AMA (YYW)

Author: coal

Posts

Total: 664
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@Earth
>Do you talk to animals?

I have never met a dog I wasn't friends with, or couldn't become friends with.  And yes, some of the best conversations I've had, have been with dogs. 
DapperMack
DapperMack's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 72
0
1
4
DapperMack's avatar
DapperMack
0
1
4
-->
@coal
How many of these accents can you do?
Irish
Scottish
Asian
Russian
Southern (come on)
British (come on)
Indian
Italian
German
Australian 
Middle Eastern












coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@SamStevens
>Do you believe in free will, the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces?

This is such a curious question, mostly because the position from which it is asked is in the context of a debate about human nature which is as old as civilization itself.  The question is especially interesting now, because even though it is an essentially normative question there have been very sincere attempts in the sciences to say something empirical about whether we as human beings have free will.  So, now the contours of that debate, and the sort of theoretical framework in which it's asked is not merely a question of, say, contrasting theological or philosophical perspectives; but also a question about the epistemological character of what science can and can not do.  Namely, is it true that we can positively describe free will in such a way that we can then empirically test it?  Is the claim that human beings have free will one that is falsifiable, and, if so, on what basis could it be falsified?

There's obviously a lot more complexity to the question than can be easily dispensed with.  Likewise, I don't think it's good enough to reduce that question ONLY to one that is nothing more than a choice between whether the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice or is determined by either physical or divine forces.  Namely, because both of those things can be true, at the same time; which is to say, that they're not mutually exclusive, which is to imply that the way that you have framed the question itself is less than ideal.  Though, that's probably not your fault, but I am going to be very clear that I reject your framing of just what exactly belief versus disbelief in free will entails.

I also think there's another dimension to that question to the effect that whether or not, from a scientific or empirical perspective, we can even sensibly talk about free will, the question itself is futile to answer because the foundation of our society and culture (at least in the West, and in every country and culture on earth that has not totally destroyed itself so far) we all ACT as if we have a degree of free will that is at least sufficient to make individuals responsible for their own actions.  So, that's at least two other levels at which the issue can be considered: both the normative question of whether as a sort of grand narrative we ought to act as if people have free will (and it is obvious that we should), and if so, to what degree?  There is also a way to positively frame that question, to the effect of "to what degree is a will free, if it is free in the first instance?" 

I'll say this:  it is very clear to me that we as human beings both do and should act as if people have free will, and it certainly seems to me like people have at least a degree of free will that is sufficient for them to be autonomous moral agents.  I think viewing the world and the people who populate it as if they lack free will to at least that degree is fatalistic and vacuous.  I also think that the so called scientific research into the subject is mostly bullshit on stilts, and the pop-sci conclusions that, for example, brooding high school misfits come to about free will from their casual misunderstandings of epigenetic research, for example, lack without limitation the ability to stand up to even modest scrutiny.  

I could say a lot more on the subject, but you just asked me what I "believed".  I told you what I thought, though not so much why I thought it.  Don't have enough time for that. 
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@Snoopy
>Why do the democratic and republican candidates seem increasingly polarized in comparison to the political climate before Barack Obama took office, particularly on societal topics, or the relationship of the people with their government? 

It's a political race to the bottom. The problem is that there is no bottom that we will ever reach, short of totally destroying the institutions of our government that have made our society as stable and prosperous as ours is.  There is no limit to the depths of hell into which the Republican and Democratic parties have plunged themselves.  Sadly, it may turn out that we will have to be in armageddon before they figure that out. 
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
>Trump Impeachment 

I was obviously wrong about Trump being impeached.  The reason I was wrong is because I believed that the Democrats wouldn't be such fucking cowards as they have been.  Pelosi, Schumer, and the lot of them, have demonstrated no more capability or courage or leadership than a swarm of lemmings.  There are lots of reasons why this is true, but I had higher aspirations and ideals for the Democratic leadership than they proved to have.  Maybe I was just too optimistic (and a bit too naive about justice's tendency to prevail over evil, the moral arc of the universe's bending towards justice, and all that jazz).  I oscillate between running out of patience, and throwing in the towel. 

coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@Wylted
>What are your thoughts on Jordan Peterson. Don't know if this will be taken as an insult but you guys seem similar in a lot (not most or all neccesarily) ways. 

