Suicide note, blew his brains out in Harvard, Excerpts

Share your experiences with the opposite sex. Suggest ways to improve your success. Analyze the behavior of females in real life and online. Rant and rave about females. Show the importance of looks pertaining to attracting females and other social situations. Discuss aesthetics and the science of attractiveness. Exchange health, nutrition and looksmaxing tips.

IncelExecutioner wrote:The universe follows a set of rules, but it's often chaotic. I don't think you can say that bio-chemical reactions control us, anymore than we control those chemical reactions through our generation of thoughts.


EVERYTHING you do is the result of your brain-chemistry at that moment. You have NO choice! Thoughts are nothing but the expression of your working subconscious.

IncelExecutioner wrote:I just find this whole ideology of a lack of free-will to be too mental-masturbatory. It's obvious to every sane person that we decide many of our actions. There's a reason the guy who wrote this doesn't talk about free will and determinism, it's not an important concept.


Free will has always been the fantasy land of day-dreamers. It's the last blue pill. People want to cling to the delusion that they control their destiny. But why argue? Just get up-to-date with the science and you will see that brain scans long disproved the quackery of free will.
Whimminz reactions when I try to be more "confident":
Image



EscortAddict wrote:
just to point out that this is not legit:

if you was born in iraq/saudi arabia/other heavily religious country, you would not think like this today.

religious brainwashing would have resulted in you having a different mind, and different thougths today

you writing this, is a result of a liberated first world education.

but nothing of this was a result of your "free" will, it was a result of your environment shaping your brain in a certain way.


I was born in a religious family and haven't believed in it since my teens.

I am not denying that there is much determinism in modern society. It's obvious that an ugly poor crouzons paki manlet will be fucked over. I'm saying that it's not a necessity in a philosophical sense. Thus, there will be less "determinism" in the future as technology allows us the possibility to attain almost anything we want.

But the "determinism" that Anankind is talking about is not one of circumstance, it's one of not being able to control our thoughts at the fundamental level.

I don't think science disproves free will at all, brain scans showing the importance of biochemicals doesn't mean that we have no control over our actions. In fact, brain scans of tibetan monks show they have greater ability to resist impulses, i.e. their actions are more independent of their neural biochemistry than the average person.

Sure you can go ahead and say individual neuronal networks and anatomy controls our thoughts...but I just find that so immaterial and overly-philosophical that it's not relevant. There is no way to verify that you are not controlling your thoughts imo.
Earth's sole legacy will be a very slight increase (0.01%) of the solar metallicity.

Obviously our life is composed of a series of neural firings. At any point in time, we may have hundreds of different, equally likely neural pathways we can fire.

You can claim that we are not deciding which pathways to fire, but that depends on how you even define a "decision". In my opinion, we do decide which pathways to fire, even if it is an inherently physical process.

IncelExecutioner wrote: There is no way to verify that you are not controlling your thoughts imo.


just use common sense for gods sake.

why is it so hard for people, to break out of old habbits, getting out of depression, being non lazy, getting rid of addictions ?

even if they want it ?

because you dont control your brain, and you dont control your thoughts.

if our will was actually free, there would be no unwanted addictions, no unwanted depression, no unwanted being lazy. people would just do what they want, at any given time, and no one would be depressed

but the world we observe, is nothing like that.

also people get traumas from bad experiences, another sign of not having a free will.

if you had free will, something bad happening to you should have almost zero effect on your future thinking, but the evidence is, it has a gigantic effect (on 99% of people)
Escort crew
Workcel crew
Oldcel crew



EscortAddict wrote:
just use common sense for gods sake.

why is it so hard for people, to break out of old habbits, getting out of depression, being non lazy, getting rid of addictions ?

even if they want it ?

because you dont control your brain, and you dont control your thoughts.

if our will was actually free, there would be no unwanted addictions, no unwanted depression, no unwanted being lazy. people would just do what they want, at any given time, and no one would be depressed

but the world we observe, is nothing like that.

also people get traumas from bad experiences, another sign of not having a free will.

if you had free will, something bad happening to you should have almost zero effect on your future thinking, but the evidence is, it has a gigantic effect (on 99% of people)


Again, the "determinism" you're referring to is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than the one Anakind is referring to. The fact that you even say "on 99% of people" means you admit there are people that have control of their biochemistry. I'm not denying the tremendous impact of circumstance on people's lives. What I am saying is that technology will diminish this type of "determinism".

