1010
submitted 6 days ago by carotte to c/curatedtumblr@sh.itjust.works

Show transcriptScreenshot of a Tumblr post by nongunktional:

when i first heard about the male loneliness epidemic i was like oh yeah close camaraderie and bonding between men is often discouraged in favor of competition or, if not discouraged, at least filtered through a lens of individualism that precludes deep connections. and then i learned what people meant by it (men arent getting laid) to which i say skill issue

to all the men out there not getting laid: try less hard to get laid and try more hard to be an enjoyable and relaxing presence

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today 1 points 20 hours ago

definition of free will is not meaningfully different from a theoretical conscious yet programmed robot's "will".

Lol, I think you are massively conflating influence with literal programming. I don't think you would find anyone credible to agree that robots have "will"

Also, "theoretical conscious" is doing a lot of lifting in this argument.

but then robots also have free will, and we treat a programmed autonomous robot very differently compared to a human.

You mean a "theoretically conscious" robot would theoretically have free will, since this has not happened, and some would argue it cannot happen, we have no idea how we would treat them.

They're religious and I don't engage in religion, spirituality, supernaturalism, or theology. Absolute waste of time.

What? I mean there are theological libertarian takes, but a libertarian take on free will is not innately religious. They just believe that predeterminism is logically incompatible with freewill.

Maybe Sapolsky knew they were wastes of time and skipped them. You don't have to read the bible to know christianity is a waste of time. I don't need to read libertarian ideology to know the same about their ideas.

Lol, you obviously haven't read their ideas if you think it's theological in nature. You can decide you don't want to engage with the body of work, but you can't then critique it. If you don't know what you are critiquing, then any argument you make is going to be a strawman.

Free will hasn't been meaningfully defined to differentiate itself from "Autonomy" by compatibilists. Their definition as a result is worthless. Libertarians basically believe in magic.

I'm mean it depends on the compatibilist..... Some do make arguments that differenciate the two. However, most do not because you are utilzing language in engineering to combat a philosophical principal.

Some utilize autonomy as a synonym for free will, some say free will is just a stronger for of autonomy, some describe the difference as a matter of agency. For example, a slave has free will, but is being controlled by another so lack autonomy.

Again, you are attacking a strawman with this argument.

Libertarians basically believe in magic.

Again.... I really don't know how you are interpreting this?

If anything, he's offering a steelman.

What? You do know what a strawman argument is right?

My "core beliefs" are basically my axioms. And axioms are more like ideological goals or ways of thinking.

Axioms are self evident, if your beliefs were actual axioms we'd all believe in them.....

moral axioms placed "truth" above basically everything but now its below harm reduction for instance.

I mean, definitely a step forward.....but I'd still challenge you to practice some skepticism about these "axioms" of yours.

someone's core belief is more of a specific "factual statement", then sure. One should be willing to change one's beliefs with new evidence. And really it shouldn't even be a core belief in the first place.

So what are your core beliefs based on if not empiricism?

engage with empiricism or scientific consensus.

So how do we handle subjectivity?

If something is outside of empiricism or scientific consensus I fall to Occam's Razor.

Occam's razor is only meant to adjudicate between two competing theories that are equally supported by evidence that have already passed theoretically scrutiny.

If something can't be engaged with either of those things, I simply assume I cannot know right now and have to wait for empiricism or scientific consensus and that it isn't worth fabricating a comforting fairy tale to explain it

I fail to see how you can make a claim against the existence of free will with that thought process.

"abstract thinking" all happens essentially at 0) My way of figuring out what is true stems from rationality and rational thinking structures. Abstract thinking never follows the other steps.

So your rationality isn't influenced by observation and your observation never influences your rationality?

The only reason I'm able to talk about it now is that it was a long time ago and I'm kind of dead inside anyway at this point.

Again..... I would highly advise you to talk to a professional about this. Your avoidance of health professionals and tbh your entire belief system seem highly irrational and dangerous to your own health.

Absolutely, but they simply aren't at the same rates and getting consent for sex from a heterosexual/bisexual man is rarely a problem for the average heterosexual/bisexual woman.

Could that not be influenced by the sexist expectations set upon women by a patriarchal society?

Its doing something, but its not "Doing something to her." Its more like doing something to myself.

You can do both at the same time.

I added my anecdote for context as supporting contribution to my argument to demonstrate an idea or probable reality. I wasn't interested in actively changing the subject to me personally as the focus. Especially since that can often just result in discussing my character instead of engaging with the main argument, which is basically what you did.

Again..... We are debating. You can't expect to introduce an argument and have me not offer a rebuttal to that argument. If you are wanting to avoid shifting the argument towards your personal behavior, I advise not to add personal anecdotes that support your claim.

you wanted to attack the relevance/factuality/meaningfulness of the anecdote itself that is fair game. However, you then took your chance to decide largely to attack my character.

