Racism And Metal

[epicous]

My opinion is that genetics make an influence on the behavior of an individual, about a 20%. There is information that is transmitted by the genes, not only to determine physical features, but mental too.

 

[lord667]

Free will is not an illusion, I know this because when I get hungry, for example, I make a concious decision to go into my kitchen and make a sandwich. There is no part of my mind or body that is commanding me to do this. I could just as well choose not to make a sandwich and instead go smoke a cigarette. The point is anyone can take any action if they choose to. The argument that identity is merely based on genetics and experience and not a product of ones personal choice is just an excuse for people to not take responsibility for themselves.

But if there is nothing in your mind or body commanding you, then what is making the decision?

 

[anonymousnick2001]

We should now only concentrate on the present and the future.

I agree.

Exactly mate, the hypocrisy is disgusting.

I disagree.

But if there is nothing in your mind or body commanding you, then what is making the decision?

I think what he means is that the impression that everything is pre-determined doesn't sit well with him. The same here. However, the reason you make the decisions you make is based upon who you are. And who you are is determined by your lineage, and where you grew up/how you were raised. The reason you eat when you're hungry is because you're genetically programmed to. If you choose to smoke instead, the reason you chose to is reflective of your genetics. If you're one of those guys that says "Fuck pre-determinism, I control my life! I WON'T eat! Hah!" then you smoke because your genetics makes you a rebel. If you smoke because you feel like it, it's because your genetics coupled with your nicotine addiction willed you to make an opportunity cost and smoke rather than eat.

You have control, but the decisions you make are based on who you are.

There's a philosphical question: If you're walking down the middle of a road, equidistant to both sides, and a truck is headed straight towards you, which side would you go to for safety? Your choice depends on who you are. Your gentics, and your experience. Go on, try it. Think about that...

 

[anonymousnick2001]

We should now only concentrate on the present and the future.

I agree.

Exactly mate, the hypocrisy is disgusting.

I disagree.

But if there is nothing in your mind or body commanding you, then what is making the decision?

I think what he means is that the impression that everything is pre-determined doesn't sit well with him. The same here. However, the reason you make the decisions you make is based upon who you are. And who you are is determined by your lineage, and where you grew up/how you were raised. The reason you eat when you're hungry is because you're genetically programmed to. If you choose to smoke instead, the reason you chose to is reflective of your genetics. If you're one of those guys that says "Fuck pre-determinism, I control my life! I WON'T eat! Hah!" then you smoke because your genetics makes you a rebel. If you smoke because you feel like it, it's because your genetics coupled with your nicotine addiction willed you to make an opportunity cost and smoke rather than eat.

You have control, but the decisions you make are based on who you are.

There's a philosphical question: If you're walking down the middle of a road, equidistant to both sides, and a truck is headed straight towards you, which side would you go to for safety? Your choice depends on who you are. Your gentics, and your experience. Go on, try it. Think about that...

 

[lord667]

I think what he means is that the impression that everything is pre-determined doesn't sit well with him. The same here. However, the reason you make the decisions you make is based upon who you are. And who you are is determined by your lineage, and where you grew up/how you were raised. The reason you eat when you're hungry is because you're genetically programmed to. If you choose to smoke instead, the reason you chose to is reflective of your genetics. If you're one of those guys that says "Fuck pre-determinism, I control my life! I WON'T eat! Hah!" then you smoke because your genetics makes you a rebel. If you smoke because you feel like it, it's because your genetics coupled with your nicotine addiction willed you to make an opportunity cost and smoke rather than eat.

You have control, but the decisions you make are based on who you are.

Yahtzee. And thus free will is an illusion, because will is not free. It is a prisoner of the past, able to do anything it wants but only within the confines of its cell.

There's a philosphical question: If you're walking down the middle of a road, equidistant to both sides, and a truck is headed straight towards you, which side would you go to for safety? Your choice depends on who you are. Your gentics, and your experience. Go on, try it. Think about that...

I'm almost certain I would leap to the left. I have a natural tendency to lean slightly to the left in all circumstances. When I lean on a wall, it's my left shoulder that bears the weight. When I sit in a chair, I tend to sit slightly right of center and rest my weight on my left forearm. So, I'm pretty sure that in a snap judgement, with all things being equal, I would leap left.

 

[anonymousnick2001]

Isn't that a great philosphical/psychological question?

I'd get hit by the truck.

And free will as the term would be interpreted is an illusion. But people are free to make decisions. If your father was a rapist, your mother an alcoholic, and you grew up under a bridge in Seattle, you could, theoretically, still become President. Improbable, but not impossible. However, the way free will is defined by the average Joe says that there is no probability/improbability of that happening. Anything is possible. So they say...