What I disagree with is Anakind's type of "determinism" in which he asserts no free will in the philosophical sense, so that regardless of where technology leads us, we will not have free will because such a thing does not even exist.

I disagree with that.

IncelExecutioner wrote:I don't think science disproves free will at all, brain scans showing the importance of biochemicals doesn't mean that we have no control over our actions. In fact, brain scans of tibetan monks show they have greater ability to resist impulses, i.e. their actions are more independent of their neural biochemistry than the average person.


You obviously don't know about the studies. Why not go ahead and look at them?

IncelExecutioner wrote:Sure you can go ahead and say individual neuronal networks and anatomy controls our thoughts...but I just find that so immaterial and overly-philosophical that it's not relevant. There is no way to verify that you are not controlling your thoughts imo.


It's a coping mechanism of yours. You don't like the idea so it must be untrue. It's like someone hating the idea that Looks matter so it can't be true.

Also: It's not philosophical. It has far-reaching implications on our legal system. B/c right now punishment is based on the immature idea that we have free will and "we" can "change" ourselves. Ever wondered why sex-offender do NOT "change" themselves?

IncelExecutioner wrote: The fact that you even say "on 99% of people" means you admit there are people that have control of their biochemistry.


LOL, no. I didn't say that.

just some people have a biochemistry that leads them to be more happy & action-taking in general.

and also the other way, lot of depressed people actually just have serotonin deficit, and this physical cause directly affects their thinking

or you could be a low-T faggot like me, being lazy and tired all the time



IncelExecutioner wrote:Again, the "determinism" you're referring to is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than the one Anakind is referring to. The fact that you even say "on 99% of people" means you admit there are people that have control of their biochemistry. I'm not denying the tremendous impact of circumstance on people's lives. What I am saying is that technology will diminish this type of "determinism".


How can YOU control your bio-chemistry? YOU (your conscious) are just part of it.

Anakind wrote:Also: It's not philosophical. It has far-reaching implications on our legal system. B/c right now punishment is based on the immature idea that we have free will and "we" can "change" ourselves. Ever wondered why sex-offender do NOT "change" themselves?


yep, this.

I think the main point must be to protect society from harmful individuals, not to "punish" them.

Anakind wrote:
IncelExecutioner wrote:I don't think science disproves free will at all, brain scans showing the importance of biochemicals doesn't mean that we have no control over our actions. In fact, brain scans of tibetan monks show they have greater ability to resist impulses, i.e. their actions are more independent of their neural biochemistry than the average person.


You obviously don't know about the studies. Why not go ahead and look at them?

IncelExecutioner wrote:Sure you can go ahead and say individual neuronal networks and anatomy controls our thoughts...but I just find that so immaterial and overly-philosophical that it's not relevant. There is no way to verify that you are not controlling your thoughts imo.


It's a coping mechanism of yours. You don't like the idea so it must be untrue. It's like someone hating the idea that Looks matter so it can't be true.

Also: It's not philosophical. It has far-reaching implications on our legal system. B/c right now punishment is based on the immature idea that we have free will and "we" can "change" ourselves. Ever wondered why sex-offender do NOT "change" themselves?


I've obviously read studies on neural bio-chemistry, so how about you not be pretentious and link studies that directly support your argument. Telling someone to look up studies which YOU are basing your argument off of is lame.

And no, it's not because I'm not comfortable with the idea, I just think it's overly-philosophical to the point of being meaningless. If anything, my perspective is more distressing because I believe in the determinism that EscortAddict talks about, and I think this "determinism" will be eliminated in the future, but that we will miss the boat.

For example a lot of women become depressed after pregnancy, because of hormonal changes

EscortAddict wrote:
Anakind wrote:Also: It's not philosophical. It has far-reaching implications on our legal system. B/c right now punishment is based on the immature idea that we have free will and "we" can "change" ourselves. Ever wondered why sex-offender do NOT "change" themselves?


yep, this.

I think the main point must be to protect society from harmful individuals, not to "punish" them.


