I Have No Objective Empathy - Debate ft. Man with Masters in Neuroscience
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 3 окт 2024
- Click▼
Follow Destiny
►STREAM - www.destiny.gg/...
►DISCORD - discordapp.com...
►REDDIT - / destiny
Use Destiny's affiliate link to buy stuff! www.amazon.com/...
Edited by Garyukov:
► CONTACT - garyukov@gmail.com
► TWITTER - / garyukov
Thumbnail by DevTwoThousand:
► TWITTER - / devtwothousand
Music:
►OUTRO: / cc6-mastered-3-conflict
Why is this title not called: “destiny makes a friend”
because Destiny doesnt believe in actual friendship. people are just commodities to him.
@@kenpanderz672 also he's wrong
Justin Dunn
why do you think my beliefs about friendship differs from his?
@@Gnolomweb Wait, not liking Destiny is objectiv ? Or are you just r/woooshing ?
@@Gnolomweb R/wooosh is a place in reddit, where people post someone that missed an obvious joke ( sometimes just over the top sarcasm ). And how do i fit into the Dunning Kruger effect ?
This guy was really great to listen to.
Yea I wish he plugged his channel/had one.
Compared to most guests, sure, but that isn't saying much. He was still annoyingly dogmatic.
Shadowbeamx I do :) It's here: ruclips.net/channel/UCYJu9G4mMbmbFygCuoxikGg
Most of the videos are a bit old. But I am planning a re-launch later this year :D
Long Live NC In what way(s) was I annoyingly dogmatic?
Thanks :D
Destinys son only likes him cause he gives him chocolate milk
He would be obligated to support his son ditching him for another that maximized his chocolate milk consumption. He would have to be happy with this. Hell, Destiny 2.0 could come in and take his entire platform as his entire audience must enjoy Destiny 2.0 more and Destiny must be happy with this. As Destiny 2.0 is programmed to continually outclass Destiny in whatever endeavors he chooses Destiny is pigeonholed into a life where he has nothing and must be happy as everyone else has only made the egotistical consequential choice to abandon him.
Destiny's position reduces to complete isolation where he must be happy that nobody interacts with him. He pretty much agrees with Tom in the practical sense, he simply doesn't make the leap in logic necessary as he would then have to concede his perspective when shared with others is horrible for his personal experience. Although Destiny wants to only care about his preferences, his preferences are slave to the pragmatic world. In that world your preferences cannot always be maximized and the concessions put you in a place closer to what Tom described.
8-7 months late but you guys made me chuckle outloud, thanks
Damn😂😂😂😂
lol
Choccy milkstiny
Finally a debate with 2 people respecting the rules of a healthy discussion
jakob law Something uncommon in our age
SIR
jakob law I just realized
jakob law Pretty boring though.
jakob law Also boring as fuck
I enjoyed having somebody use the "You don't want to go down this road because it will go badly for you" assertion against you for a change.
:P it was true, though! I was saving everyone some time :)
Tom Burns agreed, just hadn't seen anybody get to do that move with him before!
Please add time stamp to comments like this in future. I agree your point is valid & don't want to go through whole vid to get context. Thanks in advance.
@@tfburns You warned Destiny against contradicting himself, yet to do so you created a false dichotomy. He explicitly described himself as ego-utilitarian; he cares about the consequences, and he measures those consequences by the degree to which they satisfy his interests. That's not a contradictory position, and your basis for claiming it is was a false dichotomy.
"If you value the consequences, you fundamentally aren't valuing the friendship."
He values maximizing the fulfillment of his interests. Creating and maintaining friendships with those he enjoys and respects, and who enjoy and respect him in return, is something he holds within his interests - tautologically, he must be valuing that friendship for it to be within his interests. Since he has many different interests, some of which may be undermined in the fulfillment of other interests, he seeks to maximize the fulfillment of all these interests he has value in. Because he values them all, he values optimizing the consequences of his actions toward fulfilling those interests.
Whatever arguments are made in the "papers and papers" that have been written about this, they have no way of undermining this, because it is logically consistent on a practically tautological level.
I don't think the issue is that people lie about psychology tests, it's more like people cant be trusted to objectively view themselves.
Blahblehblahbleh I acknowledge the /s, but that is a legitimate argument one could make as to why Destiny especially isnt able to evaluate himself fairly .
They're not mutually exlusive.
It's true, if you took the AX MURDERER AT THE DOOR TEST, and had that a game like Rust or Minecraft, there are people that would unlock the door and let them in. That's where you see the same.
In society we know the rules are, accessory to crime is allowing it. That's where the morality divide happens, and why Destiny is right that morality is subjective to the society you're in.
