/lit/ - Literature

>>18801773
>Refute this.
no

>>18801773
>wi know zat brein made of partikls!
So? Aren't sciencelets still arguining whether the universe is made of guitar strings or some shit? How do materialists solve infinite regress? Materialist world is strictly causal, so what's the prime cause?

>>18801773
>w*man
>Jewish surname
Yeah I think that refutes it

>>18801773
Easily, I deny the reality of time.

>>18801773
Just one long argument from authority. She casually dismisses critics who use words such as materialism and reductionism without really addressing their arguments.

>>18801802
she's German, retard. not jewish

>>18801832
>She casually dismisses critics who use words such as materialism and reductionism without really addressing their arguments.
It's quite obvious that if you directly negate facts, there is no discussing with you. Unless you want to preach solipsism, in which case I would advice you to graduate middle school.

>>18801793
>How do materialists solve infinite regress?
it just doesn't exist. and better yet--doesn't even have to exist.
>>18801806
>I deny the reality
guessed

>>18801773
Not gonna watch this shit but
>you don't have free will
Of course, even Aristotle noticed this in Physics (but was to coward to accept it). Every human is a device which translates input signals (coming from senses and memory) into output signals (commands to muscles) by an algorithm in our brains.

>>18801857
There are no facts, only interpretations.

>>18801773
The I is an act which is self-positing, not caused by anything outside it, and any act of the I is one that could have been other than what it was, and was chosen from a plurality of possibilities open to the agent. Willing is free self-determination, a transition from indeterminacy to determinacy with consciousness of the transition. The concept of an unfree will, therefore, is self-contradictory. Fichte thinks freedom is the way our volition appears to us. We cannot demonstrate that this appearance is not an illusion, but we cannot coherently act or cognize the world without presupposing that it is not an illusion. Although this free act is the starting point for transcendental idealist philosophy, the concept of a self-positing act is an abstraction from ordinary experience. In ordinary experience, every free volitional act is situated – the act of the I is an act of a living body, situated among other things that limit its possibilities, while leaving some possibilities open. It is the aim of transcendental philosophy to begin from this abstraction and then work its way through the synthetic method towards the conditions of our action as it is experienced concretely. Critical or idealist philosophy, which begins from the act of the I, accepts the appearance as true, while dogmatic or materialist philosophy, which begins from the assumption of a thing in itself, tries to explain it away as an illusion, the result of necessary causal interactions between things. Fichte maintains that idealism, on its assumptions, can account for our relationship to things. Dogmatism, however, is self-undermining, because it cannot account for our consciousness of things. The dogmatist must cling to the thing in itself as an act of faith. But dogmatism cannot be theoretically refuted by idealism, because the two philosophical approaches share no common principle from which either might directly refute the other.

>>18801908
The whole point of experiments and measurements is that the observation aspect is taken out of the equation, that is, out of the human. Observation is de-humanized and therefore becomes objective. Notice that science isn't arrogant and acknowledges when observation fails--at the quantum level, because the elementary forces that carry the process that we call observation, for example, striking a sample with a beam of photons, at the quantum scale distorts the original sample beyond recognition. But on the macro scale, there are quadrillions upon quadrillions of quantum scales and they all even out into an entity that cannot be distorted with sheer observation. So what the machine observes is what reality is. When a machine detects an electrical signal, it's not a delusion, it's a fact. If you stick a fork into a socket, you're going to get zapped. Same thing, different scale.

>>18801864
>guessed
This whole thesis rests on a premise which I will represent as such:
>The relationship between cause and effect is that the cause occurs earlier in time
If that's not true, the fact that the brain displays changes before the agent consciously thinks of the choice is meaningless.
How do we know that this is true? I have yet to see an argument that did not rest on intuition. And yet, my intuition also tells me a great many things that materialism would seem to deny. I intuitively think that my will is somewhat free. Is that also valid? At the end of the day, all of your beliefs rely on intuition. You have to deny some of them and affirm others.