A better way to "punish" criminals is to undo the possibility to repeat a crime. For a sex-offender it would be to cut off their balls for instance. Why should he be in prison if he could be a productive member of society otherwise?

Anakind wrote:
EscortAddict wrote:
yep, this.

I think the main point must be to protect society from harmful individuals, not to "punish" them.


A better way to "punish" criminals is to undo the possibility to repeat a crime. For a sex-offender it would be to cut off their balls for instance. Why should he be in prison if he could be a productive member of society otherwise?


I would give them the choice

a) chemical castration (but we need a study first that proves this will actually stop them from doing more crimes)
b) lifelong prison

Anakind wrote:
A better way to "punish" criminals is to undo the possibility to repeat a crime. For a sex-offender it would be to cut off their balls for instance. Why should he be in prison if he could be a productive member of society otherwise?


Except that you can't verify that a sex-offender will commit another offense, many of them experience jail-time and are fearful of going back to jail. You just don't know. It all depends on how they DECIDE to live their life.

Now you wanna talk about biochemistry, or rather if you were more rigorous with your definition you'd be talking about individual neuronal connections/pathways, but regardless you have no way of verifying if their pathways will lead to a repeat offense. Furthermore even if we had the technology to assess their pathways, it may only be like a 30% chance. Claiming no free-will exists is just too immaterial in my opinion.
Last edited by IncelExecutioner on Thu Sep 18, 2014 9:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

IncelExecutioner wrote:I've obviously read studies on neural bio-chemistry, so how about you not be pretentious and link studies that directly support your argument. Telling someone to look up studies which YOU are basing your argument off of is lame.


Feel free to look for the peer-reviewed studies. I did it years ago. But here's a read:

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110831/ ... 7023a.html


IncelExecutioner wrote:And no, it's not because I'm not comfortable with the idea, I just think it's overly-philosophical to the point of being meaningless. If anything, my perspective is more distressing because I believe in the determinism that EscortAddict talks about, and I think this "determinism" will be eliminated in the future, but that we will miss the boat.


EscortAddicts determinism is the same as mine, he just has different words to describe it. Also, calling one of the most important issues in the world "philosophical" to belittle it is hilarious.

And if you say determinism (the laws of cause and effect) can be "eliminated", I would like to know what kind of stuff you're smoking. :lol:

IncelExecutioner wrote:Except that you can't verify that a sex-offender will commit another offense, many of them experience jail-time and are fearful of going back to jail. You just don't know. It all depends on how they DECIDE to live their life.


Nope, it's about how their brain-chemistry and hormone levels look like at that point and whether there is an opportunity upon which they can act.

Tell me, if there is free will, how come we don't use it to our benefit? :D

Anakind wrote:
EscortAddicts determinism is the same as mine, he just has different words to describe it. Also, calling one of the most important issues in the world "philosophical" to belittle it is hilarious.

And if you say determinism (the laws of cause and effect) can be "eliminated", I would like to know what kind of stuff you're smoking. :lol:


I didn't say it is wrong because it is "philosophical", I said because it is "overly-philosophical", i.e. there is no way to rationally argue for or against it. It is just to immaterial. For example, the study you sent me claims the participants made up their minds 7 seconds prior to choosing.

First of all, this is just one test condition, there may be several others where a decision is made mere milliseconds prior to choosing. And who's to define how long of a time-span brain activity must precede a choice for it to signify no free will?

I'm sure there's a better term than "overly-philosophical" to use, what I mean is there is no way to concretely argue against free will, in the same way we can concretely argue against Christianity by scientific evidence such as the big bang and quantum theory and rational analysis of the probability of their being a Christian God. That analysis (for the lack of a God) is much more concrete than talking about free will, which is just too hazy.

IncelExecutioner wrote:
I didn't say it is wrong because it is "philosophical", I said because it is "overly-philosophical", i.e. there is no way to rationally argue for or against it.


Wrong.

The study anakind posted is a direct argument against it, and if you generally believe in a universe that is ruled by physical laws & causality (and we have lot of evidence for this, and almost no counter-evidence), you cant believe in free will at the same time, because free will would mean something happens without a cause (you making a decision that was not determined by anything in this universe).

free will and a universe ruled by causality = direct contradiction.

so if you believe in free will you can also believe in pink cows appearing out of nowhere, it's almost on the same level

Anakind wrote:Nope, it's about how their brain-chemistry and hormone levels look like at that point and whether there is an opportunity upon which they can act.

