someone is chooooosing what they're choooosing.

Your argument is fallacious, how the hell would I (or anyone) know why some random person makes choices. I only know why and how I make choices. People make choices based on their own personal rationalizations.

For me it's really simple. I either wealthmaxx or I kill myself, because I have the foresight to see that the reality in which I don't wealthmaxx is a life I don't want to live.

If you truly believe what you believe, why haven't you killed yourself yet?

That's the important question here lol.

"You are instead choosing a different destiny!!!", I'm CHOOOOOOOOSSSING, I'M COOOOOMING. That clinically retarded 5 year old child taking a shit on the floor? He's CHOOOOOOOOOsing to take the shit. Human actions are Chooooooosen, that's how human behavior works.

Here's another problem, you are falsely conflating "choice" with "options".

One can only choose from the options available to them. Sometimes that option pool is limited.

That doesn't mean you don't have free will or the ability to choose, it just means that the options available are not optimal or are not what you'd prefer.

Choices are still available though, just because you don't like the options available, that doesn't mean you can now use mental gymnastics to pretend as if you don't have any options at all.

 

[Liptusg]

Your argument is fallacious, how the hell would I (or anyone) know why some random person makes choices. I only know why and how I make choices. People make choices based on their own personal rationalizations.

For me it's really simple. I either wealthmaxx or I kill myself, because I have the foresight to see that the reality in which I don't wealthmaxx is a life I don't want to live.

If you truly believe what you believe, why haven't you killed yourself yet?

That's the important question here lol.


Here's another problem, you are falsely conflating "choice" with "options".

One can only choose from the options available to them. Sometimes that option pool is limited.

That doesn't mean you don't have free will or the ability to choose, it just means that the options available are not optimal or are not what you'd prefer.

Choices are still available though, just because you don't like the options available, that doesn't mean you can now use mental gymnastics to pretend as if you don't have any options at all.

Since you have taken the liberty of imposing your insane nonsensical beliefs about the magical fifth fundamental force of the universe - Gravity, Electromagnetic, the Weak Nuclear, Strong Nuclear, and the mysterious Free Will which you can't make any equations for, is unique to Homo Sapiens, and independent of all the rest, then you ought to fucking know. If you don't know, maybe you should stop pushing that little superstition of yours onto others by telling them that they are 'choooooosing' everything they do. Maybe you are the only one who is a magic unicorn with a mystical choosing power, and everyone else actually isn't. Have you considered that?

>I only know why and how I make choices.

Oh really, do you?

>For me it's really simple. I either wealthmaxx or I kill myself, because I have the foresight to see that the reality in which I don't wealthmaxx is a life I don't want to live.

Fascinating. Fascinating how much cognitive dissonance there is from the implications of your own words. If you truly know why you 'make choices', then tell me, why did you 'choose' to wealthmaxx' instead of killing yourself? After all since it is a "choice", there is no rhyme nor reason or cause as to why 'the dice' couldn't have as easily fallen on the other choice.

Why did you choose to wealthmaxx? "I don't want to die" is not an answer, by the way. Because then I'm going to ask you 'Why do you chooooooose' to avoid dying? Some people do choooooose to die. And if you tell me that you don't know why, then luckily I, the person with the scientific worldview, do know why.

 

[Deleted member 39864]

Consciousness, by its scientific medical definition, is the activity of your body's empirical senses, fed by external input and received by your brain via the nervous system. Sight, hearing, touch, smell, and so on. It is absolutely matter - a conglomerate of electrons and chemicals active inside your brain which is perpetually running various functions, similarly to how matter makes your Windows turn on. That is why if you were to take a gun and fire a bullet to blow your idiotic brain off, your Consciousness, along with your "free will" and "agency" and "choosing sorcery" ( which are just neurons reacting to whatever external input comes your way based on your DNA ) would all be gone, because only matter can interact with other matter, namely the molecules of a metal bullet in this case. Maybe you should try that out in order to enlighten yourself.

You just make an appeal to scientific medical definition, an appeal to a specific definition, and claim its matter. You're also comparing a brain to a computer, (which does not have conciousness) and claim I have an idiotic brain I should put a bullet through?

This is you:

You keep using illogical, inexplicable socially constructed terminology that you don't even understand in order to describe whichever meaningless word you were spouting in the first place. What is a mental faculty? Do you even know, or do you just repeat things without fully comprehending them? What created the process of choosing? What elements in the universe and the laws of physics make up the phenomena of 'choosing'? I'm getting tired of debating someone who can't even articulate his position properly.

Mental faculty is the ability to do something, and choosing is caused by picking what one thinks is the best option. Laws of physics do not decide choosing, its our own thoughts and reasoning that decide our choices.

