Stafford Betty, Free Will in the Moment |572|

Didn't want to come off as impolite there, but this topic makes my blood boil... A completely avoidable, genocidal war that Zelensky and his puppet masters such as the psychopath Victoria Nuland organised. Yet individuals such as Kastrup are so foolish or corrupt to believe that Zelensky is a good guy
he is definitely not a fool... But let's just say that a lot of the issues we've been wrestling with regarding Flat Earth science... No virus science... Nova Scotia global warming... Came to the surface [[cb]]
 
Did you watch Oliver Stone's documentary Ukraine on Fire?
You can literally see Victoria Nuland handing out cookies to the usurpers in Kiev in 2014...
That's just one of many examples of direct evidence, straight from the horse's mouth. Watch the documentary
I have it queued up to watch.

I'm a big Lex Fridman fan. Did you see this interview he did with Stone? Would be curious for folks' takes on it.

 
I have it queued up to watch.

I'm a big Lex Fridman fan. Did you see this interview he did with Stone? Would be curious for folks' takes on it.

I will listen to Lex a few times... Not sure what to make of him.

Do you think he's the biological robot in a meaningless universe guy?

And his interview with Garry Nolan makes me very suspicious of his agenda re UFOs
 
I will listen to Lex a few times... Not sure what to make of him.

Do you think he's the biological robot in a meaningless universe guy?

And his interview with Garry Nolan makes me very suspicious of his agenda re UFOs

For what it's worth, I don't trust him. He seems to have been disproportionately and massively boosted by the YouTube algorithm too. Also friends with Elon Musk, an enemy of humanity as far as I can see
 
Do you think he's the biological robot in a meaningless universe guy?
I don't know. I've just found him to be generally honest and authentic in his interviews. I like how he pushed back on Stone. He was polite and genuine but wanted to see if Stone was dogmatic about his views on Russia/Putin. (Stone failed the test to my ear btw.)
 
For what it's worth, I don't trust him. He seems to have been disproportionately and massively boosted by the YouTube algorithm too. Also friends with Elon Musk, an enemy of humanity as far as I can see
Me neither. the Garry Nolan interview send me spinning in a different direction regarding Lex... seems like another version of the controlled opposition thing.
 
I don't know. I've just found him to be generally honest and authentic in his interviews. I like how he pushed back on Stone. He was polite and genuine but wanted to see if Stone was dogmatic about his views on Russia/Putin. (Stone failed the test to my ear btw.)
Thanks. I listen to some but not all. what was the main push back from Lex?
 
Thanks. I listen to some but not all. what was the main push back from Lex?
Stone was consistently (exclusively?) critical of the West (the U.S. in particular) and complimentary of Putin/Russia. While his criticisms of the U.S. posture towards Russia (and the USSR prior) may even be fair, he lays no wrong-action at the feet of Putin or the Russian government. He paints them as victims.

44:15. Striking line of questioning from Lex. Basically asks Stone, who's pretty much been extolling Putin's virtues for the entire interview and talking about how much he likes the man, if Putin may have charmed him. Stone dismisses it out of hand. Says Putin doesn't charm you. Lex asks again something like "There's a charisma in the calmness (that Stone attributed to Putin)". Again, Stone dismisses it. I found this fascinating. That Stone is so sure that Putin is honest. This is a guy who has near absolute power and spend years in intelligence (KGB). Of course its frickin possible that Stone was 'charmed' yet he dismisses completely. Red flag for me.

1:04:30. Pushes back on the justification Stone keeps offering as to Putin's initiation of the Ukraine conflict. Stone's response is to attribute 14k deaths to the Ukrainian Nazi Death Squads. Blames the U.S. for supporting death squads all over the world. Hypocrisy of America. Questions the numbers behind the refuge situation as compared to prior horrors (that can again be blamed on the U.S.). "Take the toll on both sides". Says the Russian military has slowed down while the Ukrainian military has increased its pacing, especially the death squads, to make the civilian toll worse.

1:11:05. Asks Stone if he can "steel man himself" to play his own "devil's advocate". I found this a really good question structure. Stone either ignores, forgets, or otherwise side steps responding to Lex's request.

1:14:42 Lex acknowledges the "wall of propaganda" coming from the West but asks about the same walls of propaganda he sees from Russia, China, and India. Listen to Stone's response. He says that the Russian press asks tough questions, has full access, and reports the truth. Exclusively. No allowance for any propaganda at all.

