The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Max IQ to believe in "dualism"
Poast new message in this thread
Date: July 22nd, 2026 7:42 PM Author: marvelous drab chapel headpube Even for things like interactionist dualism and epiphenomenalism I'm pegging someone who believes in this at a max of somewhere in the mid-60s in terms of IQ. They survive empirical counterexamples in only the broadest sense as formally describable alternatives, but not as serious explanatory alternatives. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50017807) |
 |
Date: July 22nd, 2026 8:12 PM Author: brindle mind-boggling private investor site Dualism is the philosophical theory that reality consists of two fundamental, irreducible elements or principles. Depending on the context, it emphasizes the sharp distinction between independent or antagonistic sides, such as the material and the immaterial, or good and evil.
Mind-Body Dualism
In the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, mind-body dualism is the view that the mind (the mental realm) and the body (physical matter) are fundamentally distinct and both real.
Substance Dualism:
Most famously championed by René Descartes in the 17th century, this asserts that the mind and body are two completely different substances. The mind is an immaterial, thinking entity, while the body is a physical, spatially extended entity.
Property Dualism: This variation argues that there is only one physical substance, but it possesses two distinct fundamental properties: physical properties and mental properties.
Metaphysical and Religious Dualism
Beyond the mind, dualism applies to broader reality and theological concepts:
Cosmic Dualism: The belief that the universe is governed by two opposing, often antagonistic principles, such as Good and Evil, or Light and Darkness (prominent in ancient traditions like Zoroastrianism).Platonic Dualism: Traced back to Plato, it separates reality into the imperfect, changing material world and the perfect, unchanging realm of "Forms".
Psychological and Behavioral Dualism
In psychology and everyday reasoning, dualistic thinking involves reducing complex issues into simplistic binaries (e.g., us vs. them, rational vs. emotional). While it helps organize thoughts, it can also lead to oversimplification, polarization, and a lack of empathy.
Dualism directly contrasts with monism (the belief that reality is made of only one substance, like physicalism or idealism) and pluralism (the belief in many substances). For a comprehensive look at the arguments for and against this concept, explore the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. |
|
Date: July 22nd, 2026 8:16 PM Author: marvelous drab chapel headpube Yeah Descartes was a genius but we have come a long way since the 17th century (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50017897) |
Date: July 22nd, 2026 7:43 PM Author: geriatric candlestick maker idk it's fucking stupid though, cr (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50017809) |
|
Date: July 22nd, 2026 7:46 PM Author: marvelous drab chapel headpube I think the biggest error they make is turning an explanatory or representational gap into an ontological gap, which is wildly low iq. Only reason these explanations survive at all is historical and cultural bias. Everytime I see the words "qualia" or "qualed" written in serious argument I basically burst out laughing. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50017816) |
|
Date: July 22nd, 2026 7:50 PM Author: geriatric candlestick maker i can't, my qualia (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50017833) |
|
Date: July 22nd, 2026 7:53 PM Author: marvelous drab chapel headpube Yeah I think the lowest IQ part is when you ask someone "do qualia make any causal difference?". If no, then qualia cannot cause reports, memories, decisions, avoidance, learning, or beliefs about experience. If yes then they are physical unless you define "physical" by some weird criterion noone would accept. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50017839) |
|
Date: July 22nd, 2026 8:18 PM Author: appetizing saffron office this is a straw man reading of the actual position (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50017902) |
|
Date: July 22nd, 2026 8:23 PM Author: marvelous drab chapel headpube Nah. Either qualia causally affect reports, memory, and behavior or they don't. If they do, explain why a law governed cause with physical effects is still “nonphysical.” If they don't then how could we know or report anything about them? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50017915) |
|
Date: July 22nd, 2026 8:23 PM Author: appetizing saffron office look up global workspace theory you fucking twat (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50017916) |
|
Date: July 22nd, 2026 8:26 PM Author: marvelous drab chapel headpube GWT makes my point! It explains how these things become available through physical information becoming globally available. Either qualia are that physical workspace activity (in which case they are not nonphysical) or they are something extra, in which case the original causal dilemma remains. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50017929) |
|
Date: July 22nd, 2026 8:26 PM Author: appetizing saffron office go talk to an LLM dumbass (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50017930) |
|
