I have noticed many hard-determinism pure materialists browsing Jow Forums and their/your arguments puzzle me.
If free will is an illusion, then what is the drive for survival; what is fear? Do organisms have a choice but to prefer life to death? Is the process of evolution driven by natural selection or is the evolution of organisms a predetermined reality?
If organisms are determined to prefer life to death, how can suicide and self-sacrifice be accounted for? Dawkin's selfish gene, while a excellent treatise, cannot reconcile a hard determinist world view and individuals who sacrifice themselves for intangible concepts such as ideology, particularly new ideas with no relationship with genes.
How can an individual prefer life until the last moment when death becomes the preferred selection? At some point the individual preferred life to death by virtue of not committing suicide at an earlier time.
How can individuals change their mind on issues small such as preferences and large as suicide and ideology? How can individuals be convinced to change their mind by another?
As for preferences, if presented with a series of seemingly equal choices, how can some individuals come to a conclusion only after evalutating the cost/value of good A vs the cost/value of good B? This process demands a mathematical comparison and mathematics, an abstraction, are not inherent to the nature of life. The individual does not react according to the senses but rather a rational cost benefit analysis.
Free will exists. It is exists beyond both the "random" reactions of neural molecules and our universe. Hard-determinism fails at the emergence of life and consequently, choice. A lifeless universe where material is the only substrate, choice cannot exist. However, choice is evident in the human experience. Choice bound to life at the hip. Life, the essence itself, therefore exists beyond our universe.
It was a choice of mine and a follow up to a former series of posts.
Adrian King
organisms are only alive because they want to be. wanting to be alive is an inherent trait of living things. non living things are constantly destroyed because they have no desire to stay the same. fear is a lizard brain response to unknown stimulus. once you know the thing you feared, you are no longer afraid of it, you are cautious of it. learning has become a serotonin releasing experience because knowing more things means higher chance of survival. current life is by chance, not by design.
religion played an important role in our evolution because it paved the idea that the rode to happiness (not pleasure) is painful. animals run on primal instinct to avoid painful stimulus. humans realized that by enduring pain (like strength training, endurance training) you have a higher chance of survival. this eventually became a survival trait of its own to follow social patterns simply to look more appealing for mating, and this differs wildly from culture to culture with all the weird shit like neck rings and lip plates. humans only did it because other humans did it, and if you couldnt endure that pain simply for social sake, you wouldnt breed.
suicide is a hard thought though. what are your thoughts on suicide?
> Implying you're percieving true reality > Implying you're not wireheaded > Implying that Hitler didn't win and this is not a simulation to show children why cultural marxism is a mistake
Cooper Ramirez
the fact that humans follow other humans raises questions about free will. humans are the most social creatures on earth, the ones who stay together would always survive, even if the other group o humans who did stick together didnt survive. wanting to follow others is a deep rooted human instict, and humans that arent social typically feel depressed. do you choose to become depressed? or is that a survival trait to force you to interact with other people to get your serotonin hits for your own good? right now, as humans become less and less sociable in person, are we seeing an idealogical/genetic evolution towards those who can find natural comfort in being alone? or is happiness programed by the person and are you able to choose what makes you happy or not and the actual evolution is those who become self aware enough to choose their emotions?
Jonathan James
Is there any concrete principal that applies? I love your thoughts in this post specifically.
Maybe the 'why' is a constantly changing abstraction of life. A series of systems working together in a greater form of intelligence.
Landon Hall
People who commit suicide , often times have a hereditary predisposition to enabling those desires to come into fruition.As if you scanned their brains prior to them dying, what you'd see is that their neural chemistry and brain wiring is responsible for their condition. You're also assuming that this desire to survive is universal in the Earth's Bio sphere, when in reality..It really isn't thanks to randomized gene expression.
To account for self-sacrifice, the determinist argues that such behavior is akin to other species which celibate individuals behave in the interest of a hive, ie. vespidae. However, these relationships are still reciprocal with the biological drive for survival still active and present.
But this "selfish gene" should not account for self-sacrifice in the name of concepts, ideologies or personal affinities where sacrifice comes with little to no benefit to any living organism.
Suicide, in my opinion, kills the determinist.
