Post B6Fv7Xg97SeVhw5IBs by bajax@baj.ax
(DIR) More posts by bajax@baj.ax
(DIR) Post #B6Fb1Dg2Zetiqvk6z2 by bajax@baj.ax
2026-05-13T10:01:07.340522Z
2 likes, 1 repeats
I don't believe the universe is deterministic, but even if it was it wouldn't eliminate the concept of free will. conversely, the absolute non-determinism of the universe as I believe it is doesn't naturally and automatically establish the existence of free will either-- stochastic noise isn't more *you* just because you can definitively say you might have in other trials with identical preconditions done differently-- you haven't claimed the process of the decision, it was just fed to you by universal rng(just finished watching Arrival (2016) lol)
(DIR) Post #B6FbDD9ULsvmhQEcXQ by Humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club
2026-05-13T10:03:16.923406Z
2 likes, 1 repeats
Just because something behaves in a predictable way doesn't entail that it's neither conscious nor choosing that path. — Nietzsche prolly
(DIR) Post #B6FbSZASmRN9K80qEC by bajax@baj.ax
2026-05-13T10:06:03.681804Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Humpleupagus yeah probably-- compatibilism ig
(DIR) Post #B6FbhorihOTaLwWELo by Humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club
2026-05-13T10:08:49.177591Z
1 likes, 1 repeats
Assuming everything has will kinda solves the alleged paradox.
(DIR) Post #B6FbsCadLZSipRTg80 by bajax@baj.ax
2026-05-13T10:10:41.747811Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@Humpleupagus panpsychism lol that old chestnut
(DIR) Post #B6Fc7zO4Ca7AVy7xxY by bajax@baj.ax
2026-05-13T10:13:32.966186Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@Humpleupagus (I can 100% understand how everyone gets to panpsychism, but I think it takes some density of dependency on the state of the system as a whole to individual interactions to say something is a "mind." even if a random bit in the universe is "conscious" in the same way you can be conscious of a dot on a piece of paper or a pinprick sensation on your foot, it's not a mind in and of itself. it's just data (qualia I think is the technical term lemme look it up)... or something)
(DIR) Post #B6FcVdFa9qOooBQtGa by Humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club
2026-05-13T10:17:48.802355Z
2 likes, 1 repeats
Will doesn't require human like thought or even rationality. Look at a blade of grass for example. And it doesn't require freedom either. It is bound by other wills.
(DIR) Post #B6FdTAQsQlYso46WoK by bajax@baj.ax
2026-05-13T10:28:34.746517Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Humpleupagus rofl schopenhauer
(DIR) Post #B6FfmRUDRtM76mz7mi by bajax@baj.ax
2026-05-13T10:32:30.418287Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Humpleupagus I don't think it can be called will without intention, and intention is a higher order process.there is an implicit teleology even in just nano-scale physical processes, but I don't think you can locate the will they express in the processes themselves-- it's too distributed, not integrated enough. from here you get deep into theology, beyond just defining terms and into reading the mind of God or whatever(and dithering over whether that external will exists at all)
(DIR) Post #B6FfmSDwhrw3OcNe40 by Humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club
2026-05-13T10:39:06.794333Z
1 likes, 1 repeats
Intention isn't that sophisticated. You chose apples instead of oranges. You didn't turn an orange into an orangutan. The outcome of your choice was completely predictable, just like possible positions of an electron. I don't see the difference.
(DIR) Post #B6FfmSs0IvyhOr7dVA by bajax@baj.ax
2026-05-13T10:44:58.792519Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Humpleupagus imo intention requires context. it requires a chain of causality going back to complex processes that have signalling that includes concepts such as "self." a simple interaction, such as a particle appearing here rather than there, or a ball rolling left rather than right doesn't have that internally except when you universalize to saying it's the will of God. that's my point.