>>18801968
The other cool thing about science is that it is descriptive and therefore cannot make any metaphysical claims.

>>18801773
If you're an empirical realist, you are already a critical idealist of some kind

>>18801990
>The other cool thing about science is that it is descriptive and therefore cannot make any metaphysical claims.
Who can?
Ultimately they're as worthless as religious stuff. I mean, they might be personally meaningful, but it's like with qualia--better acknowledge that you'll forever remain alone in your brain, when it comes to stuff like this, and move on.

>>18802048
I can accept skepticism, I just have disdain for materialists. I have other reasons to accept idealism, so a draw on the neuroscience arguments is acceptable.

>>18801773
I watched this video once. She's unironically retarded.

How do you know your consciousness is composed of le particles? Only via the exercise of consciousness, right? Yeah, this is bullshit, the trancendental has priority over empirical observations.

>>18802078
Not an argument.

>>18802078
This. It's basically just a bunch of fallacies and emotional screetching. Clearly she just really wants to believe there's no free will instead of facing reality.

>>18802069
>I can accept skepticism, I just have disdain for materialists
I have disdain for anyone who claims to be 100% certain of anything, but there is a limit after which I just recognize some things as most likely and some as unlikely. I recognize physicalism, fortunately or not, as the most likely answer. Metaphysics/idealism, although nice, are unfortunately unlikely.

>>18801773
Why would free will be necessary for idealism? Your actions may still be determined by the monad or the will or whatever. Remember that Schopenhauer was very much against the idea of free will.

>>18802103
Yes. That's obvious. No arguments were made in that post, retard.

>>18801773
>You don't have free will
I agree. Then, there's no reason for me to care so much about people or their problems. I understand the world is a fluctuation of chance, and I'm not going to moan about the fact the some people fail.

>>18802069
>I just have disdain for materialists
You have disdain for what? There is no such thing as materialism.

>>18801845
>oy vey I'm actually german
>oy vey I'm actually italian

>>18802130
the fact that you equate metaphysics and idealism shows that you don't know what you're talking about. Physicalism is a metaphysical position.

>>18802130
The only way in which all the things I perceive can be true is for Idealism to be correct. If physicalism is true, I can't trust my brain, so my being wrong would not be of my own will, so either I'm right or it's irrelevant.

>>18802078
you are unironically retarded
>>18802118
>This. It's basically just a bunch of fallacies and emotional screetching.
No. She's just approaching it from the physical/mathematical standpoint. The Big Bang is a widely accepted fact and we can derive from basic logic that given the ultimate knowledge of the position, velocity etc. of every single constituent in the primordial singularity, we could've mapped out the entire history of the universe from start to end. The universe is mathematically constrained to determinism.

>>18802149
there are 2 different definitions of metaphysics, retard. one is general, the other is special. i used the latter.

>>18802145
A materialism is someone who believes in substance monism where only matter is allowed to exist. This viewpoint is widely held.

>>18801773
This woman throws around “science” as if our scientific understanding of consciousness is anywhere near complete. She keeps saying free will is incompatible with “science” but remember that Einstein showed that gravity didn’t fit the scientific models of his time. Imagine someone telling Einstein that gravity didn’t exist bc it was incompatible with “the science”.

Fucking dumb video

>>18802152
You still don't understand the Critical turn. You do realise that Einstein, Helmholtz, Planck and co all accepted the Kantian argument that space is an a priori form of intuition and his Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science where he explains how critical idealism renders the universe intelligible, right? All empirical realists accept the general form of Kant's argument. Disagreements arise with how the system is possible and with the nature of schematism

>>18802152
Missed the point completely. Answer the following question: Do positions of the particles define the choices, or do the choices define the starting positions of the particles?

>>18802085
Just because we cannot physically describe consciousness in full, because we don't know what consciousness really is, doesn't mean that it's not physical.

In fact, us not knowing (and most likely never getting to know) what consciousness is makes sense from a mathematical/physical standpoint. A set of particles can be assumed to be "conscious" (whatever that means) of everything, but itself, because that brings about a paradox of recurrency.

