Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 12/4/09 01:02 AM, Kwing wrote: It's gotten so sad. The only people that can hold a decent conversation with me are all on the internet.

Alright, first point is that humans are selfish. Not just oftentimes or most of the times, but literally 100% of the time they do anything. Everything we do is for a reason which eventually results in gratifying us, or so we hope. You have sex because it feels good, you make jokes because you like it when other people laugh at them, and you help others because you feel good about yourself. Suppose someone offers you a choice between $5 and $10. Either you choose the $10 for the money, or you choose the $5 to prove to yourself that you have free will, which is a form of gratification that defeats the purpose. Our life is basically a laser that goes in the direction of gratification.
SUMMARY: We are slaves to the motive to gratify ourselves.

I disbelieve this theory, for anytime someone offers me money for freelance services (since I have a support job, but they normally try giving me money because they know I saved them tons (money and time wise) from going to "professionals" (idiots) and even was paid extra when I helped people with their groceries/moved cars and other things because I know it'll help them a great deal. I tell them every time that I don't need money, but they insist and I take it then.

Another proof is this site itself, tom fulp could easily sell NG and live a steady life (considering if tom fulp was greedy and kept every penny of what he would if he sold out).

The only way you can get out of greed is to read a epiphany and realize how futile it is for money. Only those who can break out of the mold and learn something actually worthwhile, to only give to others can meet many people who are willing to help him in return. If everyone can learn a valuable skill and be able to help each other for nothing, then we as humans can live a happier life.

But there are those who are greedy are stupid morons and until the greed ends, we must persist a life of illusions selling ourselves so we can create the illusion of security and happiness. Looking at those who fight each other, fuck each other in public, drag race, and live in crappy home in happiness as peices of shit when their whole meaning of becoming rich is so they can buy "fancier" clothes with name brand. Hand made art with small imperfections so you can be satisfied that they're hand-made. The fancy couch that feels comfy that you replace in a few years. Cars with sunroofs, loud speakers, and other commodities that distracts from the true purpose of it being as transportation.

Get a life, get a woman, get a hobby, get the fuck out of newgrounds unless you've been studying, making, or helping.

Second point is that we all follow along a set path, and although we are responsible for this path it still isn't within our control. That is to say that a divine force is not controlling our actions... Consider our actions to be determined by a formula that is our "decisions". The reason we have choices (even if we don't make the decisions!) is because of our environment (social obligation, external consequences), and the complexities of our own mind (knowledge of consequences, conscience). So if we go back to my laser analogy, our environment and our minds are mirrors that bounce the lasers in different directions. We adjust our actions accordingly to gratify ourselves with minimum conflict. If we have a choice between something good and bad, we always choose the good, which means it's not actually a choice at all.
SUMMARY: Our actions are partially determined by consequences and knowledge of it.

Semi-agree. To say there is always a good and bad choice is irreverent. During time of high emotional stress, people are irrational and could choose bad choice because they can't focus well enough. Also consider a hypothesis where a man has his son in the hospital. He has no insurance and unless he comes up with money, his son will die. He walks past hopelessly lost till he sees a convenient store. If he went and rob it for the sake of his sons life, is that a good thing or bad thing? From one perspective it is a bad thing because he has stolen from a place where they have lost their money they have made, resulting in loss of profit and hurt it's business. From another perspective he had to save his son and he couldn't see a way. Is it bad? Is it good?

Third part is that as long as we know what will make us happy or give us gratification, we will go to it like insects to a lightbulb. Therefore, our choices and happiness below our maximum capacity of happiness can only come from ignorance, when logistics and our intellect are unable to conclude a decision.
SUMMARY: We can only make a decision if we can't see past it.

Agree fully, hell even put that in my logic for second part why I disagree that part.

The last part is that even though we can make a decision we can't see past, it's not actually a decision because it can't be orchestrated. If I gave you 10 closed, identical chests and told you each one had a unique prize in it, but you could only keep what was in one of them, you could choose which chest, but because you didn't know what was in any of them, it doesn't matter because you had no idea. So when we think this decision would be determined by free will it's really just a matter of luck.
SUMMARY: Any 'decision' we can't see past is determined by luck.

