10,501 Forum Posts by "Evark"
You don't have to actually give a fuck. You just have to absolutely never, under any circumstances, post about how you don't.
Don't worry about it. Eventually, you'll fight the wrong person and get your ass handed to you. Unfortunately, you'll also attract an equally psychotic chick who will use you so she can have offspring. The rest of us can only hope that enrages you, too.
You can't really convince anyone to stop doing anything they enjoy as a hobby unless you can show that it isn't necessary and may be interfering with other things they once considered more important in their life.
Ultimately, though, you have to realize that priorities change and they may not be receptive to your convincing. I'm willing to bet your friend is of average wisdom for your and his age, and as such he will not be convinced to stop smoking.
I'm terrified of heights and I would still hike that path. What a beautiful view.
I'm glad I heard of this, too. I've wanted to go to Malaga for some time and now I have more reason to.
What I like about song lyrics is that you can quote them and they can obviously apply to a situation in your life, but you can always maintain the plausible deniability that you didn't think about the meaning you just like the song.
Also: lighten up. Not everyone's original and content posted on facebook is technically owned by facebook once you post it there. If I post a creative poem, it's a one-off that I don't mind if facebook owns.
Wait, so I need to prove to you that the brain is made of atoms and that incredibly complex mechanism comes to define free will through its all its interaction? It was just my point, the existence of free will is subjective.
No, you would need to prove that those mechanisms aren't so complex as to be unpredictable. But if you're saying that the existence of free-will is subjective, I would just say that you're flat-out wrong. Besides each person's opinion of whether free-will exists, there is the cold-hard reality of whether or not free-will exists. I would posit that it does, you would posit that it does not. But without verifiable reasons pointing toward either conclusion, neither of us can claim that we're right.
Basically: I guess we just confirmed this discussion is purely mutual opining.
It depends how you define "factor", it could as well be infinite if we're describing whole chains of events in terms of infinitesimally small magnitudes of time go back into the past, and still you will not never reach complete determinism. Nonetheless, the idea of free will is progressively stripped the more factors you consider, either on the micro scale, macro, human scale, and anything in between those two (e.g. "He decided to go to bed", can be explained in terms of room temperature, level of tiredness, various memories, genes, education, mood, motivation, thought about the present day, the next day, whether the bed looks comfy etc. etc., up until you would not be able to see how he would not 'decide' to go to bed at that exact moment).
Except that the decision was still his. Because, it is also fully possible that the exact same scenario could come up, down to every last one of those infinite details (statistically speaking, incredibly unlikely, but you're making a philosophical argument for this) and he would decide not to go to bed. You cannot argue that a different motivation means the scenario is not the same, because his decision is an outcome, not a factor (and therefore cannot be subject to the restrictions on variability that factors have).
Basically, you are working backwards to suggest that free will doesn't exist. You're saying that because an outcome has occurred it must always occur in the exact same way given the same exact situation. Any subsequent criticism of "well what if we replicate the situation and a different outcome occurs" is explained away by "well, you can't replicate the situation because it has already happened and we aren't capable."
You're running on a fallacy. Correlation does not mean causation. Yes, correlation strongly implies causation, but in situations where you have determined the correlation first, you cannot cite it as evidence for a causal relationship between the factors and the outcome. You have to use something else to prove that there exists a causal relationship.
Correct, if time travel was possible and you would travel back to the point when you were making a decision without altering anything, the outcome would be the same every single.
Prove it. You can't simply say that it is so. Because it already happened does not make it so.
If it changes, then you ask yourself the question "What changed it?"
This is a moot point. One might also ask the question, "Why was it the same?" if confronted with no change.
But determinism isn't real and I have no reason to claim that the number of factors isn't infinite, and that such a prediction is even hypothetically possible. I'm postulating that free will is a subjective construct that results not from the inability to determine the action of the system, but from just the total ignorance of the works its constituents.
Whereas, my counter-argument (as laid out in the 'pi' example) is that even with an ability to determine all of the actions in the system it is not necessarily possible to determine an absolute outcome.
I do not misunderstand inductive logic simply because I'm refuting your points. The fact that inductive logic only suggests that something is the case does not affect my argument against what is suggested. In order to respond intelligently at all, I have to assume that you are offering a genuine conclusion. Your suggestion that I don't understand the type of logic that allows you to come to a conclusion is classic ad-hominem, and a moot point in this discussion.
