The Existentialist Coffee House of Pau Gasol

[ace3g]

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

GOAT thread name, OP
Now let's be the second best team in the league!

Kudos to Oz. He made me join the coffee house just cause of the cool name. You made me laugh Mullet as we contemplate the existential aspect of the thread... or something. I wanted to be clever but it didn't come out funny.

Looking forward to Pau. As sad as the news about Timmy retiring were going to be anyways I am glad we got Pau.

Thanks.

Sartre and pa amb tomàquet all around

--Paul

Mais oui!

Definitely the emoji for this thread.

I'm not a huge fan of existentialism, tbh. There's too much evidence from physics and neuroscience in favor of hard determinism.

If anywhere on Spurstalk, I guess this is the place for that discussion!

I studied existentialism at uni many years ago and the main thing I got from it was that there is no intrinsic meaning to anything, including your life, but that realisation gives us the freedom to choose our own meanings.

[Ron Swanson]

Glad to have Gasol here. Hoping he, Kawhi and Aldridge can do some serious damage.

[midnightpulp]

Thanks.



Mais oui!



Definitely the emoji for this thread.



If anywhere on Spurstalk, I guess this is the place for that discussion!

I studied existentialism at uni many years ago and the main thing I got from it was that there is no intrinsic meaning to anything, including your life, but that realisation gives us the freedom to choose our own meanings.

His claim about there being "too much evidence in favor of hard determinism" is also very wrong. Hard determinism is an antiquated idea that should've died out in antiquity.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

His claim about there being "too much evidence in favor of hard determinism" is also very wrong. Hard determinism is an antiquated idea that should've died out in antiquity.

Don't discuss it with me! It's his claim and this is the coffee house - discuss it with him!

I don't accept hard determinism either, although soft determinism makes some sense.

[midnightpulp]

Don't discuss it with me! It's his claim and this is the coffee house - discuss it with him!

I don't accept hard determinism either, although soft determinism makes some sense.

Indeed. But he's not on, and I, as you Aussies wold say, "felt like taking the piss" on the horrible and easily debunked idea of hard determinism.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Indeed. But he's not on, and I, as you Aussies wold say, "felt like taking the piss" on the horrible and easily debunked idea of hard determinism.

All good.

[cutewizard]

Gasoft should've signed two years ago instead of jacking off in Chicago. Now, both he and the Spurs are down two rings on their legacies; and he's merely nice consolation this time around.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

completely agree with you man, this is also my sentiment.....

we beat the Clippers and repeat, and then GS does not ascend to its present arrogance....

the landscape of the NBA would have been different....

[Uriel]

If anywhere on Spurstalk, I guess this is the place for that discussion!

I studied existentialism at uni many years ago and the main thing I got from it was that there is no intrinsic meaning to anything, including your life, but that realisation gives us the freedom to choose our own meanings.

There are many variants of existentialism, and that is one variant. But the one thing they all have in common is an underlying belief that existence precedes essence. As such, man has absolute freedom to make of himself what he desires.

Hence the dichotomy being set up between existentialism and determinism.

[Uriel]

His claim about there being "too much evidence in favor of hard determinism" is also very wrong. Hard determinism is an antiquated idea that should've died out in antiquity.

Then prove it.

[midnightpulp]

Then prove it.

The burden of proof is actually on you since you're making the claim. And much like the existence of God is an un-falsifiable hypothesis, so is the existence of hard determinism (i.e. the claim that this conversation we're having now was already determined at the moment of the Big Bang, and there was nothing we could've done to change it, because physical laws are immutable.)

So all we can do is take apart hard determinism logically. The hard determinist thinks it a logical idea because since physical laws and the interaction between matter that is governed by physical law is essentially "causally closed," therefore we humans, being matter just like an atom, are beholden to this process. The hard determinist will cite a thought experiment like Laplace's demon ("if a demon knew the movement of every atom in the universe, he could predict with certainty the future.")

Sounds logically solid, right?

Nope. Let's say I invented a Laplace Machine. I ran my calculation and it told me Uriel is going to die in a car accident tomorrow morning. I can easily relate this information to you, and you can freely choose through conscious will to not step into your car that morning. But if I were to tell a domino that its fate is to be knocked down by the domino behind, it couldn't do anything about it because it isn't conscious. Hard determinism assumes that the behavior of physical objects stays consistent from atoms to chemicals to animals to people. Emergence has shown this to be wrong.