Tell me, if there is free will, how come we don't use it to our benefit? :D


We do, when you decide to work to increase your M instead of living off of welfare that is a choice that you make. Now you can go on again how it's neurochemistry, but I've already stated it's not neurochemistry like total amount of dopamine but individual neural pathways and connections at the more fundamental level.

And once you get down to that level of physical reductionism it's very difficult to argue that neurons are "acting on their own" and that we don't have an ability to fire neurons based on our decisions.

IncelExecutioner wrote: and that we don't have an ability to fire neurons based on our decisions.

lol, you got this totally wrong bro.

it's not you that is making your neurons fire in a certain way LOL.

your neurons firing in a certain way is what is leading to you making a specific decision.

again there is direct evidence that we dont have control over this. for example after accidents, when people get their brain damaged (= neuronal wirings get destroyed) often they have drastic personality changes.

because your personality / will / what you want & think is just a specific wiring in your brain, and nothing more.

EscortAddict wrote:
Wrong.

The study anakind posted is a direct argument against it, and if you generally believe in a universe that is ruled by physical laws & causality (and we have lot of evidence for this, and almost no counter-evidence), you cant believe in free will at the same time, because free will would mean something happens without a cause (you making a decision that was not determined by anything in this universe).

free will and a universe ruled by causality = direct contradiction.

so if you believe in free will you can also believe in pink cows appearing out of nowhere, it's almost on the same level


From his article:

" Philosophers question the assumptions underlying such interpretations. "Part of what's driving some of these conclusions is the thought that free will has to be spiritual or involve souls or something," says Al Mele, a philosopher at Florida State University in Tallahassee. If neuroscientists find unconscious neural activity that drives decision-making, the troublesome concept of mind as separate from body disappears, as does free will. This 'dualist' conception of free will is an easy target for neuroscientists to knock down, says Glannon. "Neatly dividing mind and brain makes it easier for neuroscientists to drive a wedge between them," he adds.

The trouble is, most current philosophers don't think about free will like that, says Mele. Many are materialists — believing that everything has a physical basis, and decisions and actions come from brain activity. So scientists are weighing in on a notion that philosophers consider irrelevant.

Nowadays, says Mele, the majority of philosophers are comfortable with the idea that people can make rational decisions in a deterministic universe. They debate the interplay between freedom and determinism — the theory that everything is predestined, either by fate or by physical laws — but Roskies says that results from neuroscience can't yet settle that debate. They may speak to the predictability of actions, but not to the issue of determinism.

Neuroscientists also sometimes have misconceptions about their own field, says Michael Gazzaniga, a neuroscientist at the University of California, Santa Barbara. In particular, scientists tend to see preparatory brain activity as proceeding stepwise, one bit at a time, to a final decision. He suggests that researchers should instead think of processes working in parallel, in a complex network with interactions happening continually. The time at which one becomes aware of a decision is thus not as important as some have thought. "

I think your assertions are false and you are framing them as scientific (universe ruled by causality), when you are not defining free will clearly. Free will doesn't necessitate that it cannot exist in the confines of the rules of the universe. You can decide whether to watch a movie or play video games instead. You really think that is deterministic?

Look, obviously there are plenty of smart people on both sides of this argument who have been fighting about it for years. Let's just agree to disagree.

EscortAddict wrote:lol, you got this totally wrong bro.

it's not you that is making your neurons fire in a certain way LOL.

your neurons firing in a certain way is what is leading to you making a specific decision.

again there is direct evidence that we dont have control over this. for example after accidents, when people get their brain damaged (= neuronal wirings get destroyed) often they have drastic personality changes.

because your personality / will / what you want & think is just a specific wiring in your brain, and nothing more.


As the part of the article I quoted demonstrates, the fact that brain activity precedes decisions does not negate free will. You have not and cannot conclusively prove that our brain activity controls us without us having any say in it.

Like I said, it's obvious there are highly intelligent people on both sides of this debate. Let's drop the one-upmanship and agree that we will not resolve it on sluthate.com.