>>18802135
>Yes. That's obvious. No arguments were made in that post,
If it's so obvious then why are you restating my observation (and saying how obvious it is, something that should itself be obvious)?
>retard
Having a bad day?

>>18802178
>the choices, or do the choices
define

>>18802152
>She's just approaching it from the physical/mathematical standpoint
With a bunch of fallacies and emotional screetching. She is also wrong about physics and even contradicts herself in the video.
>and we can derive from basic logic that given the ultimate knowledge of the position, velocity etc. of every single constituent in the primordial singularity, we could've mapped out the entire history of the universe from start to end
LMAO no. Learn basic physics before trying to do philosophy.
>The universe is mathematically constrained to determinism.
Meaningless phrase typical of new agey woo pseuds, which you sound like you are.

>>18802160
then you are really stupid

>>18802183
How can it be assumed to be conscious about everything? It should only be conscious of what it is composed of i.e. the states of particles inside the mind. It should have no consciousness of anything outside of itself. This is also, uncoincidentally, how brains function.
The true reason we will never be able to physically demonstrate the causes of consciousness is that we can never prove that something is conscious or not.

>>18802194
>LMAO no. Learn basic physics before trying to do philosophy.
lol. read a book. chaos theory.

Laplace's Demon is alive and well, it seems.

>>18802162
A coherent notion of what matter is disappeared since the time of Newton. Basically today the word matter is just a meaningless buzzword.

>>18802205
>It should only be conscious of what it is composed of i.e. the states of particles inside the mind.
No, I just said. That would cause a recurrency paradox. A chemical compound cannot react with itself.

>>18802206
Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. Take a physics class before you try to talk philosophy. You're embarrassing yourself.

>>18801802
>>18802148
> Anyone I disagree with or dislike and who has German or Italian name must be Jewish!
When will Amerimutts learn that this trick really only works in America (and even then, only like 85% of the time)?

>>18802227
Under a physicalist schema, it's not interacting with itself because it is illusory. In order for the mind to have any import one must accept idealism.

>>18802228
You're the one trying to school a literal physicist, dude.

>>18802245
>physicalist
What do you mean by that?

>>18802255
>given the ultimate knowledge of the position, velocity etc. of every single constituent in the primordial singularity, we could've mapped out the entire history of the universe from start to end
No actual physicist would assert something so stupid and wrong. You're just a dumb high schooler pretending to know what you're talking about. As I said, take a physics class. You're embarrassing yourself.

>>18802258
A schema wherein the brain functions by physical processes, which causes the mind. In such a schema there is no self-referential problem because the mind is really just along for the ride, experiencing.

>>18802267
>No actual physicist would assert something so stupid and wrong
lol. again. chaos theory. Laplace's demon has never been (and cannot be) refuted, though many have tried, even by referring to chaos theory itself. unfortunately though, chaos theory is a literal reformulation of laplace's demon, to an extent. so the refutation falls flat, lmao.

and i'm not the physicist here, the woman linked in the OP is. though i know my fair share, and again, didn't find anything that wasn't sound in the video.

Causality can't be proven empirically !!!!

>>18802189
Because if we're stating the obvious, I wanted the world to know that you're a retard.

>>18802231
the Italian meme is for the nose not the name

>>18802245
>Under a physicalist schema, it's not interacting with itself because it is illusory.
It's illusory in the sense that the meaning you ascribe to consciousness stems from an illusion. It's not an "illusion" in the sense that it wholly doesn't exist. It does exist, as a set of reactions with the environment, both outside and inside the body.

It just cannot react with itself, which is logical. No chemical compound can.

>>18802283
>physical processes
What's a physical process? What distinguishes a physical process from nonphysical process?

>>18802318
oooooh i like this one. this is a good got-cha question for idealists ;)

>>18802290
Chaos theory doesn't allow you to predict such things. It's a subfield of mathematics where you study certain differential equations which are unstable under small changes. It does not in any way show that if you knew all the velocities and positions of the constituents you could predict the future. You're a retard and you don't know the first thing about physics. Leave the thread.