TRUE
TRUEEEE The amount times people get offended when i don't trust them
Destiny got objectively aborted in this debate
this is the best one yet
Tocinos Yup, I never realised how much of a fucking Psycho he was until now....I wonder if he even agrees in the principal of giving to charity given the rhetoric spouted here....I mean I genuinely am freaked out by his lack of empathetic response
I was actually kind of surprised by how much I share his egoist values. Although I think much like him I view those ideas more as the way I wish my relationships with other people were rather than how they actually are.
Ethan Bradberry Well I am not surprised he isn't alone his beliefs but I cannot say it's a comforting prospect to imagine a belief in that humanity is little more than purely selfish hedonists.
Kyle Wynne, don't be freaked out. Low-empathy doesn't automatically indicate psychopathy. Autism, for example, is also associated with low empathy. Empathy isn't a pre-requisite for altruism, or kindness, or compassion. You don't necessarily need empathy to be a good person. In fact, empathy itself can occasionally mislead and cause a person to commit immoral acts.
Im gonna send this video to the 9 year old who keeps joining my games of Fortnite and explain to him in great detail why our friendship is becoming a detriment to me and it is not worth my time because I don’t have fun playing with him.
My dude
Dont you think if you impress on him positively it would make the world better? Potentially beneficial for your offspring if not yourself. In the end a selfish end but a mutually beneficial means. A side product of mutually beneficial ends as well.
Destiny got "I am not your friendly neighborhood progressive'd" in this debate.
What and apt discription.
Destiny logic: I care about my son. Seeing other people suffer makes me unhappy...
10 minutes later: WHY SHOULDN'T I PRESS A BUTTON KILLING ALL OTHER PEOPLE (including son) TO MAKE MY OWN LIFE LAST LONGER?!?!?!?!?! CANT ANSWER THAT, HUH?
The net well being of destiny might increase though, as being alive for 5-10 minutes (even with the knowledge of having killed everybody) provides quite a bit of enjoyment opposed to dying. He only cares about his son because it ultimately gives him pleasure. If he would die, then receiving pleasure from any source is impossible. The question now is just, if you press the button, are your last 5-10 minutes a time of suffering or joy, above or below a neutral, emotional state? If the knowledge of all people dying makes you more miserable for the 10min than peacefully dying earlier, then pressing the button is useless. If you can live with a clear consciousness, then press the button.
I dont think this guy understood the part where destiny would die.
It's a theoretical question where he asks the other guy to justify his beliefs. What part of this is hard to understand?
+Notunder you just only described self interest of a species in order to keep the species propagating. That doesnt mean its moral. its in interest of the self. self interest goes beyond good and evil. Otherwise you'd attribute evil, to the lion eating a gazelle.
Dundo Der Dumme Yeah here's the problem: you're assuming that Destiny cares about his son and hates to see others made unhappy because of some sort of empathetic imperative, when in fact it's due solely to the fact his relationship with his son and the happiness of others are beneficial to him. His relationship with his son only matters to the extent that it brings him happiness, not because of some sort of intangible obligation he feels to his son. His caring for the continued success of his son is resultant of the same thing, his own selfish want to have his son be the best person he can be so he can have the best relationship he can have with him, therefore bringing him the most amount of happiness. It's a similar thing with the people around him and his motivation to minimize they're unhappiness; he only does so for the effect of happiness or convenience it might bring him. Consequently, if he values the length of his own life over all else, it would also make sense for him to press a button and kill all people to maximize his own outcomes. Sure, it might make disappear other, lesser forms of satisfaction he receives, and unless the other people he would be killing wouldn't have any way to feel pain or know that they're dying it would be immoral, but if all of these stipulations were to be worked around or found to work in his favor, how could you argue against him making the decision that would most maximize his own happiness?
39:12 MAN this guy absolutely destroyed Destiny it's actually not even funny. He brought up a point that Destiny could never ever defend. Kappa
39:13 😂😭 that was the perfect response to what destiny said lmaoo
And Destiny's response "not necessarily", not even a full on denial lol
haha. Got 'em!
I have such limited knowledge on these sorts of subjects but I very much enjoyed this.
@@sivartus6692 thank you
Destiny's son will put this video in his favorites ;)
Talk more with him, very entertaining!
Thank you :) I would be happy to come by again. I just need notice for it, though. Oh, and if Destiny ever comes to Japan (I think he was planning to at some point?) I will challenge him to a 1v1 IRL debate.