IncelExecutioner wrote:I think your assertions are false and you are framing them as scientific (universe ruled by causality), when you are not defining free will clearly. Free will doesn't necessitate that it cannot exist in the confines of the rules of the universe. You can decide whether to watch a movie or play video games instead. You really think that is deterministic?


yes, it is deterministic.

just because you cannot point out the 10000 of different events that happend in your life resulting in you prefering X over Y, doesnt' mean it's not deterministic.

weather for example is deterministic, but it'S still almost impossible for us to predict it even for a few days, because it's a chaotic system, and the position of just a few atoms now, can have a huge effect in the future, because small changes accumulate and have bigger and bigger effects in the future.

some idiot would now argue it's random because we cant predict it, but it's not random, it'S deterministic.


the only possible argument for free will would be a physical one, based on quantum mechanics / quantum noise. quantum mechanics would leave the option of randomness in our decissions, and for practical reasons you could see this as "free will" .. but this would not be the free will as most define it

IncelExecutioner wrote:As the part of the article I quoted demonstrates, the fact that brain activity precedes decisions does not negate free will. You have not and cannot conclusively prove that our brain activity controls us without us having any say in it.

lol wat ? your brain doesn't dictate your thinking ?

what do you think will happen if I remove a part of your brain ? :roll:

if your brain activity stops, you are dead. That is actually the definition of death. there is no soul, all of your thinking is a result of electrical activity in your brain.

EscortAddict wrote:yes, it is deterministic.

just because you cannot point out the 10000 of different events that happend in your life resulting in you prefering X over Y, doesnt' mean it's not deterministic.

weather for example is deterministic, but it'S still almost impossible for us to predict it even for a few days, because it's a chaotic system, and the position of just a few atoms now, can have a huge effect in the future, because small changes accumulate and have bigger and bigger effects in the future.

some idiot would now argue it's random because we cant predict it, but it's not random, it'S deterministic.


the only possible argument for free will would be a physical one, based on quantum mechanics / quantum noise. quantum mechanics would leave the option of randomness in our decissions, and for practical reasons you could see this as "free will" .. but this would not be the free will as most define it


You can't prove that those 10000 events are controlling your brain as opposed to just shaping it a way that will favor one decision but not necessarily force you to choose one over the other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will

Nothing more to be said.

EscortAddict wrote:lol wat ? your brain doesn't dictate your thinking ?

what do you think will happen if I remove a part of your brain ? :roll:

if your brain activity stops, you are dead. That is actually the definition of death. there is no soul, all of your thinking is a result of electrical activity in your brain.


As the philosopher in the article discussed, just because all thought is physical it doesn't mean that our concept of free will is negated.

IncelExecutioner wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will

This wikipedia article does a better job than any of us will.

I don't think either side here can prove the other side is retarded or being dumb. It's an extremely complicated issue.


you just believe in it because you want it to be true

if would also prefer us to have a free will, but I dont believe in it because logic says, we dont have free will.

you are on the same level as religious people who believe in god even thought there is no logical argument for his extistence that makes any sense.

IncelExecutioner wrote:As the philosopher in the article discussed, just because all thought is physical it doesn't mean that our concept of free will is negated.

than the philosopher is just an idiot. just because he made a degree out of mental masturbation, doesn't mean he cant be stupid.

LOL even at this sentence:

just because all thought is physical it doesn't mean that our concept of free will is negated

LOL

your will = your thoughts
your thoughts = physical
your will = physical

dont you see how retarded it is to believe in the above, and still think we have free will ? how does it even make sense ?

EscortAddict wrote:
you just believe in it because you want it to be true

if would also prefer us to have a free will, but I dont believe in it because logic says, we dont have free will.

you are on the same level as religious people who believe in god even thought there is no logical argument for his extistence that makes any sense.


I don't give a shit either way as I already stated, it's harsher to me to miss out on the singularity.

One thing we can verify conclusively from this argument is you are very condescending and arrogant with your beliefs, to equate believing in the possibility of free will is equal to scientifically debunked religious beliefs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will

Look how fucking long this summary of the debate is, clearly its unsettled. Stop trying to prove that you're smart and I'm being dumb, I think that's a highly close-minded and idiotic approach to take, given that this clearly is not even close to being a resolved issue amongst scientists and philosophers.
PreviousNext

Topic Tags

Return to Shitty Advice

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], mrz and 108 guests