![two_red_birds_in_winter[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/NHEvEah.jpg "two_red_birds_in_winter[1].jpg")
Don't you ever get tired of hate?
Wouldn't you rather live a life of love and caring?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqLRd4neGGE
IMO we should bring back the Sixties.
Let's get together and feel up guys..
>>27256801
>bringing back degeneracy and sexual liberation
The 60s is why we have manchildren and turbo sluts.
I'm barely capable of hate. Everyone says I blame everything on anything I can, truth is I blame it ALL on myself. This isn't an attempt to garner sympathy either, I really did it to myself
It's almost like you play an active role in your life
>>27256839
I don't care I want to be stoned on pot and have sex with a smelly hippie chick in the back of a van
>>27256788
Love is a lie
People will turn on you
Normies lack any self-awareness or empathy
>>27256858
There is no free will, anon. You're the product of your genetics and environment and ultimately your actions come down to the laws of physics (whether those be deterministic or non deterministic on a fundamental level).
I don't hate anybody except myself, the bourgeoisie and their running dogs
>>27256888
Even if there was complete determinism, the way consciousness functions we'd still have personal responsibility. We can't choose that we exist (outside of the way we interpret existence), but after that everything becomes up to us. It's our conscious minds that ultimately make our decisions, so you can't externalise that and blame anything else because to do that would be to make a conscious decision.
>>27256788
Not really. Life without conflict would probably be unbearable. Antipathy is required for change.
>>27256914
>Even if there was complete determinism, the way consciousness functions we'd still have personal responsibility.
I don't agree. I think compatibilism is fundamentally an excuse for sadism or self-hatred.
>It's our conscious minds that ultimately make our decisions
That's actually the opposite of what neuroscientific evidence shows.
It's more likely the unconscious mind makes the decision and the conscious mind becomes aware of it after it's already happened.
>>27256970
http://exploringthemind.com/the-mind/brain-scans-can-reveal-your-decisions-7-seconds-before-you-decide
>>27256978
The video got taken down but here's some more info.
http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080411/full/news.2008.751.html
>>27256970
If we don't make our own decisions though, why are we conscious? Science I suppose gives us an outside perspective on the way things would work in our brains, but we only see that through our consciousness anyway. I don't believe that we'd be self-aware if we weren't responsible for our actions or at least our interpretations of the world, or if we were it would be like watching a movie instead of actually doing things.
>tfw use airgurn and target bird "couples"
>always leave one alive and watch it's behavior for a few days
I can't be the only one, right?
>>27256978
Also, that only shows the process of making a decision in the brain. It doesn't really say anything about the actual nature of the decision or that the person making it is somehow absolved of responsibility.
I really want love and care.
But I don't and probably won't ever have it. I self sabotage at every momemt because I don't want the abuse to happen again.
I left my biological family because of their abuse and now I'm a disgusting nEET thats too paranoid to go out. I get angry when I see families and bullshit ads like "Love them, give them a call! You dont know when they'll be gone". I hate my biological family, and I hate the people who try and push this shit. I'm tired of hate. I want to be the one thats gone.
>>27257064
What is "responsibility"?
Let's say someone is compelled by the laws of physics to be a murderer and they commit a murder.
They could not have done otherwise of their own accord under both causality (because their murder would have been ordained from the beginning) or acausality on the quantum level filtering up (because in that case the murder was ultimately caused by an acausal quantum event, which by definition the murderer could not have caused).
What good does holding them "responsible" for the murder, versus just locking them up until if and when they can be rehabilitated do, other than provide an excuse to enjoy sadistically torturing them?
The only reason to hold them "responsible", as opposed to simply considering them an unfortunate kind of person who needs to be rehabilitated, is to excuse taking pleasure in hurting or killing them.
>>27257023
>If we don't make our own decisions though, why are we conscious?
That's a good question but we don't know the answer.
However a person who's been brainwashed, or on heavy drugs or in a psychotic state is still conscious. But we're less likely to hold them "responsible" in many cases.
And yet they're conscious.
> I don't believe that we'd be self-aware if we weren't responsible for our actions or at least our interpretations of the world, or if we were it would be like watching a movie instead of actually doing things.