>>18802301
Causality in general isn't even a coherent concept. It only makes sense to apply it to day-to-day human activities and some very large scale physical phenomena.

>>18802313
It's illusory in the sense that it's not required to exist to have the input to the brain lead to the output of the brain.

>>18801773
refuting free will =/= refuting idealism or idealist ontologies
>>18801864
>it just doesn't exist
Denying it is not a solution, contingent things end up in an infinite regress unless there is some non-contingent X underlying everything
>>18801908
The immediacy of consciousness is a fact, and not an interpretation.
>>18801960
>The I is an act which is self-positing
If the I itself is an act, who is engaging in that act?
>>18802130
> I recognize physicalism, fortunately or not, as the most likely answer
The hard problem of consciousness indicates otherwise
>>18802132
It's not, you are correct
>>18802183
>A set of particles can be assumed to be "conscious"
Our consciousness is not comprised of a set of individual things, but is one undivided unity, which is incongruous with the notion of it arising from multiple particles.
>>18802313
If consciousness is a chemical compound, why hasn't the compound in question been identified yet?

>>18802775
Can you please explain to me what the fuck is idealism?

>>18802832
critical idealism is empirical realism

>>18802832
read this instead

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/idealism/

>>18802843
Can you explain without philosophical jargon what that is? What is empirical realism?
>>18802846
Please don't link that shitty biased website. I've already learned not to go there.

>>18802861
maybe in 15 hours. Gn anon

>>18802861
(Not who you replied to) Why would you ask 4chan to provide a definition for you when you would probably get a far better one by using Google?

>>18802861
>>18802872
have a taste

Transcendental idealism is also empirical realism. The empirical world, ie the world of appearances, IS the real world. Kant has a whole book called the metaphysical foundations of the natural sciences about how this world of appearances is knowable to us. The reading of Kant where the real world is vanished beyond the limits of our reason and understanding is the historically common one but also incorrect.

I don't usually talk to anyone who hasn't at read the Critique of Pure Reason, so accept my generosity

>>18802917
Sounds like a bunch of bullshit.

>>18802939
the view that the world appearances, objects, is the real world, is nonsense. Glad you took the time to share your room temperature iq takes

>>18802337
Chaos theory applied to physics supposes unpredictability only in the case of imperfect knowledge. With totally perfect knowledge, there is literally not a single reason why you would not be able to map out the future.

>>18803197
Please take a physics class.

>>18802861
>>18802832
idealism stems from Plato who tried to grasp the problem of universals. so he crafted this thought experiment whereby the universals would have an equal, concrete form called an Idea.

I am a determinist but I cannot stand these lab-coat nerds. Someone diagnose me.

>>18803317
What do you mean by determinism?

>>18803317
You're suffering from a serious case of needing to read Rene Guenon (pbuh)

>>18803343
everything has already been predetermined.

>>18803348
No, I loathe traditionalists. I want to read more people like Gentile and Schmitt

>>18803349
Cool and what do you mean by predetermined?

>>18803438
you haven't demonstrated that you could ask me to define what i meant by predetermined

>>18803205
why cant you offer a normal rebuttal?

>>18802152
>we can derive from basic logic that given the ultimate knowledge of the position, velocity etc. of every single constituent in the primordial singularity, we could've mapped out the entire history of the universe from start to end.
false

>>18802170
Einstein believed in determinism

>>18801773
Schopenhauer BTFO'd them long time ago with one quote:

>"Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills."

>>18802861
>shitty biased website
who the fuck calls SEP biased wtf

>"Everything is understandable by primates!"
No philosopher of any type can discern the nature of reality. It likely has nothing to do with nature, reality, cause, effect, or anything else humans used to eat, fuck, and kill. Even God doesn't know why he's here. It's unknowable. Fucking, "knowledge" is a concept. "Concept" is a concept.