Agree and disagree. If we have time, we could examine the box by methods. You can rattle the chest and see what material it is made out of most time. You can weigh a empty chest that's similar to the chest with the object and get the mass. You can send radiation through the box and see what shape it is. You could try to train a dog to make certain reactions to certain materials.

Using each of this and common sense, you could probably get a accurate thought of what is in the chest.

With time, even the impossible is possible and people fail to think that it is possible except for the crazy.

Now here's a bonus part. Just assume God exists first; this is purely theoretical: There's a paradox that if God knows the future and we have free will, how can God know the future if we can choose? Even though we don't have free will, some of our actions are randomly determined so God still couldn't know... Right? Well let me give you an example. Say I told you to say a number between 1 and 5, then after you said the number I traveled back in time to between when I told you to pick a number and when you answered. I would remember you having said the number from the past, but I couldn't tell you because it would alter your answer, but that would alter my memory in such that it would create one of those time paradoxes. This is exactly what the Oracle means in The Matrix: Reloaded when she says "you already made the choice".

Please refrain from trolling. I would like to hear disapproving and mixed opinions on the matter, which is why I didn't blog it, but I would also like to keep it constructive. Comments? Disagreements? Counter-theories?

Troll will always happen, for this is the internet. As long as 4chan exists, there will be trolls

To be honest, what you're trying to say is one big TLDR, mainly because the argument isn't succinct enough, you haven't really defined what constitutes free will, you don't really create a connection between self-interest and lack of free will. Ultimately, you've rambled on for paragraphs but I don't think that you've really defined what makes free will and what constitutes a free choices. I just chose to slam the fist on my keyboard, creating 'mhnjmjmhnm' was that some fatalistic, pre-determined action?

Actually, to give you the benefit of doubt, I'll give you a little questionaire:
1. (copy and paste) I just chose to slam the fist on my keyboard, creating 'mhnjmjmhnm'. That was a free choice for me to do that. How again do I not have free will?
2. A child has no contact with humans, human morals or human influences and lives completely alone, segregated on a desert island with no animals. He chooses to have a swim before eating breakfast. How does he not have free will?
3. Define what you mean by free will. I'm taking the concept straight from wikipedia: Free will raises the question whether, and in what sense, rational agents exercise control over their actions, decisions, choices. and although there are influences, there is an independent, free decision because of my autonomous will.
4. I chose to type the word 'zoobagoomi' right here. What influenced me to write zoobagoomi? I've never written or heard of such a word before. Were there some environmental factors that led to this?
5. What influenced you to decide that there was no free will? Deciding that is a free and independent choice, which is pretty free willy-ish.

All of the douchebags in the castle can tell the king what he wants but the king makes the ultimate decision. This is free will. Or whatever. Blah.

I know this topic interests you but please actually get your head around the key concepts before asserting you've disproved an age-old concept relating to the human condition. I don't foresee many people worshipping 'kwing' from the NG BBS for his breakthroughs in philosophical thought, because I'm still confused by your initial arguments and your responses because I don't really understand how you're trying to argue this.

Also, philosophy is a BS waste of time that makes people depressed and I know because I did it for two years.

teh edn.

We never had
There will be always somebody higher than us in the World Hierarchy
Believe me

If we're dealing with free will within a context in which "selfishness," in its macroscopic purity, is limitation, then we most certainly have free will as we are, despite limitation(s), still processing and subsequently exercising an expression of our intent.

Now, if we take "intent" as the body of an individual's motivations, it quickly becomes obvious that: to argue we do not have intent above our intent does not preclude free will - as we still have intent. Your criteria for free will defines an infinite regression, which, though interesting, is ultimately inconsequential as an argument against free will.

The individual owns his/her actions by merely providing the most immediate instance of that regression - not the entire thing.