 

[SADUDE]

Isn't that a great philosphical/psychological question?

I'd get hit by the truck.

And free will as the term would be interpreted is an illusion. But people are free to make decisions. If your father was a rapist, your mother an alcoholic, and you grew up under a bridge in Seattle, you could, theoretically, still become President. Improbable, but not impossible. However, the way free will is defined by the average Joe says that there is no probability/improbability of that happening. Anything is possible. So they say...

Jesus how many times does free will as it is universely accepted need to be redefeined. People aren't "free to make decisions." The decisions were pre-determined. True that person could become president. I care not discuss the probabillity. It is something that either will or will not happen. Something that won't be known ahead of time, but is determined in that fashion. Saying anything is possible is an unrelated argument of metaphysics

 

[Cythraul]

I think what he means is that the impression that everything is pre-determined doesn't sit well with him. The same here. However, the reason you make the decisions you make is based upon who you are. And who you are is determined by your lineage, and where you grew up/how you were raised. The reason you eat when you're hungry is because you're genetically programmed to. If you choose to smoke instead, the reason you chose to is reflective of your genetics. If you're one of those guys that says "Fuck pre-determinism, I control my life! I WON'T eat! Hah!" then you smoke because your genetics makes you a rebel. If you smoke because you feel like it, it's because your genetics coupled with your nicotine addiction willed you to make an opportunity cost and smoke rather than eat.

You have control, but the decisions you make are based on who you are.


I will agree that genetic makeup may cause one to be inclined to make certain decisions but that does not seem to hold true if one makes a decision that is completely out of character. If you're taking the view that no one can do other than what they're programmed to do, that we live in a state of causal determinism, then no action can be considered right or wrong which sort of invalidates a whole lot of value judgements and moral beliefs. If I have the power to make a decision that is not in accordance with my upbringing, inherited traits, or experience then that constitutes free will in my opinion. Case in point: Imagine for a moment that someone had the ability to predict every event in your life. This person would only be able to make accurate predictions as long as you were not aware of the predictions. If they however, decided to tell you one of their predictions then you would have the power to do the complete opposite of what you were told was going to happen.

 

[lord667]

I will agree that genetic makeup may cause one to be inclined to make certain decisions but that does not seem to hold true if one makes a decision that is completely out of character.

You can't make a decision that is even remotely out of character.

If you're taking the view that no one can do other than what they're programmed to do, that we live in a state of causal determinism, then no action can be considered right or wrong which sort of invalidates a whole lot of value judgements and moral beliefs.

It doesn't invalidate anything. The beliefs, right and wrong, the very concept of good and evil, are part of the causal determinism, just like every other thought and action. They happened for a reason, and they are the reason other things happen.

If I have the power to make a decision that is not in accordance with my upbringing, inherited traits, or experience then that constitutes free will in my opinion.

And you would never, ever make such a decision. Free will as you describe it requires the ability to make a decision without grounds in your memory, intellect or impulse system, and the human mind simply doesn't work that way. There is always a reason why we do something - ex nihilo is strictly for Gods.

Case in point: Imagine for a moment that someone had the ability to predict every event in your life. This person would only be able to make accurate predictions as long as you were not aware of the predictions. If they however, decided to tell you one of their predictions then you would have the power to do the complete opposite of what you were told was going to happen.

And those actions would cause the event to occur, or do nothing to stop it happening. If someone were somehow able to compute the future, they would take their own future actions into account, as an essential part of the system. Therefore, their prediction would factor in the effect of their telling you.

 

[Cythraul]

You can't make a decision that is even remotely out of character.

By this do you mean that if I make a decision that seems out of character it's really not out of character because that decision is also determined by my character? If that's what you're saying then that means that a persons character encompasses every possible trait. For example, If I'm normally known as a calm, laid back person and one day someone steps on my shoe and I overeact and punch them in the face then that action is not out of character because that angry reaction was predetermined by my character. That makes no sense to me. If a person who is usually calm by nature acts angrily then that is out of character. If every action falls under the category of being predetermined by ones character then the word " character" is rendered meaningless.

It doesn't invalidate anything. The beliefs, right and wrong, the very concept of good and evil, are part of the causal determinism, just like every other thought and action. They happened for a reason, and they are the reason other things happen.