In what ways are we similar?

Jordan Peterson and I have a lot in common.  I hold him in very high regard. 

coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@Snoopy
>any opinions in mind on our current electoral system in the United States.  

More than I have time to write.  Probably more than you'd want to read, too.  But the point that I'd make here, is this:  the most important thing is abolishing the electoral college.  


Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,294
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@coal
I oscillate between running out of patience, and throwing in the towel. 

Have you tried bourbon?
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@DapperMack
>Accents

Irish - Yes
Scottish - Yes
Asian - Be specific.  Chinese - Yes.  Japanese - Yes.  Korean - Yes.  Taiwanese - Yes.  Pakistani - Yes.  
Russian - Obviously.  Several different dialects. 
Southern (come on) - Yes, but not believably. 
British (come on) - Be specific. Wales - Yes.  Manchester - Yes.  Eton/British Aristocracy - Yes (both Churchill, and contemporary).  Low culture London - Yes. 
Indian - Yes, but only very offensively. 
Italian - Yes, but only very offensively. 
German - Three different dialects. 
Australian - Only stereotypically.  
Middle Eastern - Only stereotypically. 


coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
>Have you tried bourbon?

Many different kinds. 
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@coal
Your views on SJWs and a similar philosophy it seems on psychology. I also sense that he is a liberal as well who for whatever reason but how often he is forced to talk about some of the insanity on the far left, causes people to associate him with right wing ideologues. 
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@Wylted
I'd say you hit the nail on the head there.  Any other similarities that stand out to you?
DapperMack
DapperMack's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 72
0
1
4
DapperMack's avatar
DapperMack
0
1
4
Which Republican, excluding Donald Trump, would you get along with the least if you were in high school with them? (Assume they have they same personalities)

What celebrities can you do an impression of?

Can you name the guy in my avatar and tell me what he did? 

What problems will newer generations have in the workforce? (like more specific than just plain incompetence).
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,294
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@coal
Many different kinds.

If that hasn't solved your life problems then I don't know what will.
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@coal
More than I have time to write.  Probably more than you'd want to read, too.  But the point that I'd make here, is this:  the most important thing is abolishing the electoral college.  
Am I to take away by the recent trends for a national popular vote system in several states and your simplistic notion of abolition, that you lately have such a national vote for the president in mind, rather than a federal vote of the states? 

Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@coal
Nope, a lot of similarities but he is perhaps more humble than you. Which is the most notable difference personality wise. 
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
I thought the electoral system was stupid also until I read the book "In defense of the electoral college". It now seems superior to a popular vote
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
Is John McCain Evil?

Is Hillary Clinton?

Are people predisposed to following the rules no matter what evil? These seem like they would be the first people to decide to jist go along with the nazis or to not help support the underground railroad. 

Are people predisposed to rule breaking such as Ghandi, Harriett Tubman and John Titor heroes?
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
Why the fuck can't we get a Jesse Pinkman show. I could see almost like an action hero thing where his kid gets kidnapped and he hunts down rhe conspirators and shit happens? 
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@DapperMack
>Which Republican, excluding Donald Trump, would you get along with the least if you were in high school with them? (Assume they have they same personalities)

Ted Cruz, because he's a shit-eating dishonest slime.  

>What celebrities can you do an impression of?

Very few.  None other than Bill Clinton, convincingly.

>Can you name the guy in my avatar and tell me what he did? 

Stanislav Petrov.  On 26 September 1983, Petrov was the duty officer at the command center for the Oko nuclear early-warning system when the system reported that a missile had been launched from the United States.  Seemingly, that warning was followed by up to five more.