At 4/25/11 12:41 AM, Ninjafap wrote: We infer they exist by inductive reasoning. I mean, they have to! And if they're not apparent, we will sure as heck see them the further we go into the brain, even if this may involve finding out what atom pushed which and when.
Ok, but until you can prove that they do you can't cite it as evidence for such a definitive statement such as "there is no free will."
So, what's to say that there is a finite number of factors to consider in order to determine exactly why something behaved as it did? Is the argument really as simple as "since there exist choices outside of the ones you choose--since you have already made your decision at any given point in time--you don't have free will because you could not have selected something else in that given set?"
All technological progress depended on how logic is real and physics is universal. Why can't we apply it to the human brain, which is made of the exact same stuff our food is made of, just organized differently? Explain this to me.
Because these fields are just catalogs, describing our past interactions with our existence and theorized interactions based on prior knowledge. We have to have observed a phenomena to confirm that it exists. I'm doubtful that we can get to the point where we have discovered every factor that can go into getting a number out of something.
Here's an example: pi. A very simple example. Pi is a real number. We do not know the value of pi, despite the fact that it's value never changes? Why do we not know the value of pi? Because it is an (presumed) infinite number. No matter how much processing power we devote to calculating it, it will never be capable of concluding the calculation of what 'pi' is. Because it will spit out more numbers to an ever-increasing degree of accuracy, but we can never say that we know what pi is.
So, we could know all sorts of facets about the human brain. We could understand what factors influence it's growth, organization, development, nourishment. We could figure out patterns to how the brain lights up under stimulation. My point is that in the absence of proof that they are finite, it's equally feasible to assume that they are infinite, and therefore outside of the realm whereby a perfect system for their determination can be constructed.
Man, wish I could listen since I'm at work. But, yea for the most part I suppose I agree with your points. Plus, you nailed the fru-fru vocals point perfectly. Ha ha, vocal support (and thusly, projection) is by far my biggest weakness, but that comes with the territory of having no training. So, you can see why I would choose the acoustic guitar as a starter instrument.
But I would say it's definitely true. You don't often hear a flavor of the week pop band now-a-days and think "man, what strong vocals!" Like you might've decades ago. I would say it's because of the accessibility the guitar has over the instruments of yesteryear. I mean, all the really CLASSIC vocalists just had a lot of big band exposure. If you can make people hear your voice through a horn section accompaniment, you know you're doing something right.
Coop: you're looking at it wrong. The teams that Kendrick Perkins played for were the only ones to sweep the first round. : b
At 4/25/11 11:03 AM, FUNKbrs wrote: Man, bag pipes are some zany stuff. The whole "drone" concept where the instrument never stops making the chord really screws with me. They say you have to use a practice chanter for about a year before it's worth your while to get a full set of pipes.
Yea, my buddy learned to play them back in high school. So jealous... that's definitely something I'd love. Big open field and a set of pipes sounds like such a fantastic way to spend an afternoon.
I see the accordion as the next step up from bagpipes technologically, but one step down from an organ.
I suppose so. I wouldn't say that their technological ranking has any effect on which should be respected more, however. Just that it follows necessarily that pianos are more complicated beasts than reed instruments.
Hah, accordions are great. Case in point: Weird Al. I think I hold the bagpipes in slightly higher regard, however.
Once I get a handle on the guitar I would like to learn the bagpipes.
How do you account for the fact that we are not capable of knowing all of the factors that go into any person's decision by merit of the fact that said person may opt to (mis)report them or not and they can't be observed?
All-knowing, all-seeing something? Or are you just citing existence itself as a structured reason why free-will doesn't exist (the very fact that we are is the reason why we can't have free will... because we don't choose to be)?
You haven't really responded much since you initially made this topic so I don't know whether I can agree with you or not because your position is slightly vague. You're supposing that because all actions can be predicted, free-will can't exist. But I think you'd have to prove or propose a solution to how we test that before I can speak intelligently to your argument. If it's truly a belief, though, and you cannot be dissuaded from this theory that free-will doesn't exist, all I can do is respond that I think your belief is foolish.
I'm gonna just go ahead and agree. Welcome to life, bro.
Tell your parents to spend some money getting you a diagnosis on your social anxiety disorder. Then, get yourself enrolled in a good GED program where you don't have to deal with any societal bullshit. Then, get yourself enrolled in a good online degree program where you don't have to deal with any societal bullshit (except remotely).