Date: July 22nd, 2026 8:27 PM Author: geriatric candlestick maker agreed (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50017933) |
|
Date: July 22nd, 2026 10:09 PM Author: Milky angry son of senegal (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50018206) |
|
Date: July 22nd, 2026 7:54 PM Author: appetizing saffron office there are no hidden variables. mediocre iq dorks like to think neutral monism is a high iq move. in reality it's just wishy washy bullshit. it's obvious there are 2 substances: res extensa and res cogitans (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50017842) |
|
Date: July 22nd, 2026 7:55 PM Author: marvelous drab chapel headpube Calling two substances obvious does not explain how the second one interacts with the first without either becoming physical or becoming causally irrelevant. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50017846) |
|
Date: July 22nd, 2026 7:58 PM Author: geriatric candlestick maker the explanation is Magic (this is what they actually believe btw) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50017851) |
|
Date: July 22nd, 2026 7:58 PM Author: appetizing saffron office it doesn't matter. i don't have to explain to universe to demonstrate the alternatives are wrong (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50017854) |
|
Date: July 22nd, 2026 8:03 PM Author: marvelous drab chapel headpube If res cogitans affects brains, speech, memory, or behavior, then it belongs to the law governed causal structure investigated by natural science. Calling it “nonphysical” needs a substantive criterion. If it has no physical effects, then it cannot explain why anyone reports, remembers, or forms beliefs about experience. Why would that demand an entire theory of the Universe? It is testing whether the proposed "second substance" can perform the role you assign to it without just being another natural variable or a causally idle appendage. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50017870) |
|
Date: July 22nd, 2026 8:04 PM Author: appetizing saffron office no one takes the causal closure of the physical seriously (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50017873) |
|
Date: July 22nd, 2026 8:09 PM Author: marvelous drab chapel headpube That is false, but also irrelevant.
Suppose physical causal closure is false and res cogitans affects the brain. Then specify the interaction. What physical states does it change, under what conditions, according to what regularities? And how could its contribution be distinguished from ordinary physical causes? Once it has systematic, detectable effects, it becomes part of the empirical causal ontology.
Rejecting causal closure only makes interaction logically available. It does not establish two substances, explain their boundary or solve the interaction problem. |
|
Date: July 22nd, 2026 8:11 PM Author: appetizing saffron office i dont need to specify the interaction. very few philosophers are reductive physicalists. it's an absurd position. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50017882) |
|
Date: July 22nd, 2026 8:14 PM Author: marvelous drab chapel headpube Most philosophers rejecting reductive physicalism does not imply Cartesian dualism. Nonreductive physicalism is an obvious alternative. And if your theory says two substances interact, the interaction is not an optional detail. Refusing to specify it does not defeat rival views. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50017889) |
|
Date: July 22nd, 2026 8:15 PM Author: appetizing saffron office nonreductive physicalism is basically dualism. they're identical in basically every implication. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50017893) |
|
Date: July 22nd, 2026 8:19 PM Author: marvelous drab chapel headpube No. Nonreductive physicalism says mental properties are wholly dependent on physical systems and cannot exist or vary independently of them. Substance dualism says a distinct mental substance can exist in principle apart from the body. That's a pretty big ontological difference despite them both being anti-reductionist if you consider the implications. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50017904) |
|
Date: July 22nd, 2026 8:22 PM Author: appetizing saffron office that's not even right. many NRP's say higher emergent layers act downwards. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50017914) |
|
Date: July 22nd, 2026 8:28 PM Author: marvelous drab chapel headpube Downward causation does not make it substance dualism. A nonreductive physicalist can say organism-level mental states causally constrain lower level processes while still holding that those states are realized by, and cannot exist independently of the physical organism. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50017935) |
|
Date: July 22nd, 2026 8:28 PM Author: appetizing saffron office you dont have a grasp of the fundamentals (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50017936) |
|
Date: July 22nd, 2026 8:32 PM Author: marvelous drab chapel headpube Then identify the fundamental distinction I missed (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50017951) |
|
Date: July 22nd, 2026 8:32 PM Author: appetizing saffron office im good (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50017952) |
|
Date: July 22nd, 2026 8:24 PM Author: Cerise unholy box office hairy legs substance dualism and property dualism are both “dualism,” the title of ur thread brother (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50017924) |
