Conquer Club

Posted: **Thu Mar 15, 2018 8:07 am**

Have you ever asked why?
Perhaps it was as a 2-year old persistently asking this question. Perhaps it was a curious scientist. Maybe it was only for your own life decisions.

It's a fairly basic question and it seems juvenile at times.

I am reminded of the Johnny Cash lyric "I don't know why the summer's so hot, I don't know why an apple core rots".

Now some of you are probably immediately thinking the summer's so hot because the sun has a better angle due to the tilting of the earth.

Unfortunately, this doesn't answer why, it only answers how. It can't answer why the tilt of the earth is that way, or why there is any earth at all. Science can only answer how, what, where or when questions. It can't answer who or why questions.

But some will point to people. We can't know why the Sun burns, but we can try to answer why a man stabbed his wife. The only reason we can answer that question is because the man has will. He can make a choice to not stab his wife. If we don't accept that he has a will, then it's useless to ask why, we can only ask how it came to be that he stabbed his wife.

Those of you who have read my posts the past few years probably know where this is going. Things happen due to three possible hows: fate, fortune or free will. If fate and fortune describe all the natural and scientific things then it necessarily follows that free will is a non-scientific thing.

If you use the word why in your daily life, you ascribe to belief in the supernatural. If you use the word who, it is the same thing, since personhood implies intelligence, implies will.

Of course we all do. There are two main ways of thinking about the world. The first is in mathematical terms. The other is in narrative terms. Many will claim that only mathematical terms are useful. Yet every person I have ever met deals in narrative terms - questions of who and why. Even scientific papers are written in narrative. I don't think that's a coincidence. Everyone implicitly believes in the supernatural, it underpins almost every belief you have. Yet you pretend otherwise, it's like the Emperor's New Clothes.

Do you have any friends? Can you objectively prove that? No you can't, but you can prove it using narrative. What country do you live in? Can you objectively prove that? No you can't, but you can prove it using narrative. What are the laws of this country? Can you objectively prove them? No you can't, but you can prove them using narrative.

Posted: **Thu Mar 15, 2018 8:27 am**

It's meant to be a meditation technique. Keep asking yourself why. Why am I in this hotel? Why did I take this trip? Why did I think a trip to Vietnam would be appealing? etc. And eventually you learn something about yourself and your driving motivations.

Posted: **Thu Mar 15, 2018 8:35 am**

DoomYoshi wrote:If we don't accept that he has a will, then it's useless to ask why, we can only ask how it came to be that he stabbed his wife.

That's the same question. Either way you're working out what caused him to stab his wife, presumably so that you can take steps to avoid other people being induced to stab their wives. It doesn't matter if his behaviour is the result of his free will or not, just that you are able to influence it.

Posted: **Thu Mar 15, 2018 10:18 am**

*hands Yosh-Monster an awesome tinfoil hat*

Posted: **Thu Mar 15, 2018 10:29 am**

Awesome? Too itchy.

Posted: **Thu Mar 15, 2018 10:54 am**

Well, felt-lined, of course.

Posted: **Thu Mar 15, 2018 10:59 am**

Felt is for the outside, silk is for the lining and I want one that can breathe.

I need it to protect me from the sun and rain not radio waves. I recomend a tilly, they're cotton with brass.

Posted: **Thu Mar 15, 2018 2:55 pm**

Why did I take that last tab of acid?

Posted: **Thu Mar 15, 2018 3:34 pm**

DoomYoshi wrote:Have you ever asked why?
Perhaps it was as a 2-year old persistently asking this question. Perhaps it was a curious scientist. Maybe it was only for your own life decisions.

It's a fairly basic question and it seems juvenile at times.

I am reminded of the Johnny Cash lyric "I don't know why the summer's so hot, I don't know why an apple core rots".

Now some of you are probably immediately thinking the summer's so hot because the sun has a better angle due to the tilting of the earth.

Unfortunately, this doesn't answer why, it only answers how. It can't answer why the tilt of the earth is that way, or why there is any earth at all. Science can only answer how, what, where or when questions. It can't answer who or why questions.

But some will point to people. We can't know why the Sun burns, but we can try to answer why a man stabbed his wife. The only reason we can answer that question is because the man has will. He can make a choice to not stab his wife. If we don't accept that he has a will, then it's useless to ask why, we can only ask how it came to be that he stabbed his wife.