Jason Reed
Are mental traits determined by your genetic composition, again. You're falsely assuming that the selfish gene theory is universal for all organisms.
the 'why' for life on eat is provided by nature. the why is given circumstances in the world that you can not change. i believe in stoicism in that the only thing people can truly own is their thoughts. the golden rule is very important, "treat others the way you would want to be treated" if everyone on earth chose to think this way, the world would be a good place, we would all realize that we are all on the same team, have fun, laughs, and that the only thing that truly needs to be taken seriously is the prospect of death. but people are always afraid of "people thinking the same way, if everyone thought the same way the world would be terrible." thats not true, we will always be different because of the different circumstances provided to us at birth. our early cognition is shaped by the events that happen to us as babies and children (given circumstances that we are not self aware enough to perceive a certain way) these circumstances give humans their likes and dislikes (what type of music you like, sports, animals, positive visual stimulus) without them knowing. we will always be different, but it is important that we think the same way.
Adam Collins
determinists are overwhelmingly losers who cannot take responsibility for their life, life choices and situations and dont want the responsibility of changing said circumstances in the same way moral relativists are largely cunt degenerate women who cannot admit something that they said or did was wrong so they would rather shift reality and existence instead. Degenerate incoherent pseudo philosophies for degenerate incoherent pseudo intelligent failures.
>often In order to preserve a hard determinism, this proclivity for suicide must be always be present.
>desire to survive is universal At some point it is, isn't it? There comes a point, that brain chemistry you speak of, where the individual then prefers death to life. Prior to that moment, that locus of decision, the individual preferred life to death by virtue of being alive.
Physical and mental stimulus can convince an individual to commit suicide. Fear of future suffering can produce the same reaction. It is impotant to emphasize that a individual can prefer death in the immediate time to potential yet incomprehensible suffering in an unknown future. Such is the consequence of choice and not biological reactions to immediate stimulus.
determinists are those who receive more satisfaction from internal goals that external circumstances. generally people who commit suicide are isolated individuals who receive most satisfaction from external circumstances of which they have no control, mostly whether or not people like them or not. in this case you can decide whether or not you are sad or not depending on your frame of reference of importance. if you choose internal goals such as learning an art form, practicing music, martial arts, any of the "culture" stuff for the sake of the art form itself, you are garunteed happiness because you choose your goals of improvement. if you choose art form for the sake of social interaction then you are damned to sadness. finding a sense of flow in activities is important in life.
Why is 'treat everyone like how you want to be treated' inherently good?
Is it mere consequence of us being social creates on a quest for survival?
In this example I propose the only reason we are good to each other is because it grows the probably we will live better for longer, if we were not good to each other we would be overthrown by a group of lesser, but combined more powerful individuals than us alone.
Bentley Ramirez
wait i think i messed up the definition of determinists, justreplace "determinist" with whatever you think i shouldve said instead
Ethan Lee
>In order to preserve determinism >This option for suicide must always be present
What fuck are you even talking about? Lol, and suicide is something that can be accounted for in the material world view.By simply assessing for randomized gene expression. Again, the desire to survive isn't universal, thanks to genetic randomness.
>You're falsely assuming that the selfish gene theory is universal for all organisms. I thought it was self-evident that the selfish gene was present in social organisms where self-sacrifice benefited the selfish gene pool, and that my argument regarding the selfish gene pertained to such classes of organisms, particularly ourselves. Apparently, I was mistaken and also mistaken for assuming all Jow Forumslacks were literate.
Jose Jackson
Your genes determine your life potential, not some shady systematic routine program or a life experience. Case in point Albert Einstein, this guy literally got crowned the most intelligent man in his decade, simply for taking note of his thoughts. His education was lack luster and flawed, and he never extensively applied himself in the subjects he studied. Only a moron would attribute his success to memetic learned experience. Another great example to substantiate my assertions, would be the case of Scarlet Johansson and Angelina Jole. Both actresses, have mediocre acting skills, and a mundane character archetype. Despite this, they're still famous. You wanna know why? It's because of their physical appearance, or in other words, their genetic profile. Face it, genes are the sole determiner of life success. If you're a 5'6 balding manlet, who has a sub 70 IQ. No amount of exercise will make you sexually attractive, nor will any amount of study make you smart. Better luck next time I guess.
>inb4 what aboutism
Yes there are always exceptions to the general rule, but non the less those aforementioned exceptions don't refute the Generalities we see in existence/perceivable reality.
i need to be clear on my definition of "the golden rule" christians believe that you can have any atrocious act and not act in retaliation. the version i believe in says that each party can equally act in retaliation against acts committed against them. I believe if i attack someone unjustly, they have a right to fight back, just as i would if someone were to attack me unjustly. but this raises serious problems like what we see happening today with US, Russia, and China having the biggest dick off right now, because if you enemy can kill you so fast you have no chance to react, then you die. so you have to be the first prepared for everything, causing the race to kill the hardest, which only cause more trust to be lost and furthering us from the answer. so the only thing keeping us from dying in the future, or even right now, is mutually ensured destruction. so technically if we keep at this pace, we will never die because of mutually ensure destruction. but the problem is intent. China completely intends to destroy the US and we would have no intentions of destroying China if they did not have intentions of destroying us .
tricky thoughts.
Cameron Diaz
Exceptions absolutely refute a hard determinist world view. They must be accounted for. The rest of your posts are not worth reading.
Justin Phillips
I don't think you're literate.
Andrew Peterson
If your behavior can be predicted is there free will?
Cameron Wilson
I want you to rethink your argument here.
I don't think it upholds any merit.
Systems require chain reactions.
How do you stop a chain reaction?
James Baker
Predictability would not refuted free will. Knowledge of preferences does not require the absence of will.
Ayden Wilson
They can be accounted for, via assessing other deterministic contributory factors. Mainly context, and situational likelihood.
You meme like a grandmother you washed up drier sheet
Chase Perry
humans are born innately good, children naturally show the most compassion of any demographic, children are taught to be 'evil' of stopping the chain reaction would mean not retaliating but there is no guarantee it means survival. humans are so 'evil' because of idealistic evolution. those who showed that compassion in nature were killed and less likely to survive it is important to retaliate if you do not know the true size of the threat that opposes you but right now because of the world being so interconnected we are seeing a hard idealistic shift towards righteousness the true answer would be recognizing a common threat and forming deals that would benefit both parties now that imperialism is dead and land has been claimed pretty much permanently at this point, the true common threat is entropy and stagnation, but people right now are too materialistic to admit this
I'm being completely genuine in this thread, as the topic does interest me. The only reason I'm uppity right now, is because of OP's refusal to acknowledge the notion that genetic randomness can be something used to account for suicide and self sacrifice. I.e because of randomized gene expression, not all organism are subject to the selfish gene theory.
But your preferences can be manipulated by someone who knows the choices you will make before you realize it.
Asher Garcia
You control free will by controlling the factors in front of you that will influence your choice
Also by deciding what you wish to do in your life and doing it
I watched anime and wanted to experience one of the episodes, so I made something like it happen in my life
She made me feel loved
Parker Johnson
I see where you're coming from.
I would argue that retaliation is a form of immature behavior. As we've grown older due to medical advances. We've had to socialize longer and thus being kind is a mature respect (just like standing your ground), it's a newer form of communication that we still have to learn.
But ultimately it comes down to survival over periods of time.
Robert Lopez
i agree with you genetics determine IQ, pain tolerance, how we innately react to certain stimuli and other important shit the chance people are born with those positive traits determines chance of survival
I decided to contest your emotions with illogical nonsense.
And it worked.
God bless your soul
Carter Walker
>How can individuals change their mind on issues small such as preferences and large as suicide and ideology? How can individuals be convinced to change their mind by another?
This is the real crushing epiphany of losing belief in free will; even your thoughts are part of determinism. There is no barrier between your thoughts and material reality, they are one and the same, this is the painful peeling that neurology is bringing us.
How can people change their minds, you ask? Well, there's a lot that goes into it...but nothing which is ephemeral or spiritual or beyond the reach of rationality. There's rules of behavior and genetics and the strict bounds of how thoughts are propagated across the brain, and if you had the info and understood the rules you could predict the thoughts down to the slightest curve of qualia.
The appearance of free will is the result of a lack of understanding and information. I mean, if anything, your questions about fear and the survival instinct should trace the contours of this dread reality to you; fear is a completely utilitarian response to mortal danger. An organism which didn't have a survival instinct would be quickly replaced by ones that do. So there's no freedom to not have a survival instinct. Even suicides resist their suicidal urges for as long as they can. And if that's determined by evolutionary utility, why isn't everything else?
Michael Williams
I keep seeing this and the "WAKE UP WE ARE HAVING TROUBLES WITH THE PROGRAM"
Carson Campbell
>You control free will >By having the immutable tendency to manipulate objects due to pre selected thought processes
Again, studies have been done relating to this misconception. And what they show, is that you're actions are pre determined beyond your conscious recognition of them.
>Even suicides resist their suicidal urges for as long as they can. And if that's determined by evolutionary utility, why isn't everything else? >resist their suicidal urges >resist Ie. Will. Even then, suicide, not the proclivity for suicide (for that matter, there is a far greater proclivity for life), can come as a response to outside stimuli or in anticipation of future suffering which violates the survival instinct and is not explained by genetic rational.
Colton Allen
"immature" behavior is a product of ignorance if you are ignorant of the capabilities of your opponent, then defense should be a priority but if you knew exactly how your enemy would attack, how much damage they could potentially do, and confirm your own survival, then it is morally righteous to asses whether enduring the pain is worth the peace UNLESS that enemy is guided by unrighteous intent, something like killing out of pride
but i do agree with you that retaliation is 'immature'
Colton Gomez
so is the suicidal person choosing to end their own life but their body wont stop them?
or is the suicidal person's body suicidal and the person is choosing to resist?
is it possible that there are cases of both of these options in the world? or are all suicidal people the same?
>can come as a response to outside stimuli or in anticipation of future suffering which violates the survival instinct
But that doesn't mean it violates determinism. There could be benefits to having suicidal tendencies in particular circumstances as a social animal, but even if there aren't and it's just a random detrimental mutation, that doesn't suggest that evolution is no longer promoting survival. And more importantly, how does that remove the suicidal thoughts from the framework of the brain, and how is the brain separate from the rest of material reality?
This poster is outlining the delusion here; >so is the suicidal person choosing to end their own life but their body wont stop them? >or is the suicidal person's body suicidal and the person is choosing to resist?
The truth is that THERE IS NO SEPARATION BETWEEN PERSON AND BODY. There is no evidence for such a separation. We know that if you cut into certain sections of the brain, you can remove the ability to speak or the ability to recognize people with surgical precision. Phineas Gage changed his whole personality thanks to an accidental brain surgery. The brain is the seat of consciousness, and where the brain changes, so too does consciousness.
Duality is wishful thinking. The determinism that follows the human soul is the same one that makes the volcanoes erupt and rolls rocks down hills and sends tsunamis to the shore. That determinism is the rule, but humans conveniently hold themselves as exceptions. Wonder why.
Kayden Long
"Free will" isn't "free" in the entire sense of the word. Money and food isn't free and mother nature isn't just going to give you what you want. If your will was entirely free then you would have cared for yourself as a baby. You "will" is slowly tempered to react better to the environment it lays in.
>potential is determinism
No it's potential.
>Again, studies have been done relating to this misconception. And what they show, is that you're actions are pre determined beyond your conscious recognition of them. Determinism has never been proved. It's a thought experiment that holds no water. You are not your beliefs, but that doesn't mean there's an underlying force controlling your every move. You're basically admitting there's a deity that controls things for no reasons..or a phenomena whatever the fuck you want to call it.
your thoughts are separate from your emotions emotions and feelings in the body are what you feel based on external stimuli and subconcious reaction you do not choose how your body feels, it just does feel your 'person' is the concious thoughts you choose to think
so when you have this franework of though a person could A) 'decide' through conscious thought that the pain they suffer is not worth living through, but have innate survival insticts refusing to let the body harm itself or B) the body feeling such harsh depression that it tries to convince the 'person' that survival is futile, but the 'person' consciously tries to find reasons to keep living