Net net for me here is that I do not dismiss the criticisms that Stone levies against the West and the U.S. in particular. I think that is fair and open game. Something we citizens should absolutely be discussing, discovering, and being more active in guiding our government's actions. Full stop for me.

That said I can't take Stone's interpretation of the events related to Putin as objective. It was patently obvious, to me at least, that Stone is taken by the man. I see bias in his affection for Putin. Doesn't mean he's wrong, but to take Stone's word or work as a key point of objective evidence seems fatally flawed to me.
 
1:11:05. Asks Stone if he can "steel man himself" to play his own "devil's advocate". I found this a really good question structure. Stone either ignores, forgets, or otherwise side steps responding to Lex's request.
No he didn't. He just gave a short answer, or engaged the steel man very briefly:
1:17:45 Lex: "Is it possible for you to steel-man - to play devils advocate against yourself - and say that Vladimir Zelensky is fighting for the sovereignty of his nation, and in a way against Russia, but also against the United States that just happens that for now the United States is a useful ally.. But ultimately the man / the leader is fighting for the sovereignty of his nation?"
Stone: "I would think he thinks so, Yes. And he could say that. But..."
 
Stone was consistently (exclusively?) critical of the West (the U.S. in particular) and complimentary of Putin/Russia. While his criticisms of the U.S. posture towards Russia (and the USSR prior) may even be fair, he lays no wrong-action at the feet of Putin or the Russian government. He paints them as victims.

44:15. Striking line of questioning from Lex. Basically asks Stone, who's pretty much been extolling Putin's virtues for the entire interview and talking about how much he likes the man, if Putin may have charmed him. Stone dismisses it out of hand. Says Putin doesn't charm you. Lex asks again something like "There's a charisma in the calmness (that Stone attributed to Putin)". Again, Stone dismisses it. I found this fascinating. That Stone is so sure that Putin is honest. This is a guy who has near absolute power and spend years in intelligence (KGB). Of course its frickin possible that Stone was 'charmed' yet he dismisses completely. Red flag for me.

1:04:30. Pushes back on the justification Stone keeps offering as to Putin's initiation of the Ukraine conflict. Stone's response is to attribute 14k deaths to the Ukrainian Nazi Death Squads. Blames the U.S. for supporting death squads all over the world. Hypocrisy of America. Questions the numbers behind the refuge situation as compared to prior horrors (that can again be blamed on the U.S.). "Take the toll on both sides". Says the Russian military has slowed down while the Ukrainian military has increased its pacing, especially the death squads, to make the civilian toll worse.

1:11:05. Asks Stone if he can "steel man himself" to play his own "devil's advocate". I found this a really good question structure. Stone either ignores, forgets, or otherwise side steps responding to Lex's request.

1:14:42 Lex acknowledges the "wall of propaganda" coming from the West but asks about the same walls of propaganda he sees from Russia, China, and India. Listen to Stone's response. He says that the Russian press asks tough questions, has full access, and reports the truth. Exclusively. No allowance for any propaganda at all.

Net net for me here is that I do not dismiss the criticisms that Stone levies against the West and the U.S. in particular. I think that is fair and open game. Something we citizens should absolutely be discussing, discovering, and being more active in guiding our government's actions. Full stop for me.

That said I can't take Stone's interpretation of the events related to Putin as objective. It was patently obvious, to me at least, that Stone is taken by the man. I see bias in his affection for Putin. Doesn't mean he's wrong, but to take Stone's word or work as a key point of objective evidence seems fatally flawed to me.

thx. agree with your take... I don't trust anyone who Champions Putin:
"Stone is so sure that Putin is honest. This is a guy who has near absolute power and spend years in intelligence (KGB)."

As you say it's legit to be super suspicious about the US's role in this thing.

Of course, they've managed to make us all forget about the psyop-y origins of this. I can't help feel This was meant to put the covid-19 the rearview mirror... until they're ready to reboot it.
 
thx. agree with your take... I don't trust anyone who Champions Putin:
"Stone is so sure that Putin is honest. This is a guy who has near absolute power and spend years in intelligence (KGB)."

As you say it's legit to be super suspicious about the US's role in this thing.

Of course, they've managed to make us all forget about the psyop-y origins of this. I can't help feel This was meant to put the covid-19 the rearview mirror... until they're ready to reboot it.
Who knows Alex? As my posting history shows, I'm dubious on CT's generally but its clear our elected officials don't have much integrity. They've made it more and more plain to see in recent years just with their public statements largely when toeing their party, or better stated "tribal", lines. Zero integrity in speech..... why think there'd be integrity in action?
 
You define engaging with a steel man much differently than I do. ;)
I meant that it was brief, but he engaged and he sounded sincere. Sure it's hard to argue it even qualifies as a steel man, but his sincerity convinces me that he understood the request and attempted to address it at least minimally.
I find that requesting someone to steel man an opposing view in depth is a lot larger of a request that it seems, or than it should be.
 
…and speaking of dodging opportunities to Steel Man opposing views…
You never Steel Manned up to address this one in-spite of me practically doing 95% of the work for you..
I dropped out of that dialogue because I didn't know what this meant:

A hammer becomes a weapon when it’s used as a weapon.
 
I dropped out of that dialogue because I didn't know what this meant:

A hammer becomes a weapon when it’s used as a weapon.

You’re either being disingenuous or intentionally intellectually lazy to pretend you don’t know what it means to say something becomes a weapon when it’s used as a weapon. I appreciate the clarification, and
ironically so shortly after you attempting to paint Oliver Stone as such. I don’t know Oliver Stone, nor would I probably trust him. But I find your dodging of intellectual/moral culpability surpasses his by far.
 
Not being able to predict the future doesn't mean you have any conscious choice about your decisions.

There are two considerations here. The first is epistemic: do I *know* the future? The second is even more basic: is the future even changeable? Given general relativity's spacetime implication, the answer to the second seems to be "no." From an a-temporal point of view, past/present/future all co-exist. That would make it *possible* to know the future (as when you use physics to predict the trajectory of a ballistic object), but more often than not, we do not know the future with precision.

Neither, consideration, however, affects the question of free will. What it means to say a person exercised free will is that the person's action was determined by his/her character rather than other factors. For example, if I accidentally fall down, hitting the ground was not a free will choice. If I sign a contract but it is because I am being blackmailed, that is not a free will choice. The essence of free will is that the action was motivated by my unfettered character, and to the degree my character was fettered, it was not free. (That still leaves open the question: aren't we *always* fettered by *something?*)

However it should be noted that the types of scientific experiments I mentioned can predict what decision you will make before you become aware of making that decision. Therefore if we define free will as the ability to make conscious choices, then free will is an illusion. There is no escaping it other than to go with some other definition of "free will".

I take Pinker's modular, computational theory of mind seriously, and yes, that means most "decisions" are made prior to a person being consciously aware of them. But defining free will in terms of conscious choices is NOT, perhaps, a good way to understand free will. Imagine some mostly unfettered action a person takes: for example, let's say it is a decision to order that scrumptious dessert on the menu despite needing to lose weight. Many factors will have motivated that decision, and yes, mostly or entirely below the level of consciousness. These factors, though, will largely be the sum of the person's character up to that point in time. (Let's set aside external factors for now such as the really persuasive waiter, the fabulous dessert tray, etc.) This was a free will choice, and the person bears the responsibility for the accumulating consequences.

Unless, perhaps, the choice wasn't free. A person who eats because of a past trauma, for instance -- we wouldn't say this person's choice was *entirely* free. But that has nothing to do with it not being conscious. It wasn't free because some external trauma affected the person's character, i.e. the person's character, in this regard, is fettered.

Aristotle is right: virtue is habit. Habit is the character we have carved out, bit by bit, over our lives. To the degree we have been able to carve out our character by our own choices (and here *is* where conscious reflection would come into play), our character is free and the actions that we take, even though unconscious, are free so long as they are motivated only by our character. Of course, that may raise the next question: are we *ever* able to consciously make character-building choices? I strongly believe we do, but I'm not sure how well I can defend that.

The idea, in other words, is that we are not *just* conscious beings. We are beings with many modules, usually going about their business below the level of consciousness. We do, sometimes, make conscious decisions that profoundly affect our computational modules, because these decisions set our habits, and most of our routine actions are motivated by our habitual responses. It is in that sense we are free. Virtue is habit.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top