[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 35 KB, 547x692, 40573176_1828878903863827_1660861624275173376_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14603726 No.14603726 [Reply] [Original]

What school of philosophy believes that all of our individual existences are just the interplay between external stimuli and how our brains process information? (I don't mean in the Descartian sense. We all actually exist in the world, but are slaves to neurological/chemical reactions.) What I mean is that there's the possibility that with enough knowledge of the brain and the proper models, we can predict how we react to things based on how our brains process information, therefore nullifying the possibility of free will?

Additionally, is it possible that our brains have a sort of fail-safe, such that they make it impossible for us to fully comprehend them? (Similar to how our brains knows to ignore our nose when processing information coming from our eyes.)

>> No.14604091

>>14603726
determinism?
it's bullshit though, free will exists and you have to learn to deal with it, and stop making excuses for not doing anything, because you think there is nothing you can do about it anyway.

that failsafe is called subjectivity. i can't perceive what you perceive, i can not feel what you feel etc. Neither could any kind of machine.

>> No.14604116

>>14603726
That's a standard naturalist position, most Empiricists like Hobbes or Hume would subscribe to it.

>> No.14604140

>>14603726
Unsure but from my grasp of Deleuze without having read any primary sources I'd guess his work on the idea of desiring-production from Anti-Oedipus

>> No.14604145

>>14604091
The fact that humans have mental states is not incompatible with them being caued by neurons in the brain, that's a non-argument

>> No.14604222

>>14604145
not the point here. in order to perceive what any neuron perceives, you would have to replace the neuron by the measuring instrument, which you can't.

>> No.14604262

>>14603726
Also Marx

>> No.14604348

OP, look up Robert Sapolsky’s TED video: the biology/behaviour of our best and worse selves.

Also, do not mix up determinism and free will. Both can co-exist. This video is the deterministic-ish explanation.

>> No.14604481

>>14603726
That's materialism.

>> No.14604490
File: 1.89 MB, 400x300, 1575075145588.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14604490

>>14603726
It's more that any such model that you are imagining is useless and outdated the moment it tries to predict the behavior of a mind aware of the model. It's one of the biggest issues that sociological studies have run into.

Consider Turing's halting problem, and attempt to imagine this working on a human brain. The mind and its processes are highly plastic, and have a built-in capacity for dialetheism. Such a system is capable of utilizing the principle of explosion for arbitrary domain expansion, which means that anything that operates on a sense of true/false will never be able to exist as you have imagined.

It is best to imagine the mind, less like an intricate web, and more like a ferrofluid that is anchored only to extreme generalizations (if that).

>> No.14605753

>>14604091
I'm not saying free will doesn't exist, I've just had this thought in my mind for a while and was wondering if it's been discussed in greater detail before. I don't necessarily subscribe to the philosophy so much as I am fascinated by the notion of it.

>>14604116
>>14604140
>>14604262
interested combination of people, but will definitely look into these more

>>14604348
this one? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORthzIOEf30

>>14604490
This is an interesting point, and I agree that this is a better way to think of the mind than what I figured, and applying the Halting Problem to a brain is a fascinating thought.

>> No.14606862

>>14604222
I have no idea what this statement means, but you seem to confuse philosophical questions about determinism with questions about consciousness. People having mental states has nothing to do with whether they have free will in a strong libertarian sense.