|
Date: July 22nd, 2026 8:30 PM Author: marvelous drab chapel headpube Yes, both are called dualism. The dispute is whether nonreductive physicalism is therefore “basically identical” to substance dualism. It is not. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50017944) |
|
Date: July 22nd, 2026 8:31 PM Author: appetizing saffron office youre a total retard. no one is a substance dualist anymore. everything about substance dualism got shoehorned into NRP. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50017948) |
|
Date: July 22nd, 2026 8:35 PM Author: marvelous drab chapel headpube Then stop appealing to labels and state your own position. Are qualia physically realized or not? Do they causally affect brains and behavior or not? Can they exist without a physical organism or not? Answer those directly instead of calling everything "basically dualism". (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50017958) |
|
Date: July 22nd, 2026 8:36 PM Author: appetizing saffron office no. the mainstream position is NRP and its basically dualism. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50017964) |
|
Date: July 22nd, 2026 8:38 PM Author: marvelous drab chapel headpube That is a SOCIOLOGICAL claim. I'm not asking what is mainstream or what label you attach to NRP. Are qualia physically realized? Do they causally affect the brain? Can they exist without a physical organism? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50017969) |
|
Date: July 22nd, 2026 8:38 PM Author: appetizing saffron office if you think ur stupid ass is gonna solve philosophy of mind ur stupider than i thought (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50017973) |
|
Date: July 22nd, 2026 8:41 PM Author: marvelous drab chapel headpube Who said I was going to “solve philosophy of mind”? I asked you three basic questions about your own position, and instead of answering them you invented a claim I never made (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50017989) |
|
Date: July 22nd, 2026 8:42 PM Author: appetizing saffron office there is essentially no disagreement on the major facts. if you want to argue about minutia or defend an absurd position as some kind of performance art to get back at your mean dad im not interested. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50017993) |
|
Date: July 22nd, 2026 8:47 PM Author: marvelous drab chapel headpube The fuck is the point of even poasting here if you aren't interested in performance art? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50018006) |
|
Date: July 22nd, 2026 8:16 PM Author: geriatric candlestick maker yeah because if physicalism is true they'd be out of a job (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50017895) |
|
Date: July 22nd, 2026 9:59 PM Author: marvelous drab chapel headpube I think midwits find it compelling to believe in a magic non-physical layer regardless of whether they will have a job. They think any residual between representation and reality is evidence for an additional substance. Like dude, the equations for thermodynamics don't actually contain heat ITSELF "WITHIN" them man, there must be something non-physical here. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50018173) |
|
Date: July 22nd, 2026 8:27 PM Author: nighttime pervert step-uncle's house this shit uses sufficiently technical and opaque language that i cant tell if you people are smart or midwits playing tautological logic games ad infinitum (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50017931) |
|
Date: July 22nd, 2026 8:28 PM Author: Cerise unholy box office hairy legs there are highly technical highly interesting issues involving words itt but this is a retarded thread (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50017934) |
|
Date: July 22nd, 2026 8:32 PM Author: stirring offensive indirect expression idea he suggested Thought this would be about metaphysical dualism (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50017950) |
|
Date: July 23rd, 2026 7:14 AM Author: beady-eyed jap cr thought this would be the final takedown of Consuela and MiG (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50018677) |
|
Date: July 22nd, 2026 8:33 PM Author: Twinkling Spectacular Market Community Account It doesn't require you to count higher than 2 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50017954) |
|
Date: July 22nd, 2026 10:20 PM Author: marvelous drab chapel headpube (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50018241) |
|
Date: July 22nd, 2026 10:22 PM Author: talented locale love of her life ~120 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50018252) |
|
Date: July 22nd, 2026 10:30 PM Author: marvelous drab chapel headpube (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50018272) |
|
Date: July 22nd, 2026 11:46 PM Author: Transparent cerebral telephone i would've said 110 or 120. but if there's a creator who has given us free will (and the term is meaningful) then hey maybe (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50018487) |
|
Date: July 23rd, 2026 5:15 AM Author: marvelous drab chapel headpube Why would you need a magic non-physical layer to have free will? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50018608) |
|
Date: July 23rd, 2026 9:22 AM Author: Transparent cerebral telephone if you think you don't need an additional layer, could you please explain how you think free will is possible?
if determinism is true, and you knew all of the matter and mechanisms and trajectories and cause/effect relationships on earth, you could predict the future. maybe quantum mechanics complicates this because it adds randomness, but imho that doesn't really help the argument in favor of free will being possible. |
|
Date: July 23rd, 2026 9:30 AM Author: marvelous drab chapel headpube Free will doesn't require an uncaused or nonphysical mind. It means that your actions arise through your own capacity to evaluate reasons, model alternatives, and choose among physically available options. Even if determinism were true, your deliberation would still be part of what determines the future. Adding randomness or a nonphysical chooser would not make the choice any freer. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50018839) |
|
Date: July 23rd, 2026 5:25 AM Author: Hideous Razzmatazz Meetinghouse Quadroon How is freshman year of college (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50018610) |
|
Date: July 23rd, 2026 5:29 AM Author: marvelous drab chapel headpube 18000 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50018611) |
|
Date: July 23rd, 2026 9:22 AM Author: Transparent cerebral telephone cr (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50018832) |
|
Date: July 23rd, 2026 10:09 AM Author: dun state (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50018880) |
|
Date: July 23rd, 2026 10:38 AM Author: marvelous drab chapel headpube Whoahh you still poast here? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50018942) |
|
Date: July 23rd, 2026 3:30 PM Author: dun state always been here. always will be (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50019544) |
|
Date: July 23rd, 2026 3:34 PM Author: marvelous drab chapel headpube 1800000 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50019552) |
|
Date: July 23rd, 2026 7:30 AM Author: big umber selfie business firm 260+ (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50018699) |
|
Date: July 23rd, 2026 12:01 PM Author: hyperventilating dull garrison The wackiest aspect of this thread is that you adhere to reductive materialism and also believe in free will. This is incoherent within your own premise. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50019073) |
|
Date: July 23rd, 2026 12:06 PM Author: geriatric candlestick maker As he points out, one can have "free will" within a deterministic universe. You *can* choose whatever you want, genuinely. It's just that you were always going to choose whatever you end up choosing
The way that most people think about "free will" is wrong imho |
|
Date: July 23rd, 2026 12:10 PM Author: marvelous drab chapel headpube You can be a reductive materialist and have a stronger account of free will than that. Reductive materialism does not require determinism. It only requires that the mind and agency be wholly physically realized or reducible to physical processes. The underlying physical processes could be indeterministic (although indeterminism in itself doesn't create freedom). (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50019097) |
|
Date: July 23rd, 2026 12:12 PM Author: geriatric candlestick maker I'm not sure I agree with that, but it's moot anyway because we for sure live in a deterministic universe per empirically confirmed physics (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50019100) |
|
Date: July 23rd, 2026 12:17 PM Author: marvelous drab chapel headpube Empirically confirmed physics proves that the universe is deterministic” is false. The fact that some successful physical models are deterministic doesn't show that the universe itself has been empirically shown to be deterministic. Determinism is a global modal claim. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50019116) |
|
Date: July 23rd, 2026 12:19 PM Author: geriatric candlestick maker Relativity alone makes the universe deterministic, Champ (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50019119) |
|
Date: July 23rd, 2026 12:26 PM Author: marvelous drab chapel headpube That's false. Special relativity straightforwardly does not. And general probably doesn't either. But even if they did within their domains that wouldn't imply the Universe is globally deterministic, because relativity is not by itself a complete theory of the universe. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50019137) |
|
Date: July 23rd, 2026 12:06 PM Author: marvelous drab chapel headpube I never said I was a reductive materialist. I believe in one physical ontology with genuinely useful higher level biological and psychological descriptions. And even if I did adhere to reductive materialism, reductive materialism does not by itself entail the absence of free will. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50019085) |
|
Date: July 23rd, 2026 12:07 PM Author: stirring offensive indirect expression idea he suggested "Genuinely" Sup Claude |
|
Date: July 23rd, 2026 12:19 PM Author: marvelous drab chapel headpube Oh come on. I had never even heard about that one before, but looked it up and I guess it is genuinely a thing. That genuinely is not claude though. Not wasting Fable tokens on xo. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50019120) |
|
Date: July 23rd, 2026 2:14 PM Author: hyperventilating dull garrison Where is free will coming from in physicalism? I don't want to get into parsing reductive materialism from your particular ethos but they seem close enough to wonder. What, exactly is producing something genuinely mine or yours that isn't simply a product of physics? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50019376) |
|
Date: July 23rd, 2026 2:21 PM Author: marvelous drab chapel headpube From the person. My reasons, values, memories, and deliberation are physically realized, but they are still mine. Saying “physics caused the choice” does not exclude “I caused the choice” if I am the organized physical system doing the deliberating. A nonphysical soul would not solve anything by itself. Its choices could still be determined, random, coerced, or arbitrary. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50019386) |
|
Date: July 23rd, 2026 2:24 PM Author: hyperventilating dull garrison Your awareness of a deliberation shouldn’t be confused with actual free will. Just because a thought appears in awareness does not mean that you caused it to be conjured. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50019388) |
|
Date: July 23rd, 2026 2:28 PM Author: marvelous drab chapel headpube Agreed that merely noticing a thought does not mean I freely created it. But free will need not mean consciously choosing every thought before it occurs. I think the relevant question here is whether the person can evaluate thoughts, reject some, endorse others, inhibit impulses, and act accordance with this decision making process. Unbidden mental content is compatible with genuine agency over what one does with it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50019397) |
|
Date: July 23rd, 2026 2:39 PM Author: hyperventilating dull garrison Where is this agency coming from? Who or what is the actual agent? I struggle to find a difference between experiencing a thought and a sound. That is to say I can sometimes watch thoughts in my head almost like watching a movie on the screen. To think that there is an I somewhere inside my head who is sorting and evaluating and discarding, and retaining these thoughts seems to me to be a huge leap. We cannot explain why we are conscious. To introduce the idea of actual agency into this mix seems to me to be absurd. I think agency is too often conflated with simple awareness. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50019426) |
|
Date: July 23rd, 2026 2:48 PM Author: marvelous drab chapel headpube Hmmm... yeah one thing I have to say is that I think physicalism and free will are not equally strong claims. I think physicalism is almost certainly true, while agency is a separate and harder question. There needn’t be a little I inside the head, but whether the whole physical system exercises enough genuine control to count as free, and how much is exactly what remains uncertain. That said, I don’t think the introspective experience of watching thoughts arise is enough by itself to show that agency or free will is unreal. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50019449) |
|
Date: July 23rd, 2026 3:07 PM Author: hyperventilating dull garrison Physicalism is appealing because it doesn't add in any extra elements that then require extraordinary explanation. Determinism, to me, seems to be the same. Free will, even in compatibilism terms, seems like an artificial addition that then requires extraordinary explanation. There isn't one element of consciousness that requires the injection of free will to explain anything aside from the subjective experience of choice. And even that subjective feeling, I would argue, falls away when you scrutinize the nature of your own awareness. I guess I am much more interested in the question of, "why/how consciousness," rather than "are we free agents." (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50019503) |
|
Date: July 23rd, 2026 3:23 PM Author: marvelous drab chapel headpube Yeah I have thought about that a lot (I agree with you regarding the extra elements thing for physicalism and have considered the same for determinism), but still just think that ultimately it is much more likely that we are free (within constraints) and also physical. I think people get caught up in the idea that since certain systems can be calculated with equations, gravitation, thermodynamics or whatever else then that means there is no more additional "room" for possibility or agency. To me that is just wildly false. You don't need anything exotic or outside known physical equations for freedom. The global system is rich enough on its own. I think the mistake comes from treating physical laws as though they exhaust reality by replacing the organized system with equations describing it. A gravitational equation constrains trajectories. It does not follow that an organism cannot use perception, memory, prediction, and motor control to navigate within those constraints. The laws do not act instead of the organism. They describe the processes from which the organism and its agency are constituted. Possibility is not an empty gap in the laws where a supernatural cause can intervene. It is the structured set of counterfactual trajectories available to a system under different information, intentions, inputs, and interventions. A rock has few controllable trajectories. An animal has more. I can sit here and simulate distance consequences, revise goals and so on and so forth. And like I said it's not like I'm trying to tell you you are definitely wrong. I'm not 100% sure about free will, and am much more certain about physicalism. You could very well be right, but it just seems more likely to me that free will and possibility are real. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50019536) |
|
Date: July 23rd, 2026 3:35 PM Author: hyperventilating dull garrison I agree that there is ample room for free will to exist; I would simply challenge the notion that it's a necessary component for an understanding of consciousness.