 

[Stopping@Nothing19]

the past, present and future are all happening at the same time. I look at any random event as a random 0 or 1, binary code ofc that's all it boils down to in the end, we are probably even living in a simulation

 

[Emba]

I knew that eventually someone would post this

 

[Liptusg]

You just make an appeal to scientific medical definition, an appeal to a specific definition, and claim its matter. You're also comparing a brain to a computer, (which does not have conciousness) and claim I have an idiotic brain I should put a bullet through?

This is you:

Mental faculty is the ability to do something, and choosing is caused by picking what one thinks is the best option. Laws of physics do not decide choosing, its our own thoughts and reasoning that decide our choices.

>You just make an appeal to scientific medical definition, an appeal to a specific definition

It is THE dictionary definition, outside of religious nutjob circles. Because it's the only one that can be empirically demonstrated. Do you know what empirical evidence is?

>and claim its matter.

I already made a proposal to you - Pick a gun, load a metal bullet inside, accelerate it through your skull and inside your brain, and you'll get to see what happens to the matter which makes up your consciousness when it's electrons are getting displaced by those of a piece of metal. Why aren't you taking me up on my offer? Just use your free will to keep your agency intact and come back to talk to me.

>You're also comparing a brain to a computer, (which does not have conciousness) and claim I have an idiotic brain I should put a bullet through?

You mean the comparison made by Stephen Hawking? Yes, apparently I'm as dumb as he is.

>Mental faculty is the ability to do something

No it isn't. Your ability to swallow for example is not a 'mental faculty'. Try being more specific.

> and choosing is caused by picking

There we go again, just like a broken NPC that can always be predicted in advance. I told you that you keep using meaningless word to define previous meaningless words, and now you're at it again.

The choosing is caused by picking. How does 'picking' actions work? I know how picking objects works - It's when your nervous system animates your muscles to move your hand through space and grip other matter. Now tell me how the 'picking of choosing' works.

 

[Deleted member 39864]

>You just make an appeal to scientific medical definition, an appeal to a specific definition

It is THE dictionary definition, outside of religious nutjob circles. Because it's the only one that can be empirically demonstrated. Do you know what empirical evidence is?

you dont have to be religious to think that conciousness isn't matter. its also not empirically demonstrated

I already made a proposal to you - Pick a gun, load a metal bullet inside, accelerate it through your skull and inside your brain, and you'll get to see what happens to the matter which makes up your consciousness when it's electrons are getting displaced by those of a piece of metal. Why aren't you taking me up on my offer? Just use your free will to keep your agency intact and come back to talk to me.

"just kill yourself and come back to talk to me"

this isn't even an argument retard

>You're also comparing a brain to a computer, (which does not have conciousness) and claim I have an idiotic brain I should put a bullet through?

You mean the comparison made by Stephen Hawking? Yes, apparently I'm as dumb as he is.

I don't care who made that comparison first, you reused it. It's a shitty comparison.

>Mental faculty is the ability to do something

No it isn't. Your ability to swallow for example is not a 'mental faculty'. Try being more specific.

Ability to do something with your mind cognitively using intelligence.

Now tell me how the 'picking of choosing' works.

its our own thoughts and reasoning that decide our choices.

 

[BlkPillPres]

Since you have taken the liberty of imposing your insane nonsensical beliefs about the magical fifth fundamental force of the universe - Gravity, Electromagnetic, the Weak Nuclear, Strong Nuclear, and the mysterious Free Will which you can't make any equations for, is unique to Homo Sapiens, and independent of all the rest, then you ought to fucking know.

I have never said any of this, you are arguing against a strawman, and right now all of your responses just look like some rambling troll retarded.

I decided to give you a chance after this cringey bullshit:

"You are instead choosing a different destiny!!!", I'm CHOOOOOOOOSSSING, I'M COOOOOMING.

But it seems like you aren't taking this seriously so I can only assume you are a troll, so I'll end the conversation here.

why did you 'choose' to wealthmaxx' instead of killing yourself? After all since it is a "choice", there is no rhyme nor reason or cause as to why 'the dice' couldn't have as easily fallen on the other choice.

I don't know what comes after death, it's probably nothingness, and death is inevitable. So I might as well get as much enjoyment as I possibly can out of this temporary existence before I head off into a possibly unfavorable permanent existence/non-existence.

It's simple really. I like eating ice cream, I like fucking prostitutes, I like the things I like and I can't do them if I'm dead. So I opted for the path in which I stay alive and attempt to get as much of the things that I like as possible.

It makes no sense to me to keep living, but have a shitty life, and then die and have a shitty "after life" too. This is why if I had planned on never wealthmaxxing I'd just skip to the end and kill myself.

 

[Liptusg]

you dont have to be religious to think that conciousness isn't matter. its also not empirically demonstrated

"just kill yourself and come back to talk to me"

this isn't even an argument retard

I don't care who made that comparison first, you reused it. It's a shitty comparison.