What I'm saying is that it invalidates the supposed truth of moral systems and beliefs. If one possesses free will that means that they are responsible for their actions. Morality is based on the concept of free will. If free will did not exist and every action was caused by something else then that would absolve people of responsibility for their actions. You cannot pass moral judgment on someone if they are not responsible for their own actions.

And you would never, ever make such a decision. Free will as you describe it requires the ability to make a decision without grounds in your memory, intellect or impulse system, and the human mind simply doesn't work that way. There is always a reason why we do something - ex nihilo is strictly for Gods.

So what you're saying is that one can never make an isolated decision, that actions are always dependent on something preceding it. Still, there are a multitude of possibilities in which one may choose to act. It doesn't matter to me what one chooses but that any decision is possible. There is always a decision to be made.

And those actions would cause the event to occur, or do nothing to stop it happening. If someone were somehow able to compute the future, they would take their own future actions into account, as an essential part of the system. Therefore, their prediction would factor in the effect of their telling you.

I'm not quite following this one.

 

[lord667]

By this do you mean that if I make a decision that seems out of character it's really not out of character because that decision is also determined by my character? If that's what you're saying then that means that a persons character encompasses every possible trait.

No. Every trait that they have.

For example, If I'm normally known as a calm, laid back person and one day someone steps on my shoe and I overeact and punch them in the face then that action is not out of character because that angry reaction was predetermined by my character. That makes no sense to me. If a person who is usually calm by nature acts angrily then that is out of character. If every action falls under the category of being predetermined by ones character then the word " character" is rendered meaningless.

It is not out of character for a calm person to unexpectedly lash out in anger. It's just a less usually shown part of their character. As you say, it was an "angry reaction", and you can't have one of those if anger is not in your character.

What I'm saying is that it invalidates the supposed truth of moral systems and beliefs. If one possesses free will that means that they are responsible for their actions. Morality is based on the concept of free will. If free will did not exist and every action was caused by something else then that would absolve people of responsibility for their actions. You cannot pass moral judgment on someone if they are not responsible for their own actions.

Why not?

So what you're saying is that one can never make an isolated decision, that actions are always dependent on something preceding it. Still, there are a multitude of possibilities in which one may choose to act. It doesn't matter to me what one chooses but that any decision is possible. There is always a decision to be made.

But how do you make the decision?

I'm not quite following this one.

Our hypothetical prophet is not external to the universe, correct?

That means that his act of relating his prophecies to their subjects is a part of the causal determinism.

Hence, if he tells someone what he foresees, the prophecy will be based on a causal chain that includes the fact that he told that person what he saw.

 

[anonymousnick2001]

In the end, I'll have to admit I don't know.

I don't know if I have the free will to do what I want, or if I'm being forced by a predetermined agenda.

I don't know if this applies to just humans, or other animals as well...

I don't know.

I think what we call free will and what free will actually is are two different things. I define free will as what I can do within the construct of my genetical/experiences cage. True free will discards any boundaries. However, it is implausible. There is no way we can do whatever we want. They say that, but they mean: "You can do whatever you want within your limitations, and can only do so if you put your mind to it."

I think it's foolish to attempt to set the limitations and definition of "free will" when we know so little about the human being itself.

 

[speed]

Where are you getting these theories lord 667? You speak as if from on high, as if you have found the eternal scientific proof we are nothing more than programmed robots, whose lives are bound by a preprogrammed fate. Well I strongly disagree, and i know many others in the scientific community, do as well. If you would, do you have any references to back up these claims?

So, I suppose you lord 667, were predetermined, and genetically programmed to be a pretentious know it all, who likes to bully people with his grand absolute theories on the very meaning of human life.

 

[lord667]

Where are you getting these theories lord 667?

From my brain.

You speak as if from on high, as if you have found the eternal scientific proof we are nothing more than programmed robots, whose lives are bound by a preprogrammed fate.

I'm advancing a theory. Occam's Razor is on my side - if a model of the universe is possible without free will, then fre will is potentially unnecessary, and Occam favours that model. There is no known law of the physical universe which contradicts what I'm saying. There's also the fact that I've been able to answer every point that you, Anonymous, Welkin, and every other supporter of free will has made in the couple of times we've argued about it on this board.

Well I strongly disagree, and i know many others in the scientific community, do as well. If you would, do you have any references to back up these claims?

No. I'm not drawing on anyone else's work, I'm not trying to prove myself right by invoking some scary German name. I'm just thinking. That means I don't need any references.

That's not an argument, anyway. You're just throwing up a smokescreen, trying to undermine my credibility rather than answer me directly. Are you really that desperate to be right? Your precious scientists would be most disappointed in you.