Then, understand that in this world NOBODY gives a shit about why you do what you do. Just what you did and how you have to accept responsibility for it. Regardless of why you defaced that building: it's your responsibility. Regardless of why you sell drugs: it's your responsibility.
Oh, and finally just move north up here to MA where it's decriminalized. I walk the block smoking my pipe in broad daylight with no troubles.
Yes, I agree with you for the most part. But you can either sit there passively and play the victim, or you can actively do all that's in your power to change your situation so you don't have to play the victim any more.
That's cool. Why don't you keep everyone up to date in your userpage. Thanks.
When this happened recently to someone here, it was because they had remnants of a virus that had recently been removed. Download and run Malwarebytes to make sure nothing is there. If that doesn't help, you're probably going to be forced to wipe the machine and rebuild windows.
Fiction is for writing forum.
At 4/19/11 03:51 PM, Bolo wrote: Boston has looked like trash since the loss of Kendrick Perkins...I doubt Boston makes it past ECF, and I do not see them beating either Chicago or Miami in a seven game series.
*Since being the first team in the league to clinch playoff berth.
We were owning for like 6 games in a row after the trade. Then we clinched and games didn't really matter any more.
I really don't understand why anyone would think the Perkins trade really mattered that much to the team. They were sad to lose him because he was a hard worker and whatnot, but we didn't need him, couldn't pay him, and he got a great deal out of it without hurting the team whatsoever (remember, he didn't really play this season and we looked utterly dominant during most of that stretch). I think they're over it, though. And I think it's good that the starters don't have the excuse of "our starting five has never lost in the playoffs" anymore. Because that just sets you up to lose if you don't have your starting five (aka: what happened Game 7 last year).
I always avoid promises if I can. It instills a sense of obligation to right wrongs created by events totally beyond my control. It's not that I'm against promises or keeping them (in fact, I'm very much for that), but it's just legitimately tough to keep up with the promises that you've made.
I don't really care who wins... I'm pretty sure Boston is going to make it to the Eastern Conference finals (at which point it'll actually become important that we have Shaq back). What I care about is who loses. I'll be really pumped if the Lakers get knocked out. Because really, they should be knocked out. They've represented the West for the past three years and even though it'd be sweet for the Celtics to own them in the Finals this year I'd rather play a team that earned their way there with hard-work instead of riding on their huge front-court and volume Kobe.
Yep. In the past few years my PPD has gone from 6+ to it's current value.
I dunno. Over many years of contributing lots and lots of useful information to conversations here, I guess you just kinda get a little jaded. I've lost much of the patience I used to have for nonsense. This problem affects almost all forums equally, however.
Being a moderator also gives me more incentive to lurk. 'Cause at least when I see really crappy posters shitting all over this place I can administer a swift kick in the teeth for being the reason it's so hard to retain our posters of yore.
Stereotypes are a convenient disguise for those who fit them to hide behind. Far more troublingly, they're an excuse for those who see them in others to ignore what makes each person unique and interesting.
Be wiser than to believe that 'everyone knows that guy'.
In and of itself, the existence of a rare being of ultimate power is not motivation for me to attempt to best it. However, given the correct set of circumstances, I may make the attempt.
Judges very specifically label the precedent they are setting when rendering the court's judgment. They do not have to rule that all those who believe in God are insane and therefore not to be held criminally accountable for their crimes to rule that one man allegedly acting in the name of God is insane and should be treated instead of prosecuted.
The fact is: everything you can do on an Android you can do on an iPhone, and vice-versa. However, the android platform is more fragmented (many different hardware options for the same firmware). Above all that, style is pretty much the only consideration now that the iPhone 4 is available on both GSM and CDMA networks.
I have an iPhone 4. I'm pretty sure I'll never get an Android. And I'm not an apple fanboy by a longshot. I just bought into the iPhone before Androids existed, and upgraded when the i4 came out so there's never been a better option that fell in line with my upgrade cycle.
I do like the better selection of games, superior build quality, and ubiquity of the iPod charging cables. The difficulty of getting flash running on the phone is an annoyance, but minor at that considering I pretty much never find that I need to use flash on the phone as opposed to an actual workstation.
Right back at'cha. ; )
I tell you, it's great having been modded before most posters here even signed up. I don't have a rapport with almost any of today's regulars.