Ability to do something with your mind cognitively using intelligence.

It absolutely is empirically demonstrated, that was the whole point of sarcastically telling you to put a bullet inside your brain, which would actually count as an empirical experiment, to witness firsthand what every neurologist already knows - Matter is affected by other matter, if your consciousness was not formed by matter, then a chunk of metal would have absolutely no effect on it. Why do I have to teach the basic laws of physics to someone?

>"I don't care who made that comparison first, it's a shitty comparison"

You understand the mechanics of the universe and particles better than Stephen Hawking does which is why you wouldn't repeat his shitty comparisons. Got it.

>"Ability to do something with your mind cognitively using intelligence."

And what is the source of intelligence 'in the mind'?

I have never said any of this, you are arguing against a strawman, and right now all of your responses just look like some rambling troll retarded.

I decided to give you a chance after this cringey bullshit:

But it seems like you aren't taking this seriously so I can only assume you are a troll, so I'll end the conversation here.


I don't know what comes after death, it's probably nothingness, and death is inevitable. So I might as well get as much enjoyment as I possibly can out of this temporary existence before I head off into a possibly unfavorable permanent existence/non-existence.

It's simple really. I like eating ice cream, I like fucking prostitutes, I like the things I like and I can't do them if I'm dead. So I opted for the path in which I stay alive and attempt to get as much of the things that I like as possible.

It makes no sense to me to keep living, but have a shitty life, and then die and have a shitty "after life" too. This is why if I had planned on never wealthmaxxing I'd just skip to the end and kill myself.

You did say all of it. You told someone else, other than yourself ( And numerous other people besides ) that they "Chose" to do X with their lives instead of "Y". You're telling me, or a general reader, that we could 'choose' the destiny of trying to succeed or 'choose' to do nothing and fail. Yet since you have no idea how and why 'choices' happen in somebody else's brain, you aren't qualified to speak as to whether they are happening at all.

>"But it seems like you aren't taking this seriously"

I am taking your words as seriously as possible. Given that your beloved one which shapes your opposition to me, 'choosing', is detached from reality and can't be physically or mathematically characterized, it gets as much seriousness as it deserves.

>It's simple really. I like eating ice cream, I like fucking prostitutes, I like the things I like and I can't do them if I'm dead. So I opted for the path in

I also find it particularly amusing that you keep undermining your own superstitions with each new explanation that you give, which is the purpose of this exercise, since evnetually perhaps your brain will snap out of it's dogmatic loop and you'll manage to understand that that you can't help but provide Deterministic logic for your actions.

Your explanation is null - you told me that you had a 'choice' between wealthmaxxing and killing yourself. Was it possible for you to "choose" to kill yourself DESPITE liking icecream and fucking prostitutes? If it WAS possible, in spite of all the reasons you listed, then you'll need to come up with a different reason as to WHY one 'choice' prevailed over the other. And if it was *not possible*, then there was no 'choice'. Only one outcome stemming from your love of hookers and icecream, which are pre-existing causes.

 

[BlkPillPres]

I knew that eventually someone would post this

Eventually?

Some LDAR retard posts this at least once a month, because they need to rationalize doing nothing. It's a coping mechanism. They need to justify their decision to accept perpetual failure to themselves.

 

[starcrapoo]

Beneath the planck scale (I think its around 10 to the -30meters), is some sort of structure. In theoretical phyics, there are all sorts of theories as to what it may be. Twistors, hologram, string theory, etc...

So yea all of the information is already there meaning its all predetermined.

 

[Deleted member 39864]

It absolutely is empirically demonstrated, that was the whole point of sarcastically telling you to put a bullet inside your brain, which would actually count as an empirical experiment, to witness firsthand what every neurologist already knows - Matter is affected by other matter, if your consciousness was not formed by matter, then a chunk of metal would have absolutely no effect on it. Why do I have to teach the basic laws of physics to someone?

That doesn't prove consciousness is matter though. What is proves, is that, consciousness in humans is dependent on having a functioning body and brain, made of matter, but that doesn't prove the consciousness, is matter itself.

>"I don't care who made that comparison first, it's a shitty comparison"

You understand the mechanics of the universe and particles better than Stephen Hawking does which is why you wouldn't repeat his shitty comparisons. Got it.

you keep strawmanning me as if I am smarter than stephen hawking, when i said nothing of the sort. the fact that you rely on using strawmans shows you need intellectual dishonesty to argue your 'points'.

 

[gimmedatrope999]

That doesn't prove consciousness is matter though. What is proves, is that, consciousness in humans is dependent on having a functioning body and brain, made of matter, but that doesn't prove the consciousness, is matter itself.

What do you think separates the consciousness of others outside of matter?