(DIR) Post #B6FfmTJIfRoQlVtR32 by Humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club
2026-05-13T10:54:25.572765Z
2 likes, 1 repeats
If the ball has no sense of self, then there is no ball except when you're looking at it. You made the ball. That's what you've said without knowing it. There's no ballness. Nothing holding it its ball state. It has no internal "self". No reflexive reference to give it being. It is merely temporary and extrinsic. This of course begs the questions, what becomes a ball when you look. The ball does of course. The Greeks understood this. The modern germanic anglos with their "is" fucked it all up. They want their ball and to eat it too.
(DIR) Post #B6Ffy6X3BMDVaws652 by bajax@baj.ax
2026-05-13T10:48:47.162843Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Humpleupagus aaaa fuckin mania
(DIR) Post #B6Fg80P8oqibUDtRzs by Humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club
2026-05-13T10:58:21.613123Z
1 likes, 1 repeats
The ball says "I'm a ball." Whether you can understand it is another matter. It wasn't created in the "mind" of some "self". It was always a ball, expressing its ballness to those who could see it.
(DIR) Post #B6FgQHx0K00x7LRzZw by bajax@baj.ax
2026-05-13T11:01:40.536141Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Humpleupagus sense of self is a result of real physical processes, it's not metaphysical. a ball has no information processing power to be aware of itself, so it is not self aware. it is simply "data" in the "world". if consciousness is the arbiter of its existence, it would have to be the consciousness of God or something.
(DIR) Post #B6FgTaalTD23njccsK by bajax@baj.ax
2026-05-13T10:37:10.634992Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Humpleupagus (as for my theological take-- God's love is expressed in the desire for something to happen other than what he directly willed, so he uses random processes as a kind of proto-will that can aggregate and hopefully lead to the existence of other conscious beings besides Himself)
(DIR) Post #B6FgVzSPzZtBUzrZ3I by white_male@poa.st
2026-05-13T11:02:42.616893Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
Soooo, how would you feel if you couldn't experience object permanence?
(DIR) Post #B6FhQLHE3T0fO5UxhA by MasterSimper@eveningzoo.club
2026-05-13T11:12:52.789515Z
1 likes, 1 repeats
But I do feel object permanence :elephant_suck: Im to lazy to find an appropriate picture
(DIR) Post #B6FiEbFWwX7tPAfbf6 by MasterSimper@eveningzoo.club
2026-05-13T11:21:57.829169Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
So most Africans and Indians are data @Humpleupagus I think he may be cooking with something here. So if they don't exist in the realm of self then they shouldn't exist in any realm
(DIR) Post #B6FiJ4MAfK1ipyuJyC by bajax@baj.ax
2026-05-13T11:22:46.923428Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@MasterSimper @Humpleupagus ...nah they shouldn't exist for other reasons
(DIR) Post #B6Fk7PUqRSRippX5yS by nachtrabe
2026-05-13T11:43:05.931114Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@white_male confused I'd gather
(DIR) Post #B6Fk9Ox7R39Bj8huca by white_male@poa.st
2026-05-13T11:43:26.824193Z
2 likes, 0 repeats
I would feel nigger.
(DIR) Post #B6Fmf7kB9Ud1WvuPOy by Humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club
2026-05-13T12:11:34.605897Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
Nope. Thoughts aren't in your head. They're in the world. That's your "think" they're "yours" is your fundamental mistake. Your position is the science bro of philosophy. The irony is that you're basically asserting a materialist position due to an immaterial concept, "thought". People don't "think" or at least not the way you suggest.Being is in the world and spread across it. The tree says "tree", the lake "lake". Logos is out there in the things. They speak about themselves. Again, the Greeks understood this.