Your behaviour was relevant to the argument, so I criticized your behavior. If you decide that your actions reflect the nature of your character then that is a personal insight.

[-] HalfSalesman@lemmy.world 1 points 51 minutes ago

Lol, I think you are massively conflating influence with literal programming. I don’t think you would find anyone credible to agree that robots have “will”

Also, “theoretical conscious” is doing a lot of lifting in this argument.

You mean a “theoretically conscious” robot would theoretically have free will, since this has not happened, and some would argue it cannot happen, we have no idea how we would treat them.

That's just it though, there is no reason to assume that there is something intrinsically special about the human brain that allows it to exclusively be conscious. The brain is just a computer made of flesh, one that merely at the moment can't be programmed directly. If we replicated it artificially and it was able to be fully programmed the obvious implications is that there also is nothing special about our own brains in terms of "will" because we'd have a replica that we'd be able to directly control and program. It'd just mean our programming came about from evolutionary forces.

What? I mean there are theological libertarian takes, but a libertarian take on free will is not innately religious. They just believe that predeterminism is logically incompatible with freewill.

"Predeterminism" is a red herring. I don't believe in predeterminism either. I don't think the future is already written.

You can decide you don’t want to engage with the body of work, but you can’t then critique it.

Again… I really don’t know how you are interpreting this [libertarianism]?

"You can decide not to read the bible and hundreds of years of theological theory, but you can't then critique it."

If 500 years ago, someone wrote a complicated theory that stated that everything was made of bananas and then over the course of the past 500 years people debated the specifics filling up tomes of books on the nonsense I wouldn't be required to read it all to not be fully in the right to completely dismiss it as gibberish and to openly insist that others also not waste their mental energy on it.

I find libertarian ideas around free will to be nonsense at a fundamental level. Reading the specifics would go no where. I'd need to be convinced that the core idea had some merit to begin with. As far as I can see, they have zero.

Axioms are self evident, if your beliefs were actual axioms we’d all believe in them… I mean, definitely a step forward…but I’d still challenge you to practice some skepticism about these “axioms” of yours.

There are multiple definitions of axiom. I'm referring to personal ideological axioms. "A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument; a postulate. "

So what are your core beliefs based on if not empiricism?

Empiricism itself is not a factual statement, its a system of thinking. Empiricism is indeed a core belief of mine.

So how do we handle subjectivity?

You'll need to be more specific. What do you mean "handle"? Do you mean the issue that you can't truly "know" anything?

Occam’s razor is only meant to adjudicate between two competing theories that are equally supported by evidence that have already passed theoretically scrutiny.

I guess? I not sure how this contradicts my usage of it? Also why arbitrarily two? If you are discussing something where every theory has zero evidence for it then you'd be able to select the most simple out of a list of theories of any size. They'd all have zero evidence. Its not like you'd be forced to only consider two of them.

I fail to see how you can make a claim against the existence of free will with that thought process. [That I can't fabricate a fairy tale]

Because free will itself is a fairy tale. But it got stopped one step further. There being free will is more complicated than there simply being no free will.

So your rationality isn’t influenced by observation and your observation never influences your rationality?

The rational abstraction is systematized. Its not so much that it's not a potential that observation could never influence my rational thinking, but that if an observation does then that has potential impacts on all of my rational thinking systems. This is pretty unlikely, we're talking a major and profound table flip. It would need to be demonstrated that the very way my rational system of thinking is inferior at obtaining truth compared to another new way.

That said, as they are, the only abstract thinking that would follow is more like a procedural set of steps that I've already come to follow to process new evidence.

So rationality "applies" to evidence, but like a pre-written function.

Could that not be influenced by the sexist expectations set upon women by a patriarchal society?

Oh it definitely is. It however isn't the only influence, patriarchy is only one component of cultural conservativism. There is also religion and capitalism.

Plus, lets be honest here women just are less horny because of the nature of hormones. Just ask someone on any kind of HRT. We probably evolved that way to create a competitive pressure on men. Natural is brutal and amoral, and men are thrown into a metaphorical gladiatorial arena by it. The one that comes out on top gets to have kids (and have a fulfilling sex life), and from my perspective this is pretty awful. I'm not a fan of nature. I want every individual, men and women (and otherwise), to have fulfilling sex lives.

this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2025
1010 points (100.0% liked)

Curated Tumblr

5708 readers
291 users here now

For preserving the least toxic and most culturally relevant Tumblr heritage posts.

Here are some OCR tools to assist you in transcribing posts:

Don't be mean. I promise to do my best to judge that fairly.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS