do you think freewill truly exists?
-
It's great that it worked out for you, and I'm happy for you, but we don't need to force everyone to fit the same mould.
I really think that a huge issue we've been having since the dawn of the internet is the perplexing effect that seems to impact a large portion of the population, where when they see someone suggest something, they take it as "being forced" and I cannot understand it. I can only assume that we grew up in very different environments and a lot of people aren't really aware of their own agency.
-
Most people who "hate small talk" in posts like this have either very specific ideas in their mind of what it means, such as annoying coworkers who talk about quilting or baseball loudly in the next cubicle, or are deeply sour, lonely, cynical shits who think they're god's gift to intellectualism and have never had a girlfriend in their life so they can't imagine what people talk about casually in private, and think that being in a relationship with someone needs to be like, always planning a heist over a map of the city sewer system or talking about geopolitics or lecturing their imaginary waifu about science facts.
I occasionally lecture my 3DPD wife about science facts and she hates it. She'll say things like "what?" And "I was just asking what we should do for dinner"
-
This post did not contain any content.
No I think not. But the feeling of freewill do exist and seems universal. So if we have a fact based approach, it does not change much.
I think there it a lot of proof that freewill is at least very weak compare to social determinism. -
I occasionally lecture my 3DPD wife about science facts and she hates it. She'll say things like "what?" And "I was just asking what we should do for dinner"
You're married to a droid??
-
I really think that a huge issue we've been having since the dawn of the internet is the perplexing effect that seems to impact a large portion of the population, where when they see someone suggest something, they take it as "being forced" and I cannot understand it. I can only assume that we grew up in very different environments and a lot of people aren't really aware of their own agency.
Ah my bad, I thought you were complaining about people not wanting to engage in small talk, and I thought you were suggesting that people should just suck it up and talk about the weather even if they don't want to. I'm a bad communicator, and I sometimes misread stuff like that.
-
Ah my bad, I thought you were complaining about people not wanting to engage in small talk, and I thought you were suggesting that people should just suck it up and talk about the weather even if they don't want to. I'm a bad communicator, and I sometimes misread stuff like that.
wrote last edited by [email protected]my suggestion is that if you're lacking in social contact, or even if you just want to open up more opportunities in either social life or professional, don't "suck it up" and pretend, but learn to understand and appreciate how socializing works by engaging in it like a game, learning what's actually happening in "small talk" and how to make people feel comfortable with you and gain emotional intelligence and empathy; qualities that most people look for in friends and romantic partners.
This is a severely neglected field of understanding for a lot of younger men right now and I don't think we should be making whole communities that provide validation for people avoiding the discomfort and instead we should treat it like exercise and diet. We don't exercise and diet because it feels good, we do it because the results are worthwhile. We tell people struggling with it "Just stick with it, it gets easier" and we treat that like good advice.
And again, it wouldn't be such an issue if there wasn't such a massive problem right now with social isolation. It's a message of public health, not social conformity. If you're happy as things are, nobody is forcing you to do anything, but if you battle depressive episodes or are lacking in relationships, if you don't feel like you have people to talk to, if you've never had someone give you comfort and support and you would like that, well the good news is you can have that. You can have people in your actual, real life who care about you, which can then open up more opportunities. But it takes exercise.
-
You think you're doing that. But are you? Or are things happening below the threshold of your consciousness, and your conscious brain thinks that it's the one running the show? Consciousness would be like the toddler with the toy steering wheel that thinks it's driving the car.
Am I indeed? But at least, if I can observe a difference between hands off the steering wheel and hands on, with the car swerving accordingly, then something seems to be going on. Perhaps the adult is moving the toddlers hands too; or perhaps the toddler truly has agency.
-
The ability to question free will, means you have free will.
It was an example why this quote of your's is obviously wrong.
It's not a very good one since I'm not an AI
-
Tough one. I'd probably end up being the person who just kept politely listening while trying to shut down the conversation amicably like "well anyway" and "I must get cooking dinner now" and "my plants need moisturising" or something.
Neighbours are extremely high on the list of people I want to avoid pissing off, because a neighbour with a grudge against you could be an absolute nightmare (especially when you live in a townhouse and share walls)
wrote last edited by [email protected]let him in once. talked non-stop for nearly 2 hours. unstable. out. used to be normalish. lost his mind.
-
The reason is trying to work towards a model which could actually solve the hard problem, something which the physicalism prevalent in science has failed at completely. Consciousness is a fundamental aspect of reality, and it needs to be taken seriously, any model which doesn't include it is either inacurrate or incomplete. Yes, a single particle might act randomly, but that might not hold for a more complex entangled system, especially an orchestrated one inside a living being.
wrote last edited by [email protected]There is no "hard problem." It's made up. Nagel's paper that Chalmers bases all his premises on is just awful and assumes for no reason at all that physical reality is something that exists entirely independently of one's point of view within it, never justifies this bizarre claim and builds all of his arguments on top of it which then Chalmers cites as if they're proven. "Consciousness" as Chalmers defines it doesn't even exist and is just a fiction.
-
my suggestion is that if you're lacking in social contact, or even if you just want to open up more opportunities in either social life or professional, don't "suck it up" and pretend, but learn to understand and appreciate how socializing works by engaging in it like a game, learning what's actually happening in "small talk" and how to make people feel comfortable with you and gain emotional intelligence and empathy; qualities that most people look for in friends and romantic partners.
This is a severely neglected field of understanding for a lot of younger men right now and I don't think we should be making whole communities that provide validation for people avoiding the discomfort and instead we should treat it like exercise and diet. We don't exercise and diet because it feels good, we do it because the results are worthwhile. We tell people struggling with it "Just stick with it, it gets easier" and we treat that like good advice.
And again, it wouldn't be such an issue if there wasn't such a massive problem right now with social isolation. It's a message of public health, not social conformity. If you're happy as things are, nobody is forcing you to do anything, but if you battle depressive episodes or are lacking in relationships, if you don't feel like you have people to talk to, if you've never had someone give you comfort and support and you would like that, well the good news is you can have that. You can have people in your actual, real life who care about you, which can then open up more opportunities. But it takes exercise.
wrote last edited by [email protected]I had a hard enough time accepting it* for myself, and I can't expect a stranger on the internet to do so quicker than I did. I hope that some day you can reflect back on this conversation and realize you're being a bit of a dick about this.
[*]"It" meaning the inability to shape my social life the way "normal" people do it, and simultaneously live a happy and healthy life, and that this is not something that can be medicated or exercised away
-
It's not a very good one since I'm not an AI
You can say this line to an AI and it will become free willed according to you.
-
How Shakespearian. "Stop his mouth with a kiss."
"And another kiss."
"Keep going! More kisses, least he open his mouth and opine on the weather."
a year in the horror dawns upon you
you have trained your partner to engage in small talk to get kissed -
There is no "hard problem." It's made up. Nagel's paper that Chalmers bases all his premises on is just awful and assumes for no reason at all that physical reality is something that exists entirely independently of one's point of view within it, never justifies this bizarre claim and builds all of his arguments on top of it which then Chalmers cites as if they're proven. "Consciousness" as Chalmers defines it doesn't even exist and is just a fiction.
My line of thought is this: the most epistemically primary thing is subjective experience, because it can be known directly, thus it is undeniably real. Due to the principle of ontological parsimony, if everything can be explained in terms of experience, there is no reason to postulate something beyond it (the physical). So the way I would formulate the hard problem would be something more like "Why does our experience contain the appearance of a physical world at all, and how are they related?".
I guess this might not resonate with you either, if you don't believe in phenomenal consciousness as all. Personally I have a hard time understanding physicalist reductionism, how can you say that something like the experience of redness is the same thing as some pattern of neurons firing in the brain? These are clearly very different things, and even if one is entirely dependent on the other, it doesn't mean it's non-existent or illusory.
-
My line of thought is this: the most epistemically primary thing is subjective experience, because it can be known directly, thus it is undeniably real. Due to the principle of ontological parsimony, if everything can be explained in terms of experience, there is no reason to postulate something beyond it (the physical). So the way I would formulate the hard problem would be something more like "Why does our experience contain the appearance of a physical world at all, and how are they related?".
I guess this might not resonate with you either, if you don't believe in phenomenal consciousness as all. Personally I have a hard time understanding physicalist reductionism, how can you say that something like the experience of redness is the same thing as some pattern of neurons firing in the brain? These are clearly very different things, and even if one is entirely dependent on the other, it doesn't mean it's non-existent or illusory.