(DIR) Post #B6FmvTlJ3a20S4EcwC by MasterSimper@eveningzoo.club
2026-05-13T12:14:32.052240Z
1 likes, 1 repeats
He doesnt know homophobia exists because I made gays afraid of themselves by giving them gay thoughts
(DIR) Post #B6FmzjFXPrU3dzOz4a by Humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club
2026-05-13T12:15:18.619715Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
I would feel the-feeling-of-being-incapable-of-experiencing-object-permenance. That's a compound noun now. 😤
(DIR) Post #B6FnC07MWi7JR0QhU0 by feralphilosophernc@nicecrew.digital
2026-05-13T12:17:31.750521Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
Who said that?! 😏
(DIR) Post #B6FuPpFsPTP9Tgx30C by f0x@dsmc.space
2026-05-13T13:38:27.324039Z
2 likes, 0 repeats
@bajax how'd you like it??? the etymology parts. the alien parts.
(DIR) Post #B6Fv7Xg97SeVhw5IBs by bajax@baj.ax
2026-05-13T13:46:21.810810Z
2 likes, 0 repeats
@f0x loved the concept. liked how they showed the main character's perception changing, and how they made believable drama out of it.my only complaint is I would have put more time into exploring the aliens' biology and ecology on their home world, why their method of communication emerged, but that's really minor compared to the broader themes they went into. great sci-fi.8/10
(DIR) Post #B6Fve5ik5Vn0YMorPE by bajax@baj.ax
2026-05-13T13:52:12.699130Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Humpleupagus no offense but a lot of this is new age bs dude. thought is not an immaterial concept, it's well understood; go read some cybernetics. we build ruidementary "thinking machines" all the time, and while the sophistication of living things is insanely beyond anything we've ever built, including AI, there's no reason to ascribe anything supernatural to it.the fact you think I'm a materialist shows you're not really reading what I'm saying carefully at all. there is absolutely a spiritual underpinning to reality, I just think you need to pay attention to what actually exists, not what you wish did.
(DIR) Post #B6FvuE9EWVA7K6u8X2 by f0x@dsmc.space
2026-05-13T13:55:08.427101Z
2 likes, 0 repeats
@bajax @Humpleupagus you're arguing, or atleast trying to teach, with a retarded nigger.
(DIR) Post #B6FvzBOmAl0cFDXNse by Humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club
2026-05-13T13:56:03.029664Z
1 likes, 1 repeats
> no offense but a lot of this is new age bs dude.Its actually not. It's Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer and Heideggar. But that you don't recognize that suggests that you're not capable of seriously discussing these matters... no offense.
(DIR) Post #B6FwDUKAbVMeznCjLc by f0x@dsmc.space
2026-05-13T13:58:38.313483Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@bajax @Humpleupagus a 30th f-35.
(DIR) Post #B6Fx6fJPSASF069vcG by bajax@baj.ax
2026-05-13T14:08:36.863920Z
2 likes, 0 repeats
@Humpleupagus oh god you're one of these... you're supposed to BUILD on what came before, not just accept it uncritically.and in the case of nietzche and kant, a lot of what you're mindlessly relaying was in its original reading poetic, a discussion of human behavior/logic/morality/culture, not meant to be taken literally. nietzche wasn't even really that interested in physics. kant explicitly said we can't really know things in themselves only through aprior... god damn it's just easier to call you a stupid nigger
(DIR) Post #B6FxjsxAfXiYbOSVbE by Death@dsmc.space
2026-05-13T14:15:41.003818Z
2 likes, 0 repeats
@bajax @f0x my baby bro who introduced us to the movie said those pieces are addressed better in the book.
(DIR) Post #B6FxxawsPIXMocrH9M by f0x@dsmc.space
2026-05-13T14:18:10.333302Z
2 likes, 0 repeats
@Death @bajax it's like.. It is hard to convey a universe when it only has one arc that it is building up to.
(DIR) Post #B6FzU8wtd7ePUDx41w by Humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club
2026-05-13T14:35:15.407793Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
> god you're one of these... you're supposed to BUILD on what came before, not just accept it uncritically.Literally regurgitatation. Bye, faggot.
(DIR) Post #B6G06FNUAyNYQgYeP2 by ProfessorBalls@eveningzoo.club
2026-05-13T14:42:08.720703Z
1 likes, 1 repeats
Kinda you vibes in this thread tbh, no offense.