It is like watching a movie. You've been socially conditioned to think otherwise.
When you weren't paying attention in school, did it feel like you were "choosing" to not pay attention, or did it feel like you were drifting in some weird blurry world and all of a sudden the teacher brought you back to reality?
>>27257131
>Let's say someone is compelled by the laws of physics to be a murderer and they commit a murder.
What are the laws of physics that turn people into murderers?
>They could not have done otherwise of their own accord under both causality (because their murder would have been ordained from the beginning) or acausality on the quantum level filtering up (because in that case the murder was ultimately caused by an acausal quantum event, which by definition the murderer could not have caused).
But when somebody commits a murder, no matter what the process was that brought them to do it, they made a choice and saw consciously nothing wrong with killing a person. Denying that's denying that other people are conscious, and in that case why not murder them? By saying that the person is somehow "compelled by law laws of physics to be a murderer" you're also setting up your own goalposts.
>What good does holding them "responsible" for the murder, versus just locking them up until if and when they can be rehabilitated do, other than provide an excuse to enjoy sadistically torturing them?
It obviously does no good for them, but personal responsibility has to be universal if it means anything. If criminals are believed to not be responsible for there crimes it seems to me that after people become aware of this there will mysteriously be much more crime.
>>27257143
>It is like watching a movie
Video related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXYWWcOGBxg
>>27257143
So I've been socially conditioned to believe that I'm actively typing this now? That sounds absolutely ridiculous. Remember that time in school when they told us that we have free will? I don't because I was daydreaming. I wasn't choosing to daydream because I didn't like school or anything like that, it was just a movie I was watching and somehow the movie ended when it was determined that it should, namely when the teacher brought up a potential consequence for the action.
>>27257196
>What are the laws of physics that turn people into murderers?
Classical and quantum mechanics. A murderer is made of matter and energy, and therefore the matter and energy in the murderer follows classical mechanics on a macroscopic scale and quantum mechanical principles on the quantum scale.
>But when somebody commits a murder, no matter what the process was that brought them to do it, they made a choice and saw consciously nothing wrong with killing a person.
Could they have chosen to see something wrong with it?
>It obviously does no good for them, but personal responsibility has to be universal if it means anything. If criminals are believed to not be responsible for there crimes it seems to me that after people become aware of this there will mysteriously be much more crime.
Why do you think that? It seems to imply that most people really want to commit crimes very much, but don't out of some sense of "responsibility".
I think it's more likely that most people have a conscience and don't have it in them to kill others except under extreme circumstances.
>>27257214
You can tell that guy doesn't believe in free will because the way he dresses is appalling. Can you summarise it?
>>27257239
>So I've been socially conditioned to believe that I'm actively typing this now?
You were typing it, but not of your own "free will". You were typing it in response to prior causes, and your unconscious was choosing the words before your conscious mind saw them on the page. I'm typing this right now, stream of consciousness style. I don't feel that I'm "choosing" the words. They're just coming and I'm watching it happen.
Several times I went back and had to change what I wrote because it felt not quite correct. But I didn't choose for it to feel that way. It just did.
>I wasn't choosing to daydream because I didn't like school or anything like that...
I never felt I was "choosing" to daydream. It just happened. There was never even a clear point between daydreaming and not daydreaming. It was a slow segue.
I'll never be able to stop hating myself.
>>27256788
No. anytime I try people throw me down and insult me. Especially young women I am a freak in their eyes, they do everything in their ower to make me feel insecure about my looks. It is like they want me to kill myself while they live their vapid live, they don't even need to take care of themselves or exercise. I maintain my body but still get treated like shit, that is why I hate many.
>>27257264
>Classical and quantum mechanics. A murderer is made of matter and energy, and therefore the matter and energy in the murderer follows classical mechanics on a macroscopic scale and quantum mechanical principles on the quantum scale.
But who's looking at the matter and energy? It needs to be a human mind, there;s no god as far as I know.
>Could they have chosen to see something wrong with it?
Yes, they could have. Our tastes and beliefs change when we see new information, and it's our responsibility alone to look for new information and interpret it to fit with our worldviews.
>Why do you think that? It seems to imply that most people really want to commit crimes very much, but don't out of some sense of "responsibility".