Petrov correctly judged the reports to be a false alarm.  Despite being ordered to initiate a retaliatory strike, he disobeyed.  Petrov is credited with having prevented an erroneous retaliatory nuclear attack on the United States and its NATO allies that likely would have brought civilizational destruction to both the USSR and the United States, emanating from a computer error in the Soviet's incompetent nuclear detection systems. 

>What problems will newer generations have in the workforce? (like more specific than just plain incompetence).

The workforce in 20 years is going to be primarily based on intellectual capital, which means that rather than just the bottom 20% of human beings in terms of their intellectual capability being unemployable (which means the labor they can produce has no marketable value), that figure is going to look more like the bottom 40% of 50%. 

Add to that the fact that we have basically been stratifying society in terms of levels of intellectual capacity since the adoption of the SAT means that there will be far less inter-class mobility.  That is a bad thing.  
SamStevens
SamStevens's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 287
0
1
3
SamStevens's avatar
SamStevens
0
1
3
-->
@coal
to what degree is a will free, if it is free in the first instance?
I think that's a better way to frame it. My view, if there is such a thing as free will and that people experience it to degrees, is that the average person has a high degree of free will when compared to a mentally ill person, whose thoughts, behaviors, etc are often manifestations of something wrong with their brain(a tumor, neurotransmitter issues, 'whatever'). 

And since there really isn't anything different about the human brain other than it being more complex than other animals' brains, humans would be at the top of the ladder with respect to how much degrees of freedom we experience as opposed to a frog or an insect. 

I would be interested in hearing why you believe what you do.

For me, the buck stops at recognizing that free will doesn't arise out of a deterministic universe, and even if one wants to invoke indeterminism into the equation, the concept of free will doesn't become more tenable. Humans are made of nothing extraordinary and were shaped by the forces of nature. Evolving a complex brain doesn't separate us from our humble beginnings; it may distance us and create the illusion of free will or degrees of freedom. So, I'd say that there are no degrees of freedom and that we are bound to the physical universe. Maybe that's being "vacuous" but I've read/experienced nothing that would suggest I'm authoring my own thoughts and actions. 

17 days later

coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@SamStevens
>My view ... is that the average person has a high degree of free will when compared to a mentally ill person ... For me, the buck stops at recognizing that free will doesn't arise out of a deterministic universe, and ... the concept of free will doesn't become more tenable. Humans are made of nothing extraordinary and were shaped by the forces of nature.  Evolving a complex brain doesn't separate us from our humble beginnings; it may distance us and create the illusion of free will or degrees of freedom. So, I'd say that there are no degrees of freedom and that we are bound to the physical universe. Maybe that's being "vacuous" but I've read/experienced nothing that would suggest I'm authoring my own thoughts and actions. 


From this, I don't know what you think about free will.  It seems like you think that there is some degree of free will but you don't quite know to what degree human beings' wills are "free" in any sense.  I don't mean that to be insulting, so much as I cannot understand what you're saying.  Like, it's obvious that human beings exist in the context of this earth, and that there are finite constraints on human choice.  So, choice is free within a set of bounds and those bounds define the range of possible choices. 

But, choice and will aren't the same thing.  In a deterministic world, the choice you made was predetermined by forces external to you; such that there is no "will" involved in your making the choice.  You rather made the choice you were fated to make.  On the other hand, given those same constraints, if you accept that the will is something that people have and that external forces (such as fate) do not preordain choice, but that you make the choice you make by and through the exercise of your will, you're still operating within the same set of finite constraints as you would under a deterministic theory.  So, you're not really making a point about free will to the degree that you're talking about externally constrained choice.  
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
Sam, to answer your other question, though, as to why I believe what I believe:

The reason I act as if people have free will is because that is good enough, and the alternative to doing so leads to catastrophic results.  For example, if we begin from the proposition that no one has any free will then all human choice is something wholly divested from intent.  Like, in that world intent is not even a cognizable concept.  That means that if I can intend to do anything; whether to lift my arm, or to engage in deliberate and premeditated murder, it can't be true that I am unable to form intent, and therefore it can't be true that I lack free will.  

