I have no hope for the male species

[nin-com-poop]

It appears women have a better time with their phones so why bother?

[2RDEYE]

this is somehow becoming the most philosophical thread of the year

[wincel]

It's called "consciousness", which is a very complex topic. But then, like the climate change denialists you're making an argument from ignorance. "I don't understand this, therefore it is not real."

No.

Do you notice that it's just the people who feel themselves to be failures* who say "it's all genetics and environment"? Why might that be? Could it be some people are looking for an excuse to fail?

Our genetics and environment influence us, they do not determine us.

* Note: you may be a success in other's eyes, and feel yourself to be a failure, and vice versa. That's a whole different topic. For the moment for the sake of simplicity - this is a thread on a forum, a thread which will disappear and be forgotten in a few days, not a university thesis - we can assume that if you feel yourself a failure, you objectively are a failure.

We know consciousness is solely related to the brain though. We can literally chemically alter parts of your brain to change your state of consciousness. The brain, being an organ that arose from that one original cell subject to the external stimuli, was then ultimately the product of genes being turned on. The genes are just dna molecules. So, this seems to be a hardcoded start that isn't subject to free agency of choice or anything else. It's just the laws of physics dictating the behavior of these particles. Life just turns out to be an information phenomenon.

Let me ask you this...does a zygote have a soul?

[SteadyWayfarer]

We know consciousness is solely related to the brain though. We can literally chemically alter parts of your brain to change your state of consciousness. The brain, being an organ that arose from that one original cell subject to the external stimuli, was then ultimately the product of genes being turned on. The genes are just dna molecules. So, this seems to be a hardcoded start that isn't subject to free agency of choice or anything else. It's just the laws of physics dictating the behavior of these particles. Life just turns out to be an information phenomenon.

What about his second paragraph though. I think he has a point there.

[Globally]

It's called "consciousness", which is a very complex topic. But then, like the climate change denialists you're making an argument from ignorance. "I don't understand this, therefore it is not real."

No.

Do you notice that it's just the people who feel themselves to be failures* who say "it's all genetics and environment"? Why might that be? Could it be some people are looking for an excuse to fail?

Our genetics and environment influence us, they do not determine us.

* Note: you may be a success in other's eyes, and feel yourself to be a failure, and vice versa. That's a whole different topic. For the moment for the sake of simplicity - this is a thread on a forum, a thread which will disappear and be forgotten in a few days, not a university thesis - we can assume that if you feel yourself a failure, you objectively are a failure.

You have yet to make any scientific conjecture about what drives “free will” and “consciousness.” What is the mechanism that drives your behavior if it’s not yourself (built from DNA) combined with the learnings of environmental influence?

To be honest I don’t think you understand science and physics very well.

I’m a very successful person socially and with the opposite sex. You made up the story in your post.

[DCutch]

Not going to bother reading all of this thread because I have an idea of how it's going. But what pisses me off about you guys so much is your quitting attitude. It's honestly not even that, it's worse - a STARTING issue. You guys are too afraid and intimidated to start improving yourselves or taking a step back to try and improve your people/women skills. It's like you have a mountain in front of you that you're supposed to hike, but the moment you get to the trailhead you see how tall the mountain is and just quit - and then you stay at that trailhead for years, talking about how nice it would be to be at the top of that mountain, but whenever someone suggests hiking it you just say "That's impossible- just LOOK at it!". And in all the time you spent at that trailhead you could have been to the top multiple times over, had you just committed to starting.

[wincel]

What about his second paragraph though. I think he has a point there.

Ad hominem. How we feel about something or our motivations to do it have nothing to do with the veracity of the claim. I'll also remind you that my view is extremely disturbing to incels. It removes all power from an incel's life. It means there is little he or she could ever do to fix the situation. I'd love to believe I had a soul and power over the universe. Unfortunately, there is no good reason to support this, and there are good logical reasons to oppose it since it ruins all the models we currently have about the universe (which work pretty damn well in most cases).

[Globally]

The funny thing is that I agree with what KylaAron is *attempting* to say about making efforts to better yourself, not feeling defeated, etc.

Where he falls short is understanding that those thoughts and drives are literally stemming from chemicals composing your body that are a result of your DNA and experiences.

[wincel]

So you mean you've never influenced someone else to the point where they made their own life better?

If I did, it was purely the system playing itself out. I was just another stimulus for him, and he was just responding as preprogrammed. Of course, I still think in terms of myself making choices, etc. It is easier that way, and of course that's why we evolved to do so. I do try to make peoples' lives better when it makes me feel better. But, as I said, I have no delusions about a soul controlling the universe. I understand I am part of this universe. I, too, am subject to the laws of physics. I am reminded of that everytime I get hurt.

[wincel]

The funny thing is that I agree with what KylaAron is *attempting* to say about making efforts to better yourself, not feeling defeated, etc.

Where he falls short is understanding that those thoughts and drives are literally stemming from chemicals composing your body that are a result of your DNA and experiences.