Consciousness allows us to step outside of the hard causal chain of cause-and-effect. You can generate multiple (to infinite, if you had the time) possibilities through conscious deliberation for any action you plan on doing (i.e. if I do this, this, this, this, and this may happen). An atom has no such ability.

Even notable physicists don't buy hard determinism.

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/...l-as-baseball/

The only hard determinist advocates are hacks like Sam Harris and Jerry Coyne (citing the long debunked Libet experiments) who think that disproving free will somehow puts the final nail in the coffin of religion, never mind the fact that determinism is a feature of most of the world's religions.

Now I don't believe in casua sui free will, that you can make yourself into anything you want, but I do believe a healthy mind has power over their decision making. I also think free will is something of a skill that is learned through acquiring more experiences and practicing something like mindfulness.

[midnightpulp]

More reading for when Uriel gets back:

The foremost Naturalists in the US had a round-table discussing various philosophical and scientific topics, and most of them agreed with the idea of (compatiblist) free will. The only one making a stand was Jerry Coyne, who is more motivated by his new atheist agenda (for him, the verification of hard determinism once and for all disproves the idea of an immaterial soul, which he thinks will lead into the dissolution of religion). And you'll see they were basically shaking their heads at his arguments. I don't cite this as some appeal to authority, but to illustrate that hard determinism is a fringe idea in the scientific and philosophical community. Just like scientists are 85% atheist/15% religious, I would assume about the same ratio for compatiblists/hard determinists.

Free will, for Dennett, is as real as time or, say, colors, but it’s not what some people think it is. And indeed, some views of free will are downright incoherent. He suggested that nothing we have learned from neuroscience shows that we haven’t been wired (by evolution) for free will, which means that we also get to keep the concept of moral responsibility.

Jerry then plunged into his standard worry, the same that motivates authors like Sam Harris: we don’t want to give ground to theologically-informed views of morality, and incompatibilism about free will (“we are the puppets of our genes and our environments”) is the best way to do it. Dennett was visibly shaking his head throughout (so was I, inwardly...).

In the midst of all of this, Jerry mentioned the (in)famous Libbett experiments, even though they have been taken apart both philosophically and, more recently, scientifically, which Dennett, Flanagan, and Goldstein immediately pointed out.

Sean Carroll also objected to Coyne, using an interesting analogy: if Jerry applied his argument about incompatibilism to fundamental physics, he would have to conclude for an incompatibility between statistical mechanics and the second law of thermodynamics. But, Sean suggested, that would be a result of confusing language that is appropriate for one level of analysis with language that is appropriate for another level. (Though he didn’t say that, I would go even further, following up on the previous day’s discussion, and suggest that free will is an emergent property of the brain in a similar sense to which the second law is an emergent property of statistical mechanics — and on the latter even Steven Weinberg agreed!)

http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.c...p-part-ii.html

[Uriel]

The only hard determinist advocates are hacks like Sam Harris and Jerry Coyne (citing the long debunked Libet experiments) who think that disproving free will somehow puts the final nail in the coffin of religion, never mind the fact that determinism is a feature of most of the world's religions.

How could you so summarily dismiss Sam Harris as a "hack?" Did you even bother to read his work? Or did you just read what other people who happen to advocate your viewpoint have already written about him?

[midnightpulp]

How could you so summarily dismiss Sam Harris as a "hack?" Did you even bother to read his work? Or did you just read what other people who happen to advocate your viewpoint have already written about him?

I've read enough reviews of his work (as well as excerpts) by philosophers and scientists much more respected than he to know all I need to know. I mean, his book How Science Can Determine Human Values is fundamentally flawed from the outset, since the premise is anchored in the naturalistic fallacy. No need to waste my time reading it.

You might considered that close-minded. I just consider it reasonable. I'd rather spend my time reading the work of people who know what they're talking about, like Owen Flanagan, Daniel Dennett, etc. Harris is a Johnny-Come-Lately "thinker" who defined himself more by his criticism of religion (yeah, totally not going after the low hanging fruit there) than any worthwhile ideas.

[apalisoc_9]

Lets hope this is the end of your ungratefulness and unfair Kahwi hate.

He never hated Kawhi. His schtick was almost anti Manu bit he hoped on the bandwagon of countering the the hottest poster at that time Apalisoc..His quote under his avi when he first started posting was Kawhi-Embiid-Parker

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

This is highly appropriate for the coffee house! I'm sure Pau would approve.

[apalisoc_9]

I've read enough reviews of his work (as well as excerpts) by philosophers and scientists much more respected than he to know all I need to know. I mean, his book How Science Can Determine Human Values is fundamentally flawed from the outset, since the premise is anchored in the naturalistic fallacy. No need to waste my time reading it.

