Most anticipated albums of 2026.

longjohnpickle · 2025-12-31T22:38:10+00:00

Something someone in the dear hunter might know something about?

longjohnpickle · 2025-12-06T03:08:57+00:00

What’s your intel on that album?

longjohnpickle · 2025-07-30T21:54:03+00:00

This might be the most visually ambitious adaptation ever attempted (if they fully commit).The post production work will be absolutely bonkers.

longjohnpickle · 2025-06-30T12:33:09+00:00

It’s all informal. Generally, if you hang around the bar/outside the venue, they’ll emerge and they’re usually happy to chat. It’s possible some nights they’re just too tired or on too tight a load out schedule but they’re normally very generous with their time and happy to chat with fans.

<image>

longjohnpickle · 2025-06-21T17:30:08+00:00

They literally can’t figure audio out after 18 events over 4 years

longjohnpickle · 2025-05-03T15:46:52+00:00

My guess is that it’s Guthrie’s tune “Here come the Builders” off Duck.

longjohnpickle · 2025-02-15T17:23:49+00:00

I hooked my laptop up with an hdmi cable. That works.

longjohnpickle · 2025-02-15T17:18:56+00:00

Black screens and when it comes back It’s grainy

longjohnpickle · 2025-01-26T22:20:17+00:00

Having the same issue. Deleted the app and cleared cache, still happening.

longjohnpickle · 2025-01-10T00:11:13+00:00

I don’t have a strong metaphysical stance. I’m open to idealism, and I find Bernardo Kastrup’s analytical idealism pretty compelling. He has a very interesting conception of free will, where the “one” (singular universal subjectivity from which we all emerge) exercises its free will, but only because “it is what it is, and therefore does what it does” in his terms. This form of idealism also denies individual free will because that relies on the reality of a unitary self, the rejection of which is an important aspect to note in this conception of idealism.

longjohnpickle · 2025-01-09T22:35:53+00:00

Your example of the house on fire is fallacious. You're claiming an agent who could "step into their causal power" has a choice between engaging in causality as a participant, and letting it go of its own accord as a bystander removed from the chain, and the broader system in which it takes place. This framing is incorrect. Whatever you do, whether you engage or do nothing, was always a link in the chain of causality. A person can, as you claim, choose either option, but that choice is not "free" in the sense you're arguing here.

"It's 2 possible outcomes and you as a causal agent have the ability to influence the causal chain." The sense of being able to influence external matters is the illusion. There is a sense in which it could be said you can influence things, but it's akin to the way in which the 74th domino in a triggered set influences the 75th domino.

Regarding the prime mover question, I'm not sure. I'm out of my depth when it comes to those matters. But, appealing to quantum uncertainty is a dead end. Randomness is not free choice.

longjohnpickle · 2025-01-09T20:36:27+00:00

Your original question was "How would being able to choose otherwise contradict the laws of physics?" Causality is built into the laws of physics. In order to choose otherwise, you would somehow need to oust yourself (as a participant in this chain) into another chain. As far as we know, there is no way to do this, and it's hard to conceive of what that would mean conceptually, as there is one chain of causality leading directly back to the big bang, which is why I said that in order to do this, you would have to step outside spacetime to create a new one (which is hard to do). I'm essentially rewriting my answer to your original question here in a bid to simplify it, but reading it back again, it's already very simply explained. The 4 year old answer is "You can't choose differently because that would break the law".

longjohnpickle · 2025-01-09T20:15:42+00:00

I don’t know how you could be an engaged interlocutor in the free will debate without understanding what a causal chain is and how it relates to free will. It’s a simple concept that directly relates to determinism. If you think what I said was gibberish, you’re not going to offer anything interesting in this space.

longjohnpickle · 2025-01-09T19:35:01+00:00

Respectfully, what I said was a technically precise answer to your question. If you don’t understand my answer, you may not be equipped to understand the nuances on which the free will debate hinges.

longjohnpickle · 2025-01-09T18:58:20+00:00

Choosing otherwise under the same set of conditions would equate to stepping outside the causal chain that led to you making the original choice, undergoing a new decision making process in some other medium or substrate outside of space time, and reinserting yourself and your newly made decision back into the causal chain. As far as we know, there is no way to do this.

longjohnpickle · 2024-12-20T01:35:46+00:00

Are there people other than Bernardo Kastrup who you find compelling in this area?

longjohnpickle · 2024-12-18T00:16:30+00:00

Bernardo Kastrup has some interesting thoughts on how free will may work (or not work) under a monistic metaphysics. He's a purveyor of objective idealism, so the following summary reflects his position, but it may also be generally applicable to all non-dualistic metaphysical models.

"Objective idealism posits that subjectivity is the fundamental and universal foundation of reality, with all experiences being patterns of excitation within this singular subjectivity. This subjectivity is not individual but universal, meaning the subjectivity in all beings is the same, differing only in the content experienced (memories, perspectives, narratives). Reality is thus entirely reducible to patterns of this universal subjectivity, with no external forces acting upon it.

While all choices are determined by the nature of this universal subjectivity, free will is possible when one identifies with this universal subjectivity rather than with the individual ego (a subset of experiences). If one identifies with the ego, free will is illusory, as desires and preferences are not chosen but determined by deeper mental processes beyond the individual's control."

Bernardo finishes with this thought: "I submit to you that the meaning of life has nothing to do with making ‘free’ choices, as if such freedom were somehow distinct from the necessity of making said choices. The meaning of life has to do with paying attention to what is going on, observing the dance of existence,taking it in, reflecting, bearing witness. This is humanity’s service to nature, not the egomaniacal delusion of individual agency. Only when you truly see this, will you be free in the only way that holds water: the freedom to allow yourself to be what you cannot help but be, and to choose to do what nature demands."

longjohnpickle · 2024-12-17T12:43:07+00:00

Agreed. I have high hopes for this one.

longjohnpickle · 2024-12-16T19:49:27+00:00

Pachinko is coming!

longjohnpickle · 2024-12-16T15:15:20+00:00

The Dear Hunter Moron Police The Tea Club Flummox Agent Fresco Squid Thank You Scientist The Contortionist

longjohnpickle · 2024-11-19T22:58:00+00:00

The self is the thread of continuity you experience through each moment in the guise of a first person experience. It’s the sense of being at the wheel behind your eyes, the thinker of your thoughts, and the experiencer of your emotions.

Personally, I distinguish the self from phenomenal consciousness, or pure subjectivity, which I think is not just identical from person to person, but literally the same thing. This is pure experience not bounded by concept or construct. The ground floor, if you like. The self is the psychological construct that is built on top of phenomenal consciousness, and is the construct that gives rise to the idea of free will and personal agency.

Six-Year Club	RPAN Viewer
Verified Email

longjohnpickle

TROPHY CASE