Same. I completely agree in doing your best. It is basically what you are meant to do. And of course, people try. And some make it and others do not. That's life. It's just a system cruising down a potential energy curve. It's like when you flip a coin and think it's random. That coin is not random. Its outcome is almost entirely determined by how you flip it, the gravity it experiences, and the air it interacts with. We just can't predict it so we think it is random. Our concept of self is a similarly erroneous idea attributed to processes that we cannot predict in detail.

[SteadyWayfarer]

Ad hominem. How we feel about something or our motivations to do it have nothing to do with the veracity of the claim. I'll also remind you that my view is extremely disturbing to incels. It removes all power from an incel's life. It means there is little he or she could ever do to fix the situation. I'd love to believe I had a soul and power over the universe. Unfortunately, there is no good reason to support this, and there are good logical reasons to oppose it since it ruins all the models we currently have about the universe (which work pretty damn well in most cases).

No I understand. It's seems like you hold a hard determinist view if I understand correctly. See, while I think determinism is true, I still think there is reason to believe that we can sometimes provide influence in our lives and make some choices. Basically we aren't complete robots, and the illusion of choice that we have, even if it isn't real, it's best that we believe there are some choices we can make. Sometimes I do think some determinist shoot themselves in the foot due to a limiting belief, but again none of us can prove free-will.


Btw This free will debate is a bit off topic lol, but its awesome seeing some deep philosophy discussion on the misc.

[Globally]

Experience is a result of your actions.

Your argument is in a circle.

If you're saying there's no free will because everything is "preprogrammed", so to speak, your experiences are a direct result of that, ergo, it is purely genetic?

No, experiences include the outside world. Do some reading on quantum physics, consciousness, and behavior.

Wincel actually has done a pretty good job boiling it down, but a few people keep thinking that terms like “free will” and “consciousness” are scientifically determinate.

[Globally]

I think his point is, some people don't try.

And in worse cases, blame everyone else, or the genetic lottery, or whatever happens to be the flavour of the month, for their own lack of trying.

The counterargument in this thread seems to be "everything is predetermined, so why even bother, just lay down and rot".

No, you’re not grasping it.

[wincel]

Experience is a result of your actions.

Your argument is in a circle.

If you're saying there's no free will because everything is "preprogrammed", so to speak, your experiences are a direct result of that, ergo, it is purely genetic?

It's not a circle. The system is a feedback loop. It starts with hard coding DNA. Stimuli from the environment activate gene expression which can then further affect how the cell will respond to future stimuli. The result is that your response to experiences was all predetermined from that original starting point.

We can see shocking examples of this at the organism level in identical twins separated at birth. Many of them had similar rituals, behaviors,favorite colors, first names of spouses, and other bizarre chit that you wouldn't think would be tied to genetics. But it was because in response to similar stimuli, a nonchaotic system usually produces similar outcomes. That means a twin's favorite color, for example is likely to be genetically determined, provided exposure to the same or similar types of visual stimuli are given to the twins.

[hoganrulz]

lmafao at the 0-50 guy

[OsPerez1996]

One of the issues itself is that they’re self labeling! Fukcin srs.

Truly sad to see but those boards become like a “circle. jerk” of self pity it seems(idk I’ve never gone on), it’d be much better if they actually helped one another improve.

All they really need to understand that if they want to change they need to take action! One of those being stepping away from the computer!!

Dang bros I feel their pain, not Mirin at all.

[Psychotropic]

Fuking experience,

I have lived life, I can tell the "aging" process and the "developing" process. In Chinese medicine, for example, you can tell the health of the person by their physical signs.

No male in his late teens and early 20s should have body hair, that is a sign of excessive DHT production, which indicates excessive ejaculation. Another fun fact is the width of the face indicates androgen receptor density levels, ejaculation surprisingly doesn't just lower testosterone but blunts androgen receptor density. So those with narrow faces indicate androgen receptor deficieny, aka excessive ejaculation

Dumb overall thread but I have to call out broscience when I see it

LMAO at you resorting to spewing these retard-level assertions onto the misc because you have ZERO real life outlet. You have ZERO experience or qualifications in anything scientific. No one takes you seriously in real life apart from other weirdos or retards who seem to agree with you because they see you as one of their own. If for some sad chance you talk like this outside misc then you're the insufferable blowhard that everyone tolerates but nobody likes. If you don't then try it and you'll soon find out.

I know this just from reading this single post

[Globally]

I don't need to, there is no counter argument in this thread.

Wincel had a long post that concentrated on using big words, and had no direction or message, in response to a very succint post from KyleAaron.

I don't see that as a "pretty good job boiling it down".

Not trying to be rude.

His last several posts are pretty straight forward to follow in my opinion. Try to read it from the perspective of our brains being organs, not “souls.”

[USAPump]

lmao just gives these guys some party drugs and sh*t would be wildin

[anonymous]

Life is cruel.

fuk off

[Globally]

I've never, in my whole life, considered our brains to be "souls".