You might considered that close-minded. I just consider it reasonable. I'd rather spend my time reading the work of people who know what they're talking about, like Owen Flanagan, Daniel Dennett, etc. Harris is a Johnny-Come-Lately "thinker" who defined himself more by his criticism of religion (yeah, totally not going after the low hanging fruit there) than any worthwhile ideas.

Brah..Talk basketball bro. Dis aint the place for dat dere religion...

How do you think Aldridge's going to adjust with another talentd post player and a mich mpre talented shot creator? I honestly would rather see Kawhi run pick and rolls and pops with Gasol now.

Gasol can pass and is a much better screener. Way more diversifies offensovely.

[midnightpulp]

Brah..Talk basketball bro. Dis aint the place for dat dere religion...

How do you think Aldridge's going to adjust with another talentd post player and a mich mpre talented shot creator? I honestly would rather see Kawhi run pick and rolls and pops with Gasol now.

Gasol can pass and is a much better screener. Way more diversifies offensovely.

Yes. Kawhi will work better with Pau in pick-and-pop/roll situations. While Tony will continue to work well with LMA in that regard. If Fat Head has a breakout year (looking good in Summer League), Patty returns to form, and Murray plays above par, we have a shot. Just need a back-up big. Hopefully Tim gives it one more shot off the bench.

[Uriel]

More reading for when Uriel gets back:

The foremost Naturalists in the US had a round-table discussing various philosophical and scientific topics, and most of them agreed with the idea of (compatiblist) free will. The only one making a stand was Jerry Coyne, who is more motivated by his new atheist agenda (for him, the verification of hard determinism once and for all disproves the idea of an immaterial soul, which he thinks will lead into the dissolution of religion). And you'll see they were basically shaking their heads at his arguments. I don't cite this as some appeal to authority, but to illustrate that hard determinism is a fringe idea in the scientific and philosophical community. Just like scientists are 85% atheist/15% religious, I would assume about the same ratio for compatiblists/hard determinists.

http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.c...p-part-ii.html

I also take issue with this notion that "hard determinism is a frindge idea in the scientific and philosophical community." Here's an excerpt from an article by The Atlantic on free will released a couple of months ago:

In recent decades, research on the inner workings of the brain has helped to resolve the nature-nurture debate—and has dealt a further blow to the idea of free will. Brain scanners have enabled us to peer inside a living person’s skull, revealing intricate networks of neurons and allowing scientists to reach broad agreement that these networks are shaped by both genes and environment. But there is also agreement in the scientific community that the firing of neurons determines not just some or most but all of our thoughts, hopes, memories, and dreams.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...e-will/480750/

[YGWHI]

He never hated Kawhi.

Yeah. That pathetic eater calls Kawhi re ed because he loves him. You're being so naive....An embarrassment to our Krew.

[DeRozan m8]

[apalisoc_9]

Yeah. That pathetic eater calls Kawhi re ed because he loves him. You're being so naive....An embarrassment to our Krew.

Hes trolling bro. Its his schtick..Harlem can attest to it to..his initial schtick was anti manu

[YGWHI]

Interesting man...And a true Point Center. Not bad.

[YGWHI]

Hes trolling bro.

Nah. You can piss people off, troll them without insulting a player. He never insulted Parker for some reason.

Harlem can attest to it to..his initial schtick was anti manu

Harlem can what? Of course...

Since this is Pau's thread I won't add anything more to my original post.

[midnightpulp]

I also take issue with this notion that "hard determinism is a frindge idea in the scientific and philosophical community." Here's an excerpt from an article by The Atlantic on free will released a couple of months ago:


http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...e-will/480750/

Hard determinism is defined as the idea that everything was decided at the moment of the Big Bang. That there's nothing you can do to step outside the hard causal chain set in motion 14 billion years ago. A simple thought experiment proves that idea false.

Also, the Atlantic made quite a hand-waving gesture with that comment and went no further. Most of the "evidence" that free-will deniers cite in support of the idea that "my neurons made me do it," are the long debunked Libet experiments or other such experiments that only test the brain's role in deciding highly intuitive, "autopilot" actions like when to decide to press a button at a certain time. Until an FMRI machine (which can only measure brain activity at the level of gross anatomy) can predict actual deliberative actions, like deciding what college to go to or whom to marry, then I'll continue to dismiss them as an incomplete experiment.

That comment also assumes neurons are hard-wired, and we know this to be completely false.