Those of you who have read my posts the past few years probably know where this is going. Things happen due to three possible hows: fate, fortune or free will. If fate and fortune describe all the natural and scientific things then it necessarily follows that free will is a non-scientific thing.

NO If you use the word why in your daily life, you ascribe to belief in the supernatural. If you use the word who, it is the same thing, since personhood implies intelligence, implies will.

Of course we all do. There are two main ways of thinking about the world. The first is in mathematical terms. The other is in narrative terms. Many will claim that only mathematical terms are useful. Yet every person I have ever met deals in narrative terms - questions of who and why. Even scientific papers are written in narrative. I don't think that's a coincidence. Everyone implicitly believes in the supernatural, it underpins almost every belief you have. Yet you pretend otherwise, it's like the Emperor's New Clothes.

Do you have any friends? Can you objectively prove that? No you can't, but you can prove it using narrative. What country do you live in? Can you objectively prove that? No you can't, but you can prove it using narrative. What are the laws of this country? Can you objectively prove them? No you can't, but you can prove them using narrative.

although i'm not here to disprove anything you're saying, i would like to point out that the logic that you're using is not good.

first you use a IF and there's not ENDIF. No, wait, first you use an IF and from there you take for granted that the response to the if was yes yes YES.

there are many other ways to provoke a metaphysics talk, all valid.. i don't understand why you need to use this type of theological sophistry.

Posted: **Thu Mar 15, 2018 5:27 pm**

mrswdk wrote:
DoomYoshi wrote:If we don't accept that he has a will, then it's useless to ask why, we can only ask how it came to be that he stabbed his wife.

That's the same question. Either way you're working out what caused him to stab his wife, presumably so that you can take steps to avoid other people being induced to stab their wives. It doesn't matter if his behaviour is the result of his free will or not, just that you are able to influence it.

That is a beautiful egocentric answer. It doesn't matter whether the other person is actually a person, as long as I can manipulate them.

nietzsche wrote:
there are many other ways to provoke a metaphysics talk, all valid.. i don't understand why you need to use this type of theological sophistry.

For the last time, it's not sophistry. Seriously, record every conversation you have for a day. Then afterwards write down how much content is based on objective truth. You will realize that 95% of what people say is non-scientific truth. Yet some people claim that they only believe in science. These people are liars.

It's like people's thought process are:
If I only believe science
and if science doesn't allow for God
then I don't believe in God.
However, the first line is incorrect, for every person I have met.

Posted: **Thu Mar 15, 2018 6:31 pm**

DoomYoshi wrote:Unfortunately, this doesn't answer why, it only answers how. It can't answer why the tilt of the earth is that way, or why there is any earth at all. Science can only answer how, what, where or when questions. It can't answer who or why questions.

But some will point to people. We can't know why the Sun burns, but we can try to answer why a man stabbed his wife. The only reason we can answer that question is because the man has will. He can make a choice to not stab his wife. If we don't accept that he has a will, then it's useless to ask why, we can only ask how it came to be that he stabbed his wife.

Those of you who have read my posts the past few years probably know where this is going. Things happen due to three possible hows: fate, fortune or free will.

Let me stop you right there. This is an assertion you make, but it's certainly not proven. Repeating it doesn't make it any more proven.

Even assuming that those three are an exhaustive list (...which I'm not sure they are. For starters, where does chaos fit in? Are you just labeling chaos as 'fortune'?) there's no reason to assume that they need to be mutually exclusive. Most things I observe occur for a multiplicity of causes acting together. If I slide off the road, it's because the chaotic swirl of the atmosphere caused black ice at that particular spot (fortune) but also because I was twiddling with the radio instead of paying attention to the road (free will) and also because when I went to get my snow tires put on the mechanic had a heart attack and didn't finish the job (fate). All of those things are legitimate causes, because if ANY of those conditions weren't true, the ultimate event would not have happened.

But even assigning those three labels to those three inputs is not definitive. The atmosphere is largely chaotic (fortune) but it is also influenced by predictable inputs from the sun (fate) and also modified by human activities (free will). For every event, you can find multiple cause-inputs, and for each cause-input you can find multiple cause-sub-inputs, and for most events those inputs will fall into two or all three of your categories. I suspect that even with unlimited computing power, you could not construct a model that would adequately describe all the causes of all observable events.