But I will refuse to subscribe to what essentially presents itself to be, in current context, the excuse to lay down and rot.

Yeah, associating that to the argument is simply not understanding what we are trying to say. One last single sentence try:

Your brain being high functioning (choosing to not rot) vs low functioning (choosing to rot) is a result of your genetics and environment.

[ErnieMccracken]

Scientifically, this is not correct. There is such a thing as free will. If there is no free will, then I cannot be convicted for kicking you to death, nor should I get a bravery medal for risking my life protecting you from someone else kicking you to death.

You lost me here. We are temporarily animate worm food who put each other's genitals in our mouths. Every decision you have ever made in your life was shaped by your raw genetics and life experiences. You aren't any better than the lowliest bum sucking down a 40 in a gutter.

[wincel]

No I understand. It's seems like you hold a hard determinist view if I understand correctly. See, while I think determinism is true, I still think there is reason to believe that we can sometimes provide influence in our lives and make some choices. Basically we aren't complete robots, and the illusion of choice that we have, even if it isn't real, it's best that we believe there are some choices we can make. Sometimes I do think some determinist shoot themselves in the foot due to a limiting belief, but again none of us can prove free-will.


Btw This free will debate is a bit off topic lol, but its awesome seeing some deep philosophy discussion on the misc.

I hold an approximate hard determinist view which is actually fundamentally a hard indeterministic view. lol It is hard to explain the picture without a lecture on quantum theory, but basically the idea is that the best models of the world we have for large scale objects turn out to be classically deterministic in the sense that the outcomes are pretty much completely determined by the initial conditions. For dynamical systems, this usually means if I have a collection of particles, and I know all of their momenta and positions in each dimension, then I can compute the trajectories of the particles for all future time. This is basically the Laplace's demon thought experiment. Incidentally, we now know it to be impossible even in a classically deterministic system. So, that is partly why I say approximately hard deterministic. There are pathological cases where Laplace's demon fails to work logically. Aside from these cases, it works pretty damn well, and of course, that is why you can predict where and how your baby batter will splatter on OP's mom's face if you know the initial conditions, the air resistance, her facial reaction, etc.

HOWEVER, if you look a little more deeply, it gets fuked up. There are no classical particles in this universe fundamentally. Particles are subject to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which means position and velocity cannot both be simultaneously known exactly, and the more certainly you know one, the less certainly you know the other. Furthermore, particular pecularities of quantum particles, such as entanglement have resulted in us realizing that nature appears to be fundamentally probabilistic and that the outcome of measurements doesn't seem to be fixed for particles beforehand. This means there is an inherent kind of randomness built into nature, and that has the philosophical consequence of meaning that the universe is fundamentally nondeterministic.

However, as I said before, there has been no illustration of a mechanism of a soul exerting its agency upon the universe to cause measurement outcomes to be a certain way. This suggests we don't control that randomness.

We are basically biological robots. Our notion of self is quite illusory. It isn't a sharply defined concept. "You" are always changing and where do "you" end and others begin? If I delete a single neuron are you still you?

Again, I just wonder if a zygote has a soul. If it doesn't, when does the soul start to exist for the lifeform?

[wincel]

I don't need to, there is no counter argument in this thread.

Wincel had a long post that concentrated on using big words, and had no direction or message, in response to a very succint post from KyleAaron.

I don't see that as a "pretty good job boiling it down".

Not trying to be rude.

What do you mean no direct message...I feel like I made the case pretty clearly.

[wincel]

Link to the experiment please.

Which experiment?

[Globally]

How did I not understand what you are trying to say, if you basically repeated what I associated with your argument?

Read it again maybe.

Wincel is getting into the fine details of how things work (to the best of modern science) and I’m trying to give you a layman’s version.

[wincel]

The one where they separated the identical twins at birth, and monitored every aspect of their life.

The case I am thinking of didn't do it as an experiment. Such experiments would be highly unethical. (Though IIRC, there were one or two cases of this actually happening.) That being said, there have been several cases of identical twins separated at birth and later reunited.

https://science.howstuffworks.com/li...etic/twin1.htm

Here is an article on the Jim twins I was thinking about. If you search identical twins separated at birth, you will see this has happened quite a few times. It is uncanny how similar the people end up.

[KyleAaron]

You aren't any better than the lowliest bum sucking down a 40 in a gutter.

Speak for yourself.

[wincel]

Simple question for all ITT. Does a Zygote have a soul?

(Zygote is that first cell when a sperm cell fuses with an egg cell. It's the first instance of a lifeform that is genetically human.) If a zygote doesn't have a soul, when does the lifeform get its soul?

[Globally]

Read my single sentence reply again.

What is inside of you driving you to improve yourself, be a great miscer, not rot, etc? Is it your soul? Or is it your brain, which was sculpted from your DNA and adjusted by environmental factors and experiences?

What drives an incel to LDAR?