Behavior, environmental stimuli, thought, and emotions may also cause neuroplastic change,

While the phenomenon of neuroplasticity is not a recent discovery and has been known since the first half of the 20th century, current neuroscientific and neurobiological research into this topic continues to chip away at oversimplified notions of hard genetic determination of cognitive capacities and behavioral traits, which has been dubbed "neurogenetic determinism."[20]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroplasticity

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biological_determinism

You can actually downwardly cause your brain states to change through, for lack of a better term, conscious will. Monks do it all the time, to the point of where they don't even feel pain. And as far as science reaching a consensus. No.

“A person’s decisions are not at the mercy of unconscious and early brain waves,” the lead researcher, Dr. John-Dylan Haynes of Charité - Universitätsmedizin in Berlin, said in the study’s press release. “They are able to actively intervene in the decision-making process and interrupt a movement. Previously people have used the preparatory brain signals to argue against free will. Our study now shows that the freedom is much less limited than previously thought.”

The father of cognitive neuroscience and author of Human offers a provocative argument against the common belief that our lives are wholly determined by physical processes and we are therefore not responsible for our actions

https://www.amazon.com/Whos-Charge-F...oding=UTF8&me=

I deliberately decided that it is sensible, and perfectly rational, to believe in a libertarian conception of free will (more on this in the book I'm currently writing).

http://www.klab.caltech.edu/koch/ (<one of the most respected neuroscientists in the field) And I have an idea how Koch might reconcile the seemingly nonsensical concept of libertarian free-will with "rationality."

In an essay in the May 14 2009 issue of Nature en led "Is Free Will an Illusion" (the illusion reference is to Daniel Wegner) Heisenberg says that the debate on free will has focused on humans and ‘conscious free will’. Yet when it comes to understanding how we initiate behaviour, we can learn a lot by looking at animals. Although we do not credit animals with anything like the consciousness in humans, researchers have found that animal behaviour is not as involuntary as it may appear. The idea that animals act only in response to external stimuli has long been abandoned, and it is well established that they initiate behaviour on the basis of their internal states, as we do.
(Nature, vol. 459, 2009, p.164)

Heisenberg argues for some randomness even in unicellular bacteria, followed by more lawful behaviors such as moving toward food.

Evidence of randomly generated action — action that is distinct from reaction because it does not depend upon external stimuli — can be found in unicellular organisms. Take the way the bacterium Escherichia coli moves. It has a flagellum that can rotate around its longitudinal axis in either direction: one way drives the bacterium forward, the other causes it to tumble at random so that it ends up facing in a new direction ready for the next phase of forward motion. This ‘random walk’ can be modulated by sensory receptors, enabling the bacterium to find food and the right temperature.

http://www.informationphilosopher.co...s/heisenbergm/

If causation in this case was always "bottom up" it would be impossible to learn a new skill, since the neural pathways that allow for the proliferation of said skill haven't even been created yet. It would be impossible to coordinate an action with an external command (e.g. "I want you to raise your arm when I say when.") Brain activity is pretty much isomorphic to the activity in this case, meaning there's no subconscious "action potential" that precedes the action by 1-5 seconds and can tip someone who is looking at your brain with an FMRI at what is coming.

From an actual white paper:

Data from experimental animals provided crucial information on plausible cellular and molecular substrates contributing to large-scale reorganization underlying skill acquisition in humans. Here, we review findings demonstrating functional and structural plasticity across different spatial and temporal scales that mediate motor skill learning

In addition to reorganization of functional brain networks, slow learning is associated with structural plasticity in gray matter (for review see, Draganski and May, 2008; May and Gaser, 2006). The introduction of new imaging technologies led to remarkable demonstrations of structural plasticity in the human brain. MRI-based morphometric imaging methods, mainly voxel-based morphometry (VBM; Ashburner and Friston, 2000) were used to evaluate gray matter changes linked with experience and learning.

Every article like the Atlantic article always winds up citing the Libet experiments and the few thinkers like Harris, etc who are on the side of the determinism debate because they think it'll lead to the dissolution of religion.

Also, a follow up article from that Atlantic writer:

But neither quantum indeterminacy nor chaos theory give us free will in the sense of a special power to transcend the laws of nature.

http://www.theatlantic.com/notes/201...urable/486551/

I would argue that human beings do have a certain ability to transcend physical law (or those laws as they are currently interpreted), which gives a version of free will that is near-libertarian. (I think Koch will come from the same perspective in his new book).

I'll elaborate when you return.