Nice, I'd like to see that as some sort of channel special
Tom Burns I just realized I have used some of your material on RUclips for assistance in grad school. I thought your voice had a faint familiarity to it. And by the way, you were fantastic in this debate. Cheers man!
choggerboom great to hear it! hope grad school is/was fun for you :P
“It’s 11 am now so this time tomorrow would be 11 am tomorrow” -philosophy
Steven "The ends justify the means" Bonnell 2.0
Oh, there is an animal species that Destiny has to give moral consideration too. Crows and black birds, they will remember people who have wronged them and attack them.
Destiny is in a relationship with a girl. ✓
The girl sees a Chad she believes could offer more utility than Destiny. ✓
The girl leaves Destiny for the Chad. ✓
Destiny has no problem with this because it fits his moral system. ???
Lol this was actually funny.
Overnight destiny is chad uwu
No, Destiny is selfish so anything that opposes his quality of life would be something that he is not okay with. His moral system only applies to himself.
@@firesong7825
It's the morality of hypocrisy since he thinks he's the only one who can follow it is him self but, if others follow that principle it can have a negative impact on him
Yes, he wouldn't give a shit, cause as he said he wouldn't want to be with a girl, if she believes she would be better with the "chad" and in turn doesn't get the "best use of her time" and i agree with him on that it's not that edgy tbh.
If I didn't know any better I would think Destiny's philosophy is being used by him as a coping mechanism that allows him to detach himself from a certain traumatic experience.
Not only Destiny, but everyone. Spiritual, philosophical, metaphysical, ontological, epistemological, moral, aesthetic, politcal, social and other systems are very closely linked to psychological states. Cause and effect.
Last I think so.
I 100% agree, he's being completely disingenuous in this debate. NOBODY has no empathy or regard for suffering of pets, animals, genocide, people in pain, etc. Destiny is trying to convince himself that he doesn't care about this shit but he really does, he's lying to himself.
@@Jaryism its possible that he doesnt feel empathy but I also highly doubt it. He probably to him he only feels because of genetics and that he really shouldn't
@@tjalferes But that doesn'r mean they aren't true.
Does anyone have the follow-up conversation to this somewhere? This was one of the best conversations Destiny has ever had. Can't believe I can only find one video
I used to pretend that I preferred rainy days over sunny days for whatever reason, maybe just to be a contrarian, or maybe as a way of coping with the fact that I lived in a rainy part of the world. Ultimately I was lying to myself. I wonder if Destiny is essentially doing this with his personal positions re: morality.
vargonian Yes. Seems so.
I think i like cloudy weather, but that just might be because when the sun is up and it's hot out, all day from 12am to sunset the sun is on the side where the windows to my room are so it's uncomfortably hot, and my computer is running often so that adds to it.
He could be, or he could be accepting the fact that no matter how much he doesn't like rainy days the rain will still happen.
That's my suspicion. But as I said in this discussion, it's hard to delineate between preferences objectively without being influenced by some kind of personality bias.
@Tom Burns Do you mean by comparison of preferences?
That was the best debate so far imo
Glad you enjoyed it :)
Tom Burns this is 8 months late, but after visiting your channel, I appreciate the quality. I always enjoy learning new things, but the more I learn the more I realize how little I know and how little I could ever know. Quite sad.
These conversations are great. Thanks buddy!
Glad you enjoyed them :)
Destiny was about to say Light Yagami I know he was going to for his character
Destiny says anyone who would trade up on him is not a true friend, yet he would always trade up as well, so basically there's no such thing as a true friend in his mind. I don't think he realizes that part of having a good relationship is applying some sort of commitment and not just bailing when things become not optimal. Whether he realizes it or not, I think it's why he values his son more than most, because he's already made some sort of commitment to him, even though theoretically he could always trade up on Nathan, I don't think he would because he has decided he'd be commited to his son, which brings them closer together. Then again I'm pretty sure Destiny, and most people for that matter, have very little idea what it's like to have a true friend, so it'd be next to impossible for him to realize this without having experienced it.
Destiny got absolutely killed in this debate
I really enjoyed listening to this. Kudos to you both. :)
I refuse to believe if his son told him “I only love you because you give me food” that he wouldn’t be slightly upset
Then you do not understand him
Destinys obsession with not being hypocritical is scaring me a bit...
It makes me happy to watch destiny continue to grow as a person. This was a great talk. Feels like some progress was made.
15:53 That must have been fascinating to the other guy considering that he's majoring in neuroscience. It's almost like an interactable video about a sociopath.
Well yes but destiny would just admit that as well.
I feel like destinys views on ethics and morality are in complete contrast to his views on abortion
mikekachowski
Genuine question but, how so?
I believe he stated his reasoning for being against abortion was because he hated the concept of him being destroyed at any given time even as a developing fetus --
does that not fall under the umbrella of his morality and ethics?
It wouldn't be him as I view humans as being shaped by their experiences, if he were abused and not taught anything, you couldn't tell me that Destiny would be the same man he is today, I would say he'd have a wildly different personality.
@Aiden Devere What an utterly nonsensical argument to make. "I wouldn't have liked to have been aborted, so therefore abortion of people who don't exist yet is wrong." What a dumbass. May as well make birth control illegal with that logic.
Ashar Rasheed I'd say its nonsensical as well but it does seem to fall under his umbrella of self-interested beliefs.
If he's ever masturbated then I say he's a hypocrite. You don't get to insist that the second a sperm touches an egg suddenly you can't take it out otherwise that'd be murder.
EDGESTINY
What does "valuing the friendship" mean if it doesn't mean valuing what you get out of it?
total edgelord destiny is
I really respect this guy he was debating, usually people who debate take the bully approach to pressure the opposing party but this guy took like a buddy approach actually guiding towards finding the truth as more people should be, however Destiny acted really dumb and took statements that were ridiculous when turned into examples, like he wouldn't understand and feel comfortable if his wife still stayed with him if she found someone better than him.
I find his egoistic views too edgy for me, especially about animals, but if my wife find someone better than me then fuck, I want her to leave
It helps that philosophy has significantly greater potential for collaborative discussion due to a relatively innate measure of theoreticals in question, and a prerequisite of some introspection to find where someone thinks they stand on a matter, rather than what they think is correct for a matter.
How can Destiny know that his wife would be happier with somebody else unless she makes the claim to him herself? Essentially, he would be okay with receiving divorce papers but wouldn't be okay if she reneged on finalizing the divorce, or if she claimed to want a divorce but never filed for divorce. This example isn't as ridiculous as you may think it should be. Lots of people are less happy in a shitty marriage and eventually break up in order to rid themselves of being around a person that doesn't like them.
Destiny keeps on refuting himself.
Specifically he keeps on indicating that the happiness of others is relevant to his happiness. At one point, he indicates that he does not like to see death. But these should only matter to him if he is at least minimally concerned about the well being of those he wants to be happy , or at least, wants to be happy in his presence.
I think the idea is that if they were internally dead and experiencing nothing, or suffering, or whatever, he wouldn't care in the slightest as long as the external facade they presented (as complex automata) pleased him aesthetically.
I do mostly agree he's wrong when he claims this, I think his childhood distance from his parents (lots of siblings, moved out early, sounds like not ideal relationships) induced him to conceive of relationships in a detached way. One can easily imagine how being one of many unspecial siblings could produce a focused self-advocacy culminating in moral egoism. Add internet harassment to that and it seems pretty natural to close yourself off. But if Destiny could resolve the issues that caused him to dissociate and lose trust in people, he'd probably begin to express less personally defensive moral notions.
Disentropic, that is a possibility, but that is itself inconsistent with his insistence that he wants his friends to visit him only if that is the best use of their time to maximize their own utility.
Good observation, but I personally charitably read that part as him saying that he wanted to _think_ people spent time with him for that reason. It seems a decent fit with egoism: if you're people's favourite guy to be around, it probably boosts your ego. You wouldn't want there to be any signs that they'd rather do anything else. I think he'd say it doesn't matter to him if he can't tell they're not choosing him selfishly.
Exactly, he's just kinda stuck right now in fallacy of viewing his subjective feelings and biases as "most rational" and compares it to pure egotism which its not pure egotism at all for obvious reasons.
can you turn down your voice volume I can't hear the game
15:44, Jesus, such sociopath, much wow
I was also quite surprised by this response and it caught me a bit off-guard, I have to say. Most people I meet and talk to will acknowledge that suffering in other beings exists and is something worth caring about.
such is the mind of someone who read Nietzsche as his first philosopher xD
Oh lord is not caring about animals sociopathic? Ah fuck me.
@@idontgetthejoke4813 yes
Very pleasant debate!
I agree :) It was very cordial and friendly.
I would lie to the axe murderer just so I didn't have to clean up all the blood after he was done.
The major problem with saying something like 'It's not fair to judge someone's past morality based on current standards' IMO is there were people at any given time who did recognize the immorality of those actions. It's not as if the immorality of the action was unknowable, it's just that most people didn't recognize it.
You are basically excusing the immorality of an action based on what was socially acceptable at that time, which seems really misguided.
The man is really charismatic.does he have a channel?
ruclips.net/user/TutorTom10
15:00 Destiny: "Fuck animals""I can eat animals for our fucking lives and they can never do anything against us."
Me: I guess he's not a vegan.
19:14
here is the answer to the question
there would be nobody to carry on your legacy, nobody to remember you, after the 10 minutes are up you would just stop existing full stop....
or at least that is the most palpable answer people could give that I can think of or have heard
Dude, I’m not NEAR as edgy as Destiny, but even I would press the button if that’s the only thing to consider.
Like, who cares about my legacy. I certainly wouldn’t, I’d be dead.
Stirnerstiny. I liked that one.
Nice debate.
Leaned a whole bunch.
Glad you enjoyed it :)
33:45 Destiny:'I have zero regard for family ties. I don't care about my siblings and shit. I feel some obligation to my parents because they spent money raising me or what not. ...Family ties mean nothing to me.. "
Have this guy on more, quality content
There's a video of an interview with Michio Kaku online, and he makes the argument that free will must exist because of the randomness of quantum mechanics. Except that it doesn't matter, because no individual has any control over this randomness.
Destiny is saying and agreeing with:
-I would want my friends to be egoism-utilitarian like me.
-There is a better version of me destiny v.2 (better for his utilitarian friends)
-All the friends would ditch him
-But some friend would appreciate him more???
In that hypothetical that a friend would preffer destiny v.1 is nonsense, destiny is beeing dishonest and dilusional or lying but that case is more acepptable because he said that he would do that but he also says that people shouldnt be dishonest. Idk going in this rabbit hole feels pretty bad.
Like that Man with Masters in Neuroscience I dont think he really thinks all what he is saying.
Really want to see this Man with Masters in Neuroscience again.
Destiny didn't say any friends would prefer him to Destiny 2.0. He said that in that hypothetical all his friends would go hang out with Destiny 2.0 and he would want them to.
He said that IF there is a Destiny 2.0 he would want his "friends" to maximize their experiences even if that meant ditching him.
Disentropic Exacly like CrestOfArtorias is saying.
Glad you enjoyed this discussion :) I hope to come back again soon
@Disentropic But I also feel Destiny's just being disingenuous, because as someone who's watched him back since his SC2 days with Minigun, seen him joking with Lilypichi and joking with Kyle, I disagree with this whole pretend "persona" that he's projecting to us here... I just don't believe him. He'd be incredibly hurt if a long time Kyle just abandoned him for a person who's a better friend similar to him, this whole bullshti like "Destiny would want the friend to be with a Destiny2.0" I just don't believe that, knowing that he does having feelings and is emotional (and his need for attention and self indulgence, he most certainly not feel happy for them).
how does he reconcile this with his views on abortion?
I think everyone would struggle with objective empathy. Even when we do, we usually empathize with people along our own personal values. If I saw a person drowning in the river, my first instinct may be to save them because I value life. What is this person does not value his life and wanted to kill himself? Because of my bias, I would think there was something wrong with him that required 'curing'. We usually make assumptions based on our unique positions. It's the only thing we can go by. And that's why we struggle with concepts like euthanasia or suicide.
Very nice conversation. Loved it
It genuinely makes me sad that destiny, doesn't believe in being good to others for the sake of being good. Even if their is not personal gain or negative compromise :(
It is impossible to be good for the sole sake of being good; everything is ultimately tied to our wants.
Destiny has said he cares about the people inside America, but now he's saying he doesn't?
That's not just how Destiny feels.
This is how every human being functions.
They are just not honest self aware.
No... it isnt.
@@fieldtech_meets_animols yes
@@Paradox_Solshit take
@@WeirdSmellyMan yeah but your who asked +you're white
Yo I loved this one, keep it up :)
Glad you enjoyed it :)
I think that Destiny's point about your neighbor believing that you aren't stealing from them is much more important than the facts. He used the negative example of stealing and getting away with it, but as a person who gets his personal high off of showing integrity off this comes to mind often. Not only can't you steal, you have to create the appearance you would never steal from them to make that belief strong.
My issue with this debate is this:
Empathy is the ability to UNDERSTAND another's emotional state & reactions. It has nothing to do with the desire to alleviate suffering (if fact, it's often used to inflict it). That desire is related to SYMPATHY. What Destiny is claiming to lack isn't empathy, it's sympathy. If he had no EMPATHY, the candy bar scenario wouldn't work because he'd be incapable of recognizing the negative impact that eating all of them would have on the groups' opinion of him.
Wow. Goddamn refreshing. A part of me loves this gold, but also misses the usual drivel from crazy alt-right kooks.
Can we get a solid balance of this kind of stuff - debates with actual academics - and debates with cancerous people?
i would argue that for the "button that extends your life for 10 mins but kills all life on earth" that it would make me feel bad, and the last 10 minutes would not be enjoyable and at that point im likely on life support or w/e and already suffering and would just want it to end faster.
Just remember this video the next time Destiny complains and proclaims somebody who is unrelated to him is lying or spreading untruths about other people who are also unrelated to him and have no apparent foreseeable effect on him.
Also, On Dualism.
You are aware of your thoughts but you aren't aware of your brain state. If you can be aware of your thoughts and not be aware of your brain states then your thoughts and your brain state isn't identical.
The self is what you are aware of when you introspect. The self that we are aware of isn't identical to something physical. If a is identical to b that means what ever is true of a is true to b. If you can find one thing that's true of one that's not true of the other then they're not the same. The same is true even if the two are always correlated. Fire and smoke always go together but they're not the same hence Correlation doesn't equal identity. Like the fire which causes the smoke, so is the electrical stimulation that causes the memory. Also, there's a difference between a state and that which possesses a state such as water possessing the state of being solid, liquid or gas.
We have what are called mirror neurons. A mirror neuron fires when we perform an action such as drinking a cup of coffee. Those same neurons fire if I observe someone else drinking a cup of coffee.
1. Those mirror neurons are responsible for allowing us to express altruistic empathy. If those neurons are damaged, we cannot express empathy. The belief that the feeling of empathy is identical to the firing of those neurons is the physicalist point of view.
2. The property dualist says the firing of neurons causes the feeling of empathy in the brain. The feeling is a non physical state but is caused by a non physical state. If the physical state doesn't work, it doesn't cause the mental state of empathy. Property dualism is a bottom up, along for the ride, point of view.
3. Substance dualism says that if your mirror neurons don't work, then the mind that depends on the neurons working just as it depends on your eyes to see can't be expressed properly. The soul and the brain are different!
The science is consistent with all three claims, not just one claim.
That said, a thought is a mental state, not a brain state, that can be true or false. There's no state of my brain that can be true or false.
Also, thoughts don't have geometrical properties such as size and shape and they're not located anywhere such as closer to my right ear than my left ear. The brain state can be observed and can be projected to a computer screen but a thought is a first person private perspective which must be revealed despite the computer projections.
The brain also depends on the mind. It has been observed that upon introspection, changing your negative thoughts to positive thoughts. The content of your thoughts form new neuro-pathways in your brain. This has been observed on scans. A body without a mind is called a corpse!
I am not a slave to my body and I can rise above it. If I was my brain, I'd be a passive bystander.
The brain state of sensation such as pain can't be described as true or false but can be described as accurate or inaccurate. The brain state of thought can be described as true or false. Ideas can be confused or unclear but a neuron isn't. An idea isn't spacially located. A belief is a brain state in which is something I take to be true somewhere between 51% and 100%.
A belief is not a sensation because beliefs can be true or false but sensations can't and a belief isn't a thought because you can have a thought you don't believe and you have beliefs you aren't thinking about.
A desire is the fourth kind of state of consciousness. A desire is a felt inclinations towards or away from something. You might desire ice cream which is a felt inclination towards ice cream. Desires can neither be true nor false but they can be appropriate or inappropriate.
Free will is the final kind of mental state. Free will is a purposing or intending to do something. An exercise of free will is to bring something about. It can be exercised without bodily cooperation. You can change your thoughts but not your beliefs.
If it were so that no life existed in the universe, those states of consciousness would not exist! Consciousness is not physical! An electrical activity in my left hemisphere might have dimension but my thoughts don't have geometrical properties. My thoughts can be true or false but my brain states, electrical activity, cannot be true or false because it makes no sense to say that they are.
Did that debate they were planning ever get set up??
Destiny got objectively empathised in this debate
This is an awesome conversation
It's so entertaining to watch people learn
This is the person I turn to when I’m struggling with meta ethics and US politics: 0:05
Those thumbnails are getting better each video
I have a feeling the anime character you were about to mention was Dio Brando because he pretty much fits the bill
I really do enjoy these discussions. Whether or not I agree is a different story though.
Glad you enjoyed it :) And yes, enjoying =/= agreeing!
empathy. knowing what its like to suffer is why you should value minimizing it for others.
One of the few times I have actually been back and forth as far as opinion.
I agree with both on this certain point. I do want people to value my friendship intrinsically but I want to bring up an experience.
I felt left out repeatedly by a certain group of people. After bringing it up they apologize and obviously offer to hangout obviously. But if you have to negotiate to get peoples attention, is it really what they desire?
A lot of destiny’s points felt way to edgy, but there really is a point to some of it.
I'm just gonna copy-paste a comment I left on an older Destiny video, because it's just as relevant here:
I don't understand this idea that being selfish is somehow more "rational" than being altruistic. The only way you can "rationally" justify selfishness is by proving that your own life/well-being is of greater importance than the life/well-being of anyone else on the planet. We can't all act as though MY life is objectively more important than everyone else's, because that's counter-productive for the goal of building a better society, and any moral system that doesn't prioritize making society the best it can possibly be is inevitably going to be terrible. Conversely, we can't all act as though each of our own lives are objectively more important than everyone else's; that premise can't possibly be true, because it contradicts both reality AND itself, which would make adhering to that system irrational.
Altruism is more rational than selfishness because it requires a greater degree of self-awareness. It requires recognizing that you are NOT the center of the universe, and that you do NOT automatically matter more than those around you, just because you're you. Altruism requires the ability to imagine the perspective of the world outside of yourself, and that you try to see the big picture. Selfishness doesn't. Selfishness only requires that you see things from YOUR OWN perspective, which is something your brain already does automatically. Selfishness requires very little of you. It's easy, and it's lazy.
Well no. Your problem is your argument relies on an idea of objective value. Putting value on the "big picture." But the truth is the only value that exists is subjective. That is even the basis for morality. If subjective experience didn't matter morality would have no purpose. You say you are not the center of the universe, and you do not automatically matter more than those around you. This is subjectively false. The only reality any person will ever have is subjective. If you die the universe may as well die with you, it dosen't matter if it vanishes the second after. And if there was an infinite holocaust going on everywhere in the universe but it you never know about or interact with it, it's completely irrelevant.
"Conversely, we can't all act as though each of our own lives are objectively more important than everyone else's; that premise can't possibly be true, because it contradicts both reality AND itself, which would make adhering to that system irrational. "
This is of course true. This is why the ideal situation for any person is for every other person on earth to be morally restricted, however to have no such restriction myself. And luckily that's for the most part the world we live in. After all there is no logical reason to restrict yourself and hinder your experience.
I suppose Destiny's counter argument would be that him only valuing his own life would lead to a better society because to achieve what he wants he would need to think of what is good for others, even though he only cares about that in terms of what he would stand to gain, himself.
bill ards
I cannot claim for absolute certain that the idea of objective value is real, that much is true. I cannot prove that I am not the only conscious being in existence. I cannot prove that the universe will continue to exist after I die. However, I have to act as though I am NOT the only conscious being in existence. I have to act as though the universe WILL continue to exist after I die. The reason why is because that's the only way of thinking that makes the most sense to me, based on what (I think) I know, and because it seems to produce (what I deem to be) the best outcomes. These are among the base assumptions that I make about the world. Everyone has at least a few. Without any base assumptions, discussions of philosophy, ethics, and even science, are pointless.
AmssoBador Spacelot
Except I'm talking about EVERYONE valuing Destiny's life more than anyone else's, not JUST Destiny valuing his own life more than anyone else's. I'm talking about if his moral system became a universal law.
Envy Omicron,
"I have to act as though the universe WILL continue to exist after I die."
I agree with some of what you say, but this statement is literally untrue. You do not _have_ to beleive this way and even if you did have to believe this way it's irrelevant to reality.
The principle that dont ever lie even for a justification dies when examining if you should not kill the person trying to kill you. Because self defense is a valid justification
Will is not free on a grander scale, but what will is will give you the illusion of it being free to the point where asking if it actually was free makes little difference.
Revisiting this after dr k is interesting
this was very enjoyable
Question #1
30:47
Destiny: Says he does everything only for his personal gain.
Also Destiny: Says he wouldnt want someone to be their friend if there were a better version of him out there...
Stephen Ward But that’s because he is happy with that kind of morality right? If a person didn’t choose the other version they wouldn’t be an ego utilitarianist or whatever and he would not consider his relationship with them to be good
My dude, this was very pleasent to listen to and yes, I guess I had nothing better to do
I agree with the dude Destiny debated in regards to stating that pushing people towards a deterministic reality blindly is a dangerous precedent. I really don't see how life drastically changes if you believe that life is more deterministic from a positive perspective. It has very negative consequences however, whereas free-will on a base level is a positive concept (though it easily can get toxic too when overly done or meme'd).
For example, if I am a depressed kid. Which ideology or way of functioning would be more beneficial? Would being very deterministic help with such? I can only speak for myself personally, and when I was a depressed PTSD kid believing I could "change my life" aka free will sort of life was far more beneficial then when I attached my beliefs to fate, "determinism" and other antiquated Christian beliefs.
I think it's much more rational to assume that life is part deterministic, and part free will. Nature vs nurture is very much addressing this to a bare-bones extent (though not philosophically).
I don't have an issue saying if the world is a % of determinism and % of freewill, and if I said so I would likely easily concede determinism would make up a majority. So let's say 75% or even something high like 90%. The 25% of 10% of free will, could very well change that persons like astronomically. Which is why I think the claim of "going back in time things could be predicted" is just not really founded (not counting the whole butterfly effect stuff).
Good point
Holy shit nerd ^_^
Have to fully agree to that.
Thanks for your kind feedback! If you haven't already, I would encourage you to read about the free energy principle: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_energy_principle
That does not seem like a really logical conclusion, unless you subscribe to pragmatic truth
>free will is a useful thought concept for deterministicly affecting your deciscions
to
>therefore free will exist to a degree
seems sorta not following. You haven't demonstrated evidence for freewill in the normal truth sense
A self-interested reason for caring for the suffering of others: The more people are suffering the worse their decision making is, suffering pushes them further down the hierarchy of needs so their intellection favors base goals over higher goals like wanting to remove scary members of society instead of thinking about improving economic outcomes. Additionally, they are also less likely to add value with their labor & more likely to reduce productivity and even increase their rates of committing crimes in order to escape their suffering &/or to make others suffer. More people suffering means less intellectualism, less economic output, less value in that output, & higher rates of discord & exceptional events.
But Destiny argued moral responsibility with JF when he creepily went after that 19 year old who had the emotional intelligence of a 10 year old... not only that but Destiny's arguments of qualia would support the way JF argues intelligence and race.
I was just having a debate with a co-worker about survival situation I ask "would you eat you pet, if you needed to?" Which he had the same reaction as my sister, it hilarious. But I said "fk animals at one point" and his reaction was that of him seeing me kick a puppy or something.
Destiny sounds like a fool everytime he acts like a sociopath towards animals.
you know when someone brings in Kant , its getting serious
Just came upon this video. I usually agree with Destiny, but this guy is compelling. Like this guy. Like Destiny too, but have new questions about him.
Even assuming for the sake of argument that a lack of free will directly results in a lack of moral responsibility, it doesn't matter because it's clearly something we're going to do regardless because WE LACK THE WILL TO DO ANYTHING OTHERWISE.
How is that even an argument from consequence?
18:00 - Hotdoglover86 " AUTISTIC ALTRUISM" i lol'd
I feel like a lot what destiny is saying is only applicable as thought process, so many of these views put into action just seem very shortsighted or if the roles were reversed you would easily get screwed over. Maybe it's the combination of so many self centered / self serving views that make me feel this way. Good debate though.
Blahblehblahbleh exactly
"Destiny removes his mask and reveals he is a Narcissist." but I'm okay with Narcissism that doesn't cause material harm.
So here's why I've lost a lot of respect for Destiny. He clearly states he does not care about any other people insofar that it affects his own personal happiness. Like a week ago he was debating with Sargon of Akkad over "Trans-woman vs. woman" terminology and over and over again he repeated, "but why not broaden the definition to include more people if it will increase a group of people's happiness?" Sounds contradictory. I used to sub and catch his streams any chance I got but I've gotten the impression he's very insincere at times. Very coincidentally there was a moment on a stream about a month ago where he made some kind of comment I didn't even notice but says, "Oh boy there goes my LGBT audience I worked so hard to build up." Hmmm. He admits this job is his hustle. I mean ya it's a single instance but it's not the only one I've noticed. Streamers can have and play their character on stream or whatever but I lose respect for someone who presents himself as honest and sincere (making money off that image by people liking him and donating) but then actually being kind of the opposite. He uses arguments he doesn't even actually believe in his debates and then at another time says all he cares about in debates is "being the most right (correct)". Like he's trying to win debates with arguments he doesn't even think have any relevance, so how could he be in the right? Sounds like he just wants to be seen as the winner. I think Destiny is a very talented, effective, charismatic manipulator. And if he is actually telling the truth about having NO intrinsic empathy, that makes him a perfect candidate for DSM psychopathy.
RoseErifnosi I’d imagine he’d probably argue that if he were, by not acting or not supporting the trans sentiments, he potentially opens himself up to a perceived oppressive movement that’s against a ‘blanketed’ group of people that he would be included in. A similar reason why he might be charitable for example; it’s not that he necessarily ‘cares’ for those he is supporting, but that if he engaged in that system, it becomes more likely that he would receive support if he were in that situation. It ultimately still benefits him as a sort of safety net I suppose. Not saying I agree necessarily with any of this but just trying to see where he may be coming from.
Wait, no one was yelling, was this even a debate? I cannot tell anymore ;)
This guy could have pushed a lot harder on some of these arguments but its fair considering his sleep deprived state.
I love this guy, he's great.
Every time this guy says "Duty" I think he's saying "Judy"
Please refer to OG Plato's Republic for the whole of this discussion. Good talk Destiny and Tom.
www.idph.net/conteudos/ebooks/republic.pdf
This guy is like an entertaining and witty Rem