At 12/5/09 12:40 AM, coldghost213 wrote: I disbelieve this theory, for anytime someone offers me money for freelance services (since I have a support job, but they normally try giving me money because they know I saved them tons (money and time wise) from going to "professionals" (idiots) and even was paid extra when I helped people with their groceries/moved cars and other things because I know it'll help them a great deal. I tell them every time that I don't need money, but they insist and I take it then.

Okay, I could rewrite my whole argument, but basically what you've provided for examples are just people indirectly getting more gratification from themselves or running from guilt.

Semi-agree. To say there is always a good and bad choice is irreverent. During time of high emotional stress, people are irrational and could choose bad choice because they can't focus well enough. Also consider a hypothesis where a man has his son in the hospital. He has no insurance and unless he comes up with money, his son will die. He walks past hopelessly lost till he sees a convenient store. If he went and rob it for the sake of his sons life, is that a good thing or bad thing? From one perspective it is a bad thing because he has stolen from a place where they have lost their money they have made, resulting in loss of profit and hurt it's business. From another perspective he had to save his son and he couldn't see a way. Is it bad? Is it good?

It's good because of the guy's perception. He feels guilty because he 'could have done something' in his mind if he doesn't rob the store. If he does at least he's done something. We already discussed this if you read the whole thread.

Using each of this and common sense, you could probably get a accurate thought of what is in the chest.

This is basically saying the more you know, the less choice you have... Except that any 'choice' is because of lack of knowledge and therefore means it's uneducated. If you know what's in the chests, you just choose the one you want the most. If you don't determine which one, it may as well be luck.

I define free will as your consciousness and mind congregating to control your decisions. However, your environment and knowledge seem to control them instead, thus my theory.

Hoogiman, watch Waking Life. It talks about how philosophy is always thought of being a study that enriches misery, but it shouldn't be.

And lastly, I think of free will as being more in-depth than controlling our muscular nerves. I think of it more as being able to make our own decisions, how we choose hobbies, how we choose which careers we do, etc.

At 12/5/09 06:21 PM, Kwing wrote: I define free will as your consciousness and mind congregating to control your decisions. However, your environment and knowledge seem to control them instead, thus my theory.

Influence is not utter control. As long as the 'consciousness and mind' act as intermediary between environment and action then there is free will.

At 12/4/09 01:02 AM, Kwing wrote: It's gotten so sad. The only people that can hold a decent conversation with me are all on the internet.

Alright, first point is that humans are selfish. Not just oftentimes or most of the times, but literally 100% of the time they do anything. Everything we do is for a reason which eventually results in gratifying us, or so we hope. You have sex because it feels good, you make jokes because you like it when other people laugh at them, and you help others because you feel good about yourself. Suppose someone offers you a choice between $5 and $10. Either you choose the $10 for the money, or you choose the $5 to prove to yourself that you have free will, which is a form of gratification that defeats the purpose. Our life is basically a laser that goes in the direction of gratification.
SUMMARY: We are slaves to the motive to gratify ourselves.

No, helping someone doesn't not necessarily mean that you do it to feel good about yourself. Recently I visited an Army medical hospital to visit a friend and a few of his vet buddies that were injured. I gave each of them something nice to help THEM feel better about themselves. Why did I do it? Simple fact is that I care for my friend and his friends. I didn't do it for myself but for him.

At 12/4/09 01:02 AM, Kwing wrote: The only people that can hold a decent conversation with me are all on the internet.

This is a major red flag for me, haha.

I'll just agree with everything Evark said, thus saving me an assload of time ripping your "arguments" to shreds. Thanks Evark. :x

At 12/5/09 07:41 PM, Raped wrote: Why did I do it? Simple fact is that I care for my friend and his friends.

Would it be presumptuous of me to assume such a trait is virtuous in your eyes, and that you take some level of pride in the fact that you are someone who cares for friends?

Wouldn't it follow that you'd seek out, or at least take advantage (not maliciously) of, some opportunities to be a virtuous person?