scrollbreak
scrollbreak t1_jd6bvlq wrote
Reply to comment by KBSMilk in In-depth interview with Gregg Caruso, free-will skeptic by fatsosis
Just seems to pass the buck on the inconsistency - how can puppets be hurt? And who/what at the strings has decided they ought not to be?
I really don't think the whole puppet idea and also using 'I' are at all consistent with each other. It's like pretending to be puppeteer AND puppet, whichever is most convenient at any given moment.
scrollbreak t1_jd6ba3f wrote
Reply to comment by cope413 in In-depth interview with Gregg Caruso, free-will skeptic by fatsosis
Doesn't mean it wont happen, though.
scrollbreak t1_jd69e1y wrote
Reply to comment by KBSMilk in In-depth interview with Gregg Caruso, free-will skeptic by fatsosis
I'm not sure why you'd keep referring to someone as 'they' or acknowledge their reference to 'I' if you forgive them for anything. If the thing seen is just a puppet, you can forgive what occurred but would you go and refer to the puppet as it's own entity that is worthy of 'they' or using 'I'? Would seem odd.
scrollbreak t1_jd68pxy wrote
Reply to comment by cope413 in In-depth interview with Gregg Caruso, free-will skeptic by fatsosis
Wouldn't that be like endeavoring to live your life like you have supernatural powers?
Not saying a person can't, but that'd be the decision.
scrollbreak t1_jd6840t wrote
Reply to comment by Beepboopbob1 in In-depth interview with Gregg Caruso, free-will skeptic by fatsosis
>We like to think that we are making decisions based on preferences,
>
>but in reality what we prefer has been shaped by our genetics and environment/life experiences
Why are you treating those two things as different?
​
>this lack of free will implies none of us have true moral responsibility for our actions
Well, apart from the idea of 'true moral responsibility' being treated as if it exists like some kind of physics, where does such an implication come from?
I'm not sure how things can be 'factors beyond our control' and also there be any 'our'. If as an organism it's all 'factors beyond control' all the way down then there is no 'our' or 'I'. The view seems to keep personal identity as an individual ("I'm me!") but abandon responsibility as an individual ("I didn't do it, the factors did it!").
scrollbreak t1_jata6re wrote
Reply to comment by waytogoal in Glorifying the "self" is detrimental to both the individual and the larger world. It neither helps you find your true nature, nor your role in the larger world. by waytogoal
Well because the thing being done is being loved - that's not the same as oneself being loved. How can you feel 'you' are being loved if you wont formulate a sense of 'you'?
scrollbreak t1_jat9vqo wrote
Reply to comment by waytogoal in Glorifying the "self" is detrimental to both the individual and the larger world. It neither helps you find your true nature, nor your role in the larger world. by waytogoal
The other person referred to self regulating self - it seems odd to then just push the idea of self as always being having no perception of self, like cancer cells have no perception of self. Seems like the author and your idea of 'self' involves no self regulation component at all.
scrollbreak t1_j62jfhr wrote
I presume as we are not family or friends of his then in his philosophy it's okay to tell us to make the life choice of not doing this?
scrollbreak t1_j1jxbnp wrote
Reply to comment by Professional-Cow-949 in Narcissistic tendencies moderate the association between testosterone levels and generosity in men by chrisdh79
Transactions, like trying to buy good shares that pay off in value and/or dividends, are risk taking as well. I really don't see evidence there of testosterone definitely leading to selflessness.
scrollbreak t1_j1h5uj7 wrote
Reply to comment by Professional-Cow-949 in Narcissistic tendencies moderate the association between testosterone levels and generosity in men by chrisdh79
It's transactional, it's not giving anything away - it has the appearance of giving things away, much like a worm on a hook has the appearance of an easy to eat meal to a fish
scrollbreak t1_j1h5rtd wrote
Reply to comment by OlmKat in Narcissistic tendencies moderate the association between testosterone levels and generosity in men by chrisdh79
Yep, they seem to have been fooled by the narcissists mask and see transactional as generous and prosocial
scrollbreak t1_j1h5o12 wrote
Reply to comment by Tad-Disingenuous in Narcissistic tendencies moderate the association between testosterone levels and generosity in men by chrisdh79
>Say what you will
Even if it's evidence based fact?
scrollbreak t1_j1h4028 wrote
Reply to Narcissistic tendencies moderate the association between testosterone levels and generosity in men by chrisdh79
IMO a poor construct for 'generosity' and 'prosocial'
Run some tests where the high narcissists can give away stuff in a test scenario and nobody will know about it (the test says so - but it lies and records the results) vs regular generous people and see if your construct of 'generosity' holds up. Or whether they aren't generous or prosocial, they are transactional. They are just excellent at fooling researchers and others into thinking they are generous and prosocial.
scrollbreak t1_iqm1y8p wrote
Reply to “The objective requires the subjective as a foil if it is to play the scientific role late nineteenth-century philosophers assigned to it, not to mention to become accessible through our perceptual apparatus in new kinds of mathematical and logical symbolism.” by Maxwellsdemon17
When the shadows in the cave owe you something
scrollbreak t1_jd6scxo wrote
Reply to comment by Pigeonofthesea8 in In-depth interview with Gregg Caruso, free-will skeptic by fatsosis
IMO you're not really saying what you're committed to. Saying 'We have a sense...', doesn't say what you're committed to yourself and any contradiction that might be pointed out with such a commitment.