A sort of late-adolescent rejoinder to that might go something to the tune of "well what about psychopaths, or people who are biologically predisposed towards violence?"

So we have I guess to draw the distinction between biological predisposition and the absence of free will.  Suppose it is hypothetically true that some people do have some form of biological predisposition towards anything, in this case, violence in general and maybe even murder in particular for whatever reason.  In order for the will's freedom to be obviated, it must be true that that biological predisposition is of sufficient force to make it so that this hypothetically predisposed person CANNOT resist the impulse to murder.  So, if he can chose NOT to murder, then he's exercising his will's freedom OVER the biological predisposition and whatever force it may have.  As a result, it turns out that you can't really sensibly speak of biological predispositions in terms of their overbearing any individual's free will.  To do so is an absurdity.

Maybe a stronger and more sophisticated argument that we lack free will would be more nuanced, and it would begin from the proposition that, for example, our will's ability to avail itself of its freedom is limited to at least some extent by epigenetic markers the nature of which we do not fully understand but which nevertheless seem to illustrate that in at least some cases some responses are biologically innate.  That's a less stupid objection, because we can establish that proposition's conceptual validity -- to some extent at least.  For example, if you take a rat that has never seen, heard, smelled, or otherwise experienced a cat; AND you put cat smells in the presence of that rat, the rat is going to freeze in terror.  So, the rat lacks the experience to learn fear of cats, so there's something about the rat which makes it afraid of cats "by nature" (or so it seems).  In that instance, the rat's reaction is not one it chose.  To the degree that you could do something similar with a person, that's at least proof of concept.  The problem is that all that establishes is perhaps one more constraint on the bounds of choice, even if it applies to people, which it may.  So, you're not proving the absence of free will by epigenetic markers; rather, you're just saying "hey, here's another example of how choice is constrained."  For the reasons we've already said, boundaries of choice are not arguments against free will.

Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,572
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@coal
Do you believe California has a Constitutional right to split itself into 3 new states?
SamStevens
SamStevens's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 287
0
1
3
SamStevens's avatar
SamStevens
0
1
3
-->
@coal
From this, I don't know what you think about free will.

Yeah, I could have worded it a bit clearer. The part you omitted from what I said, "if there is such a thing as free will and that people experience it to degrees", then that would be my view on what free will is all about, that the average person has a higher degree of freedom than someone with a mental problem. You reworked my question by adding in degrees of freedom(which I thought was good) and that's what my view would be if I were to believe in degrees of freedom. 

My specific views start with "For me, the buck stops at recognizing..." as I don't believe in any degree of freedom, you either have it or you don't, the origins of your choices are rather obvious(such as a brain tumor) or they are more complicated(a family history of alcoholism, what's my predisposition towards developing it, etc). 

Now with that cleared up, I'll read your second post and use it to inform my views of free will. 
Club
Club's avatar
Debates: 26
Posts: 296
1
3
9
Club's avatar
Club
1
3
9
Who's YYW
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 556
Posts: 19,389
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Club
Bsh's ex. Genuinely.
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@Club
YYW is an irrelevant DDO user. 

dylancatlow
dylancatlow's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 97
0
0
3
dylancatlow's avatar
dylancatlow
0
0
3
"Now, we've got to make the additional decision of whether rape is as bad as murder, or less bad.  It's obviously less bad than murder.  A raped victim still is alive, despite whatever post-occurrence trauma they may experience.  But, a person who has been successfully murdered is, as the term implies, quite dead.  So, murder is worse than rape."

Thank you for saying this. It had to be said. 
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
People are encouraged to ask me more questions.  I'll answer the others in time.