DoomYoshi wrote:If fate and fortune describe all the natural and scientific things then it necessarily follows that free will is a non-scientific thing.

Again, not a provable assumption. For every decision, a group of neurons has to fire. Some of it is pure instinct, genetically programmed. Some of it is random environmental input. But some of it is willingly choosing to reprogram our brains. Habits are a real thing; neurons will grow to make a repetitive action easier. However, one can change habits; and the neurons will grow into new patterns. That is an exercise of will. Note, I'm just saying "will" -- I have no idea if it's "free" will or not. Will sure feels like free will, but it might be an illusion. I can't think of any experiment which would conclusively prove that my will is free or not.

The existence of free will is something I consider neither conclusively provable nor conclusively disprovable. And like most unanswered questions, it's great fodder for drunken debates in a university pub, but it has no bearing on real life. Any system of thought which insists on answering unanswerable questions as a precondition for going any further is dead at the starting line.

As someone trained in scientific thought, I can only act in accordance with the best evidence I have available. I know full well that the conclusions I reach might get blown out of the water by the next great discovery, but then again they might not. I can't waste time worrying about things I don't know or can't answer; I can only work with what I "know" or have a tentative answer for.

DoomYoshi wrote:For the last time, it's not sophistry. Seriously, record every conversation you have for a day. Then afterwards write down how much content is based on objective truth. You will realize that 95% of what people say is non-scientific truth. Yet some people claim that they only believe in science. These people are liars.

It is sophistry. I don't even know where to start with that paragraph. For starters, 95% of conversations are not about belief systems. 95% of conversations are just social grooming, monkeys making friendly noises so that other monkeys feel comfortable around them. The actual content of those conversations is not particularly important. The important thing is that we are a tribal species and our survival instinct requires that we frequently remind the tribe of our membership status, lest we be forgotten at feeding time.

One could probably go weeks at a time without any mention of anything that really matters to them. But, focusing on those conversations that are, you're being needlessly slanderous to say "those people are liars." A more accurate statement would be, "those people probably don't have the training to accurately describe their own thought process." Neither philosophy nor psychology are mandatory things to study, either by social custom or of necessity or in our educational system. They are hobbies for the minority of us who care to engage in them.

Posted: **Thu Mar 15, 2018 6:36 pm**

DoomYoshi wrote: Seriously, record every conversation you have for a day.

Posted: **Thu Mar 15, 2018 6:38 pm**

DoomYoshi wrote:
mrswdk wrote:
DoomYoshi wrote:If we don't accept that he has a will, then it's useless to ask why, we can only ask how it came to be that he stabbed his wife.

That's the same question. Either way you're working out what caused him to stab his wife, presumably so that you can take steps to avoid other people being induced to stab their wives. It doesn't matter if his behaviour is the result of his free will or not, just that you are able to influence it.

That is a beautiful egocentric answer. It doesn't matter whether the other person is actually a person, as long as I can manipulate them.

So why do you care why he stabbed his wife?

Posted: **Thu Mar 15, 2018 7:12 pm**

mrswdk wrote:
DoomYoshi wrote:
mrswdk wrote:
DoomYoshi wrote:If we don't accept that he has a will, then it's useless to ask why, we can only ask how it came to be that he stabbed his wife.

That's the same question. Either way you're working out what caused him to stab his wife, presumably so that you can take steps to avoid other people being induced to stab their wives. It doesn't matter if his behaviour is the result of his free will or not, just that you are able to influence it.

That is a beautiful egocentric answer. It doesn't matter whether the other person is actually a person, as long as I can manipulate them.

So why do you care why he stabbed his wife?

Teets.

Conquer Club

Where there's a will, there's a why.

Where there's a will, there's a why.

Re: Where there's a will, there's a why.

Re: Where there's a will, there's a why.

Re: Where there's a will, there's a why.

Re: Where there's a will, there's a why.

Re: Where there's a will, there's a why.

Re: Where there's a will, there's a why.

Re: Where there's a will, there's a why.

Re: Where there's a will, there's a why.

Re: Where there's a will, there's a why.

Re: Where there's a will, there's a why.

Re: Where there's a will, there's a why.

Re: Where there's a will, there's a why.

Re: Where there's a will, there's a why.