Not most people, just a lot. I believe that there are definitely a lot of antisocial people out there, we're living in capitalism. Most people don't want to kill others because it doesn't benefit them in their minds, but if it did a lot of those people probably wouldn't have such a negative attitude towards it.
>>27257279
There's a transcript if you'd prefer to read.
Gets especially relevant towards the middle/end. Be patient.
http://causalconsciousness.com/Episode%20Transcripts/5.%20%20We%20Do%20Not%20Experience%20a%20Free%20Will.htm
>>27257315
>You were typing it, but not of your own "free will". You were typing it in response to prior causes, and your unconscious was choosing the words before your conscious mind saw them on the page. I'm typing this right now, stream of consciousness style. I don't feel that I'm "choosing" the words. They're just coming and I'm watching it happen.
Obviously you need things to think about to think, and the unconscious brain does the busywork in making decisions and so on, but I do choose what words to use. When I read something that says to use words in a certain way it's completely up to me whether I accept that information or not.
yeah man! fuck those normie birds!
>>27256788
Hate is all I have to fill the husk that is my existence
If I didn't have hate I'd deflate like a punctured balloon.
I'm so weary but I'm incapable of love so this is my life.
>>27257338
>But who's looking at the matter and energy? It needs to be a human mind, there;s no god as far as I know.
You don't need to look at matter and energy for it to be following mechanical principles.
>Yes, they could have. Our tastes and beliefs change when we see new information, and it's our responsibility alone to look for new information and interpret it to fit with our worldviews.
Your second sentence doesn't seem related to the first one, here. I don't believe they could have chosen to see something wrong with it, if they didn't, at that (real, not hypothetical) time, under those (real, not hypothetical) conditions. The idea that they could have (at that time) is non-falsifiable and therefore non-scientific.
>Not most people, just a lot. I believe that there are definitely a lot of antisocial people out there, we're living in capitalism. Most people don't want to kill others because it doesn't benefit them in their minds, but if it did a lot of those people probably wouldn't have such a negative attitude towards it.
People who are that psychopathic are ill and should be sequestered for the good of society, which would make it hard for them to make profit or whatever they want to do along those lines.
You can still imprison people without believing in free will. It's just that the motivation becomes purely about the greater good, rather than sadism.
I don't hate and I used to be able to love, but no one ever returned those feelings so now I'm mostly just numb
>>27256788
Not if it meant being untrue to myself and my natural desires.
>>27257414
>You don't need to look at matter and energy for it to be following mechanical principles.
But you do, that's my entire point. To make an observation there needs to be an observer. For all intents and purposes nothing exists if conscious people aren't there to see it.
>if they didn't, at that (real, not hypothetical) time, under those (real, not hypothetical) conditions.
who was the real murderer?
>therefore non-scientific.
we're talking about philosophy
>People who are that psychopathic are ill and should be sequestered for the good of society
What's the objective, scientific greater good? Who decides what it is if it isn't human minds with responsibility for that decision?
>You can still imprison people without believing in free will. It's just that the motivation becomes purely about the greater good, rather than sadism.
Most sadism is done for the "greater good". Stalinists believed they were torturing "so nobody had to torture again".
I actually outgrew my always angry phase a couple of years ago
I just don't know any other websites so I stay here
>>27257469
>But you do, that's my entire point. To make an observation there needs to be an observer. For all intents and purposes nothing exists if conscious people aren't there to see it.
I don't agree. Things existed even before consciousness existed, and they gave rise to consciousness. We can look back on them and see they existed and there are many intents and purposes for which they did exist (such as even allowing us to exist).
>who was the real murderer?
The one who committed the murder--who was made a murderer by his genetics and environment (which came into play due to classical and/or quantum mechanics) or acausal quantum events, or some interaction of both of those things.
>we're talking about philosophy
Philosophy and science go well together. Science plays a huge role in philosophy, especially these days.
>What's the objective, scientific greater good?
The question of how to define "good" is philosophical rather than scientific, but science still plays into it on multiple levels (such as understanding the physical causes of pleasure such as neurotransmitters, energy spikes, etc).