Are concepts useful? Maybe to eat, fuck, and kill, but they'll never model shit worth dick.

>>18801773
The "scientists" don't know why food sticks to the pan, they can shove their "evidence" about brain particles into their ass.
The old saying was "no one will convince me that I cannot freely choose if to scratch my nose with my right hand or my left hand".

>>18802078
You mad

>>18802176
Nobody responded to you because you are a dumb Jew and deserve to be ignored

>>18802861
I spilled my anal milk reading your gaynigger Jewish post.

I wish science captivated me like philsophy does but it just doesn't.

>>18804723
You sound homosexed. Did your Rabbi milk your prostate while implanting nigger -cuck porn into your brain?

>>18802014
This. Op is a retard

>>18801773
>there's no free will so might as well eat the bugs and get the vaccine lol
you guys are so pozzed it's insane

>>18802150
This remains UNREFUTED

>>18803209
The "Idea" and the "Ideal" are distinct terms; Plato is not an idealist.

>>18801773
It is funny how something as evident as free will filters so many so called intellectuals. You will never be a true scientist.

>>18801968
>Observation is de-humanized and therefore becomes objective.
Observation of cause and effect. That allow us to build a accurate model of the world. But it remains a model. Not the truth.

>>18801773
Kant agrees with this when talking about brains as objects of experience btw. He is an empirical realist. The true question is what the status of these objects of experience is.

Retards like this wöman is what is mostly wrong with science today. Instead of trying to find the truth, they task themself with gathering partial evidence so far, making crooked arguments with it in the realms of morality and metaphysics and try to shove it down to the throat of masses and insult those who doubts them from an early age without the benefit of the church that would at least promise them the salvation of their soul and everlasting life.
They will fuck you in the ass while telling you it is not their choice and you will like it.

>>18801773
>no free will but still responsible
If someone makes me unconscious, makes my body trigger something causing someone to die, then I'm responsible for killing that person and should be punished. It's not by my will that caused the killing, but I happen to have been part of the cause of what killed the person as is the one who caused me to kill the person, that is the one who made me unconscious, etc., my parents, their parents, etc. Therefore, everyone is responsible for causing some crime, whether in present or future, and everyone should be punished.

I have no idea what to think, what does a nowit person do? Is all there is describable by science? Or is there more going on than can be described by science? What should I read to figure shit out?

>>18804422
Believed in what now?
>>18804439
This is stupid. Of course you can will what you will. For example, I know that looking at pictures of tasty hamburgers will make me crave such food, even though I don't want to. So I might will to will hamburgers.
It's so amusing when hack philosophers think asserting such a simple-minded and obviously false statement settles a hard philosophical question.
>>18804476
To be fair, we can model much more than is needed to eat, fuck and kill. That said, we're still animals not unlike others. Mice have no ability to understand prime numbers, even though they can grasp simpler concepts. Their brains are simply incapable of solving prime number mazes, it's simply beyond their cognitive limits. Similarly there are things beyond the cognitive limits of us humans. The categories of thought we apply to analyze things are in the end very limited.

>>18801773
Retroactively refuted by Guenon (pbuh):
>Besides, it is very easy to expose the contradiction inherent in atomism, the basic error of which lies in supposing that simple elements can exist in the corporeal order, whereas all that is bodily is necessarily composite, being always divisible from the very fact that it is extended, that is to say subject to the spatial condition; in order to find something simple or indivisible it is necessary to pass outside space, and therefore outside that special modality or manifestation which constitutes corporeal existence.

>If, as must be done in this instance, the word atom be taken in its true sense of 'indivisible', a sense which modern physicists no longer give to it, it may be said that an atom, since it cannot have parts, must also be without extension; now the sum of elements devoid of extension can never form an extension; if atoms fulfill their own definition, it is then impossible for them to make up bodies.

>To this well-known and moreover decisive chain of reasoning, another may also be added, employed by Shankaracharya in order to refute atomism: Two things