6 ms·

What is your point?

by garmaine 6y ago

What is your point?

coldtea 6y ago
There is no point, it was a causal chain that made it inevitable for me to write the above comment
- garmaine 6y ago
  Trolling is not appreciated on HN.
  - coldtea 6y ago
    You intervened in a subthread you weren't involved in, to rudely ask "what's my point", failed to understand the exchange that followed, and continued by throwing the "rulebook" at me. Is being a spiteful busybody appreciated on HN?
    - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
      > You intervened in a subthread you weren't involved in Thats a loaded way to phrase “you posted a reply on hacker news”
      - coldtea 6y ago
        If the posted reply takes the form of meddling in a discussion you weren't involved to question why one party dared to write what they wrote and scold them, it's somewhat apt though. Doubly so if others like Erlich_Bachman, who was involved in the subtread earlier, have already answered to the parent what was meant...
        chordalkeyboard 6y ago
        your insistence that opinions imply “free will” is an interesting position, but your attempts to invoke it as a frame for your replies without bothering to substantiate it on the merits does pattern-match to common troll behavior. Consequently there’s nothing wrong with someone joining the discussion to address this. > Doubly so if others like Erlich_Bachman, who was involved in the subtread earlier, have already answered to the parent what was meant... I’ve read and responded to Erlich_Bachman, who was kind enough to offer some remarks in support of his position. We have yet to understand why you and others believe that opinions require “free will.”
Erlich_Bachman 6y ago
The point is to demonstrate the obvious repercussions of truly trying on the belief "free will does not exist/not a meaningful thing" on something even so commonplace as an online conversation. If there is no free will, there is no point in having a conversation. People can't have opinions or be convinced, they can't decide, they have no agency. The whole language of rational conversation falls down like a house of cards. It is an argument ad absurdum that is meant to demonstrate how naive it is to try to prove that free will does not exist (naive and disingenuine: "prove to <someone>" already implies <someone> has a free will to ultimately agree or disagree with the presented proof).
- garmaine 6y ago
  > If there is no free will, there is no point in having a conversation. That doesn’t follow logically. Honestly I’m trying think of what more to write about that, but it seems like a total non-sequitur. People post on HN for lots of reasons , but “demonstrating free will” is not one of them AFAIK.
  - Erlich_Bachman 6y ago
    > Honestly I’m trying think of what more to write about that, but it seems like a total non-sequitur. Maybe you are just not aware of what you really deeply believe about it? > but “demonstrating free will” is not one of them AFAIK. Free will is not the main reason for posting. But it is one of prerequisites for assuming it is a meaningful activity.
    - garmaine 6y ago
      No, I think that is only true if you cling to naïve assumptions about what free will is. The fact that we do things for reasons (deterministic!) is precisely what gives our actions meaning. If we only did things because of a roll of the dice, that would take away meaning.
      - Erlich_Bachman 6y ago

What is your point?

coldtea 6y ago

There is no point, it was a causal chain that made it inevitable for me to write the above comment

garmaine 6y ago
Trolling is not appreciated on HN.
- coldtea 6y ago
  You intervened in a subthread you weren't involved in, to rudely ask "what's my point", failed to understand the exchange that followed, and continued by throwing the "rulebook" at me. Is being a spiteful busybody appreciated on HN?
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    > You intervened in a subthread you weren't involved in Thats a loaded way to phrase “you posted a reply on hacker news”
    - coldtea 6y ago
      If the posted reply takes the form of meddling in a discussion you weren't involved to question why one party dared to write what they wrote and scold them, it's somewhat apt though. Doubly so if others like Erlich_Bachman, who was involved in the subtread earlier, have already answered to the parent what was meant...
      - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
        your insistence that opinions imply “free will” is an interesting position, but your attempts to invoke it as a frame for your replies without bothering to substantiate it on the merits does pattern-match to common troll behavior. Consequently there’s nothing wrong with someone joining the discussion to address this. > Doubly so if others like Erlich_Bachman, who was involved in the subtread earlier, have already answered to the parent what was meant... I’ve read and responded to Erlich_Bachman, who was kind enough to offer some remarks in support of his position. We have yet to understand why you and others believe that opinions require “free will.”

Erlich_Bachman 6y ago

The point is to demonstrate the obvious repercussions of truly trying on the belief "free will does not exist/not a meaningful thing" on something even so commonplace as an online conversation. If there is no free will, there is no point in having a conversation. People can't have opinions or be convinced, they can't decide, they have no agency. The whole language of rational conversation falls down like a house of cards. It is an argument ad absurdum that is meant to demonstrate how naive it is to try to prove that free will does not exist (naive and disingenuine: "prove to <someone>" already implies <someone> has a free will to ultimately agree or disagree with the presented proof).

garmaine 6y ago
> If there is no free will, there is no point in having a conversation. That doesn’t follow logically. Honestly I’m trying think of what more to write about that, but it seems like a total non-sequitur. People post on HN for lots of reasons , but “demonstrating free will” is not one of them AFAIK.
- Erlich_Bachman 6y ago
  > Honestly I’m trying think of what more to write about that, but it seems like a total non-sequitur. Maybe you are just not aware of what you really deeply believe about it? > but “demonstrating free will” is not one of them AFAIK. Free will is not the main reason for posting. But it is one of prerequisites for assuming it is a meaningful activity.
  - garmaine 6y ago
    No, I think that is only true if you cling to naïve assumptions about what free will is. The fact that we do things for reasons (deterministic!) is precisely what gives our actions meaning. If we only did things because of a roll of the dice, that would take away meaning.
    - Erlich_Bachman 6y ago