So, I suppose you lord 667, were predetermined, and genetically programmed to be a pretentious know it all, who likes to bully people with his grand absolute theories on the very meaning of human life.

Firstly: Yes, that's right. I believe that I was predetermined to be like I am. Not as part of some grand plan, but just because history could not have made me any other way.

Secondly: What do you mean, bullying? I'm answering the points that Welkin and Anonymous made. If someone makes a point and I think I can argue against it, I do. I expect people to argue back if they think they've spotted a flaw in my arguments. It's called debate. Join in or sit and watch, but save me the distraction plays and insults. I've been called worse things than pretentious by better men than you.

 

[lord667]

I think what we call free will and what free will actually is are two different things. I define free will as what I can do within the construct of my genetical/experiences cage.

I can settle for that. I'm not decided on full or partial determinism, yet, though I lean towards full.

 

[speed]

You just confirmed everything i stated about you, you offer nothing supporing your view, u find no relevance in anyone elses point, and you state i am a small minded idiot who is not as smart as you. You my friend, are an intellectual bully, and frankly i dont see why anyone is bothering to argue with you anymore, as you dismiss everyone with a smug arrogance.

 

[lord667]

You just confirmed everything i stated about you, you offer nothing supporing your view,

As I explained, I don't need support from anything.

Edit: Though I did just get repped up for my last response to Welkin

find no relevance in anyone elses point,

I find no relevance in your point that I'm a pretentious know-it-all. Anonymous and Welkin made some relevant points.

and you state i am a small minded idiot who is not as smart as you.

Well, you've displayed all the signs.

You my friend, are an intellectual bully, and frankly i dont see why anyone is bothering to argue with you anymore, as you dismiss everyone with a smug arrogance.

I dismiss YOU with a smug arrogance, in this instance, though usually you aren't such an ass. Anonymous, Welkin, Guardian of Darkness, Sadude, Wandrail, and anyone else who is capable of higher thought as opposed to bleating "Where are your references? Original thought is not acceptable!", I would not dismiss.

So far, you've insulted me several times, you've skirted the debate to attack my credibility, and you've tried to intimidate me with "the opinion of the scientific community". What you haven't done, is make any points. Yet I'm the intellectual bully? Jesus, Speed, why don't you throw up a couple of straw-men, then you'll have done the Grand Slam of bad debate.

Now if I'm such a waste of time to argue with, put your money where your mouth is and shut up. I get the feeling this debate is over anyway.

 

[speed]

Let me offer the olive leaf, i have no personal problem with you, and i havent followed this racism an metal thing for about a week. Yet, I happened to browse through what i missed, and I was struck by your comments. It seemed to me, and i maybe inferring alot from what you wrote, that you were starting to issue edicts as responses, and not engage in argument. You became an expert on the subject- almost like a professor etc., yet you can offer no background or support of your research or knowledge on the subject other than your own personal talents of persuasion and logic. This bothered me, and i have tried to call u out on it, but i see it has only agitated you, so i offer my apology. It is true I really dont care to argue about free will with you anymore, as I really dnt see the point, I just wish to alert you that you are becoming a bit pretentious. We have had this argument before, I admitted that yes you maybe right, or lives are somewhat determined by our genetics and experience.

I ask the same of you, if i become a raving asshole like i am prone to be, please mention it to me.

 

[lord667]

Let me offer the olive leaf, i have no personal problem with you, and i havent followed this racism an metal thing for about a week. Yet, I happened to browse through what i missed, and I was struck by your comments. It seemed to me, and i maybe inferring alot from what you wrote, that you were starting to issue edicts as responses, and not engage in argument. You became an expert on the subject- almost like a professor etc., yet you can offer no background or support of your research or knowledge on the subject other than your own personal talents of persuasion and logic. This bothered me, and i have tried to call u out on it, but i see it has only agitated you, so i offer my apology. It is true I really dont care to argue about free will with you anymore, as I really dnt see the point, I just wish to alert you that you are becoming a bit pretentious.

Fair enough, if that's what you think. That's just the way I am. I don't like to unnecessarily weaken my arguments with a lot of 'or-somethings' and 'it's-just-my-opinion-buts'.

We have had this argument before, I admitted that yes you maybe right, or lives are somewhat determined by our genetics and experience. I ask the same of you, if i become a raving asshole like i am prone to be, please mention it to me.

Oh, that will be no problem

 

[Dr Psyklonic]

somehow i don't think i'll enter into this argument/discussion 7 pages in, cos no doub what i say it'll be ridiculed as "pointless dumb arguing" with "no intellectual backup". or something like that.