When you drill down this far, the questions become more like thought experiments than anything seeking actual answers. And when you look at it like that, you can go down all sorts of wacky and enjoyable rabbit holes. I particularly get a kick out of panpsychism and essentialism and, more broadly William James' take on pantheism. In that same vein, I really enjoy reading Freud but I can easily recognize that he was a terrible practitioner/psychoanalyst. |
|
Date: July 23rd, 2026 6:40 PM Author: 180 violent kitty cat I agree with you, good subthread, ty both.
I think some people feel like "I can make a decision" is inconsistent with "my decision is predictable according to laws and states", but I don't see it that way. *I* don't know all the laws and states, so from my point of view I'm still making choices all the time with the info I have, not falling into a certain path just because it's How Things Are. |
|
Date: July 23rd, 2026 7:06 PM Author: geriatric candlestick maker (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50020307) |
|
Date: July 23rd, 2026 7:10 PM Author: glittery deranged generalized bond (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50020323) |
|
Date: July 23rd, 2026 1:22 PM Author: Drunken embarrassed to the bone shrine I am not 100% sure of what "dualism" really means anymore, but I may qualify as one in some sense and I don't think I'm particularly low IQ.
In a nutshell, I am something of a panpsychist. While I think our "minds" are formed inside of our brains, I think it is highly likely that our bodies exist as systems through which the Electromagnetic Field experiences the world. I don't think this is limited to us, in fact I think that all living organisms are effectively vessels for the EMF to experience the world. What we know of as the EMF may actually be some sort of "Spirit OS" in a sense.
I think it's altogether possible that some organisms may be more of a "hive mind" through which the EMF interacts with the world. Take ants, for example. Or even much simpler single cell organisms that behave in ways that are difficult to really understand. Fundamentally I am talking about organisms that don't have anywhere near a real brain and that seem to do things with some level of complexity / act in concert with one another.
What's more, we also know that people who spend many years in meditation practice can reach a point in which they experience a total lack of self. They seem to reach a point where their awareness moves beyond the "self" produced by our brain for purposes of processing information.
Maybe the Zen Buddhist types were right all along.
To be clear, I (obviously) did not come up with this idea and am borrowing much from the dude Ryan Faulke (The Alternative Hypothesis) who has written some interesting stuff on the matter. |
|
Date: July 23rd, 2026 1:30 PM Author: pea-brained marketing idea coffee pot philosophy is incredibly low iq these days (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50019260) |
|
Date: July 23rd, 2026 2:14 PM Author: marvelous drab chapel headpube It's getting higher iq in the sense that people are realizing physicalism is most certainly true. Although perhaps this isn't due to iq increase. Likely is just due to ordinary knowledge advancement especially with increased connectivity and access to literature. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50019373) |
|
Date: July 23rd, 2026 6:41 PM Author: appetizing saffron office Fun thread with incredible traction for (xo 202 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50020248) |
|
Date: July 23rd, 2026 6:44 PM Author: glittery deranged generalized bond (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50020251) |
|
Date: July 23rd, 2026 7:03 PM Author: aphrodisiac therapy https://x.com/i/status/2080405089722798105 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50020289) |
|
Date: July 23rd, 2026 9:49 PM Author: marvelous drab chapel headpube (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5885256&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927#50020745) |