/lit/ - Literature

Why have a discussion about this using 'versus'?

we breath to live, air +1, not-air 0

>at a certain point
through a gradual process

also, it does not follow

Fuck you op and fuck this thread. There is no debate, everybody knows it's both. You seriously need to work on your trolling son.

nurture is also a natural process.

>>1500661
This. With how OP is using Nature, it's the worst kind of platitude.

>nurture is also a natural process.

nature +2

Physics rule everything. There is no randomness, and therefor no boundary between nature and nurture.

>>1500674
But in situations where the effects at the scale of the Planck energy is not negligible, randomness rules.

>>1500674
You think that's air you're breathing?

Favourite Theoretical Physicist Go:

Michio Kaku

>>1500688
I tried to read a book on String Field Theory once. It was beautiful, but indecipherable.

>>1500661
>nurture is also a natural process.

So is artifice, manufacture etc etc, so Chandlerbing is the next rabbit you pull out of your hat going to be another blatant misuse and ignoring of how we use a term

>>1500694
deliberate use of a term outside of how it is used in a particular discourse is obviously an attempt at challenging the discourse's underlying assumptions. in this case, that there is a dichotomy between nature and nurture.

Consciousness has a role in nature vs nurture, since it's fundamentally the question of whether we have control over our lives.

To add to this, in Thomas Nagel's "What is it like to be a bat?", he argues that consciousness is first person specific and unlike any other natural phenomenon, and that because of this it presents a unique barrier to scientific analysis. Colin McGinn takes this a step further; he questions whether it is even possible for a consciousness to understand the nature of consciousness (this is coming from a materialist too).

tl;dr, this argument's useless, we can't know shit.

>>1500704
Your semantic sniping doesn't get us anywhere substantial onionwrong, only the halfwits will think there is an actual dichotomy in reality between nature or nurture (or anything that seeks to oppose itself to nature for that matter), so idk maybe challenging THEIR assumptions is a great and noble thing if you want to take out the philosophical trash.

More importantly, it's like you're actually equating how we use the terms 'nature' and 'nurture', which simply serve as useful differentiating terms and nothing more, with what is the case (wherein there is no dichotomy between nature & nurture). It may be that there is no dichotomy, but that is not the way our language works, we manufacture all sorts of perceptual and linguistic dichotomies in order to facilitate different ways of living, and there is no problem insofar as we understand this.

>>1500717
So. What is the role of reality in literature?

>>1500717
you are taking my little remark too far, silly. obviously there are sensibly constructed nature vs nurture questions, such as nature = genetic dictated brain structures, nurture = environmental factors affecting development. however, my little remark was only meant to reject the op's little game of fighting shadows. in your words, im just taking out the trash and not doing more than that.

>assuming superiority because of own misreadings
typical d&e

>>1500717
>complains about semantic sniping
>semantic snipes

>>1500711
you are mistaking consciousness for some idea of free agency.

>>1500732
What is the definition of free-will according to you?

>>1500730
k brah we should do this more often

>>1500735
i don't think a definition is what it needs. the question with free will is rather why people believe in it and how to explain the particular features of these beliefs.

>>1500737
Believe in what?

Everything we know is created by us. A table is a table because WE say it's a table. Philosophy is philosophy because WE say it's philosophy. There is no objective truth outside our own social/mental constructions.

For christianfags, we created god, he didn't create us.

>>1500740
free will and so on, including the folk psych understanding of self and such. i believe some nazi wrote whole books trying to address it as metaphysics or some such silliness

>>1500741
.....
Then if you say that a table is teapot does it store tea for you?

>>1500732
Consciousness can be directly tied to free agency, depending on what argument you use for free agency. I should have added onto that that, because of McGinn's comments, it's actually become more common to talk about a "neural correlate" (see Koch and Crick. This is rather than claiming the neurons are consciousness). That then gets us out of Mcginn's materialist stance.

This has also been questioned recently, but I can't remember any names for the life of me.

>>1500742
Why go dance around the point? Tell me what YOU think free will means. If you don't believe in it then tell me what do you think other people believe in. Also tell me why you don't believe in it.

>>1500745
well, what i meant was that one can talk about consciousness without also being committed to the idea of that consciousness being the consciousness of some self, typically endowed with free agency. in this thread people are saying things like "do we control ourselves" as if they are merely questions about natural facts. i think that's rather naive.

>>1500773
>what i meant was that one can talk about consciousness without also being committed to the idea of that consciousness being the consciousness of some self,

lolwut?

>>1500773
There onionring proves that either he is a troll or an idiot.

>>1500773
thanks!

>>1500773
Well then, in that case, you can take my original point to be "even if we are talking about 'consciousness being the consciousness of some self', that it is useless to consider it since we cannot understand such a consciousness", if that makes sense.

>>1500781
That comment, sans "even"

>>1500746
there is no single version of the idea, not just because different philosophers have different versions of the problem, but because the problem is both real and manufactured. the real part is the entrenchedness of first person references and other agency concepts in language and thought, and this suggests that en-willed agents are part of human functions, particularly social ones. however, in the everyday operation of the idea, people don't ask questions like "is there actually free will" or "the mind body problem hurr" etc. philosophical constructions of agency and free will etc that have them as actual features of the world are mistaken. personally i like interpretationism.

>>1500778
ehm, nonreductivist with respect to mental states(consciousness exists) but nominalist about psychological entities(free will/persons are constructions). not very hard to understand.

>>1500781
that's not really my problem with your post. you said

Consciousness has a role in nature vs nurture, since it's fundamentally the question of whether we have control over our lives.

i think we can talk about whether we can control our lives without figuring out what consciousness is or even use any sort of mentalistic language at all.

>>1500778
>>1500779
>>1500780
some kind of mind nonphysicalist rebellion

>>1500790
That's usually my own view, but spamming "radical choice radical choice" gets a bit boring. Plus, it removes agency/consciousness totally, and stops me spamming crap from the appendices of neurosci books.

So when people are decent to each other, it is because of the pressure from society to be or are we just wired that way?

What about assholes? Most of the type contribute nothing valuable to society yet they continue to exist generations after generations.

>>1500884
>What about assholes? Most of the type contribute nothing valuable to society yet they continue to exist generations after generations
they're a step up from everyone here.

>>1500891
In what way?