I think the most reasonable conception of "good" is to equate it with pleasure, and "evil" to be equated with pain. I consider this axiomatic--it's just so obvious to me that I'd be willing to say I consider it foundational.
It's not possible to even define "suffering" without "bad" or some other synonym like "negative" or "unpleasant".
>Who decides what it is if it isn't human minds with responsibility for that decision?
I still don't even understand what it is about "responsibility" that's necessary for human minds to understand that suffering is bad, and pleasure is good.
I don't even feel that I decided that. I can't choose to enjoy suffering. It feels bad and no "choice" was necessary for it to feel bad.
>Most sadism is done for the "greater good".
Like enjoying watching a criminal suffer for the sake of "justice"?
>>27257196
As much as I'd like to believe it's too convenient an excuse for any action, the implication is nullifying personal responsibility
>>27257515
twitter!
>>27257626
I used that for a few months back in 2009 but it was pretty shit
>>27257549
>I don't agree. Things existed even before consciousness existed, and they gave rise to consciousness. We can look back on them and see they existed and there are many intents and purposes for which they did exist (such as even allowing us to exist).
We can acknowledge that things did exist before we did, but only through our perception of the world. That's why we have a concept of "before we existed".
>Philosophy and science go well together. Science plays a huge role in philosophy, especially these days.
But science can't replace philosophy, and philosophy can't replace science. They're different expertises.
>>27257549
>The question of how to define "good" is philosophical rather than scientific, but science still plays into it on multiple levels (such as understanding the physical causes of pleasure such as neurotransmitters, energy spikes, etc).
>I think the most reasonable conception of "good" is to equate it with pleasure, and "evil" to be equated with pain. I consider this axiomatic--it's just so obvious to me that I'd be willing to say I consider it foundational.
>It's not possible to even define "suffering" without "bad" or some other synonym like "negative" or "unpleasant".
Pain and suffering are different concepts though. If physical pain and pleasure are our only measures of good and bad, should we all just work towards total hedonism and see anybody who disagrees with that as mentally ill?
>I still don't even understand what it is about "responsibility" that's necessary for human minds to understand that suffering is bad, and pleasure is good.
Because it's not such a simple question. Good and pleasure are seperate terms. We have to define pleasure as good, it's not good on it's own. We need to use responsibility to make those definitions.
>Like enjoying watching a criminal suffer for the sake of "justice"?
Yes, also like locking tons of people in asylums for being masochists.
>>27257613
I don't understand why you need to believe in "personal responsibility".
Personally I think this whole "personal responsibility" thing causes more problems than it solves.
It creates a boogey man, "free will", that we can use as an excuse to not help people and to stop looking at the CAUSES of their actions, and our own actions.
Say there's a woman who compulsively mutilates herself. Under the "personal responsibility"/"free will" paradigm, we can say
SHE DID IT
and we can excuse not helping her. We're freed from any need to look at the causes of why she does this, or why other people do it.
We can just say they can stop whenever, and they don't deserve help.
Once you throw away free will, if you're a compassionate person like me you're like, "Something is CAUSING her to do this. Let's look at the cause and see we can fix it".
I look at this world like a big machine.
Free will believers seem to look at it like a big machine full of gremlins ("free will" and "personal responsibility").
Once you stop believing in gremlins, you can get your wrench and start fixing the real mechanical problems.
>>27257613
So by nullifying personal responsibility we can choose to do anything we like instead of choosing to believe in personal responsibility? I don't understand how you can go from believing that one is responsible and holding oneself responsible, to not believing that and choosing to act unjustly and not see that choice somehow factors into that.
Theres a tfw-no-gf thread nearly everyday if not everyday. We're all doomed. r9k isn't a place for people who can find love. of course we want love. Its showed in all our animes. There's so many trap threads because women will never love us.
>>27257676
But to say that the woman mutilating herself is doing the wrong thing, you need to be able to prove that you know what's best for her.
>>27256813
In fact, let's just skip that first part and starting feeling up ;)
>>27257734
What if she herself says she wants to stop mutilating herself but can't?
You can understand the concept of wanting to want, right?
>>27257781
What's causing her to mutilate herself against her will? Also, a situation where people do things against there will makes it seem like the things they do against their will are determined and their will isn't determined.