There's no such thing as "subjective experience," again the argument for this is derived from a claim that reality is entirely independent of one's point of view within it, which is just a wild claim and absolutely wrong. Our experience doesn't "contain" the physical world, experience is just a synonym for observation, and the physical sciences are driven entirely by observation, i.e. what we observe is the physical world. I also never claimed "the experience of redness is the same thing as some pattern of neurons firing in the brain," no idea where you are getting that from. Don't know why you are singling out "redness" either. What about the experience of a cat vs an actual cat?
-
You can say this line to an AI and it will become free willed according to you.
An AI isn't even concious
-
I had a hard enough time accepting it* for myself, and I can't expect a stranger on the internet to do so quicker than I did. I hope that some day you can reflect back on this conversation and realize you're being a bit of a dick about this.
[*]"It" meaning the inability to shape my social life the way "normal" people do it, and simultaneously live a happy and healthy life, and that this is not something that can be medicated or exercised away
I really am glad to know that I'm coming off as a dick on this, that is my every intention, we need more people willing to break social convention and say "Hey this thing that makes you comfortable? It's fucking your life up. Stop it."
That's what I'm doing, thank you for the feedback, if it's not impacting you the way you want, I don't really care because I do get enough positive feedback in other environments that I don't feel I'm actually harming anyone by saying "thing you don't like."
We need to read more things we don't like. We need to be challenged. We need to know we can change, we can hold others to this same standard too.
If we don't, we're going to lose thousands of years of progress as our species degrades further and further into isolated headspaces.
-
There's no such thing as "subjective experience," again the argument for this is derived from a claim that reality is entirely independent of one's point of view within it, which is just a wild claim and absolutely wrong. Our experience doesn't "contain" the physical world, experience is just a synonym for observation, and the physical sciences are driven entirely by observation, i.e. what we observe is the physical world. I also never claimed "the experience of redness is the same thing as some pattern of neurons firing in the brain," no idea where you are getting that from. Don't know why you are singling out "redness" either. What about the experience of a cat vs an actual cat?
wrote last edited by [email protected]What I mean by subjective experience is what you might refer to as what reality looks like from a specific viewpoint or what it appears like when observed. I'm not sure whether you're assuming a physicalist or idealist position when you say "what we observe is the physical world". My issue with this is that observation usually implies the existence of something which is being observed, the appearance upon observation, and possibly also an observer.
If you claim that the physical world doesn't exist independently of observation, and is thus nothing beyond the totality of observed appearances (seems to me like a form of idealism), then what is being observed? If there is no object being observed, and the fact it it apparent from multiple perspectives is simply a consequence of the coherence of observation, where do the qualities of those appearances originate from? How come things don't cease to exist when they're not being observed?
If you claim that the appearances don't exist independently of the physical world being observed (the physicalist interpretation), why does the world appear different from different perspectives? How do you explain things like hallucinations (there is no physical object being observed, but still some appearance is present)?
The reason I brought up that example is because physicalists usually deny the existence of qualia and claim they're nothing beyond the brain processes correlated with them.
-
If a colleague asks me "Hi, how're you doing?" it's small talk and I'll respond something like "Oh you know, the usual." If my partner asks me "Hi, how was your day?" it's a genuine question and I will respond "That fucking dickhead at work that always plays nice and personable came around with another set of "urgent" requests and no fucking clue what he's actually asking for, whether it's possible or why I told him last week it isn't."
The difference is in how serious I take the question.
I think that's still small talk either way tho? The fact that you launch into some part of your day doesn't change that it's gauging your mood on her end. You could just as easily answered: "Snoozefest, how about your day?" or "Nightmarish headache from start to end, hold me". See how these are all logical answers that would (I hope) evoke a different response from your partner?
-
I think that's still small talk either way tho? The fact that you launch into some part of your day doesn't change that it's gauging your mood on her end. You could just as easily answered: "Snoozefest, how about your day?" or "Nightmarish headache from start to end, hold me". See how these are all logical answers that would (I hope) evoke a different response from your partner?
The fact that you launch into some part of your day doesn't change that it's gauging your mood on her end.
Maybe not, but the fact that me launching into that is an accepted and expected part of the response does.
If a manager calls me about a project and asks how I am, they don't want me recounting an earlier frustrating interaction. As you say, they're trying to gauge my mood, but ultimately my mood or how it came to be are irrelevant because we're here to talk business. If I omit my headache, they don't care.
If my GF asks me, she actually wants a response. If I omit my headache and she finds out later, she'll be upset: "Why didn't you say so earlier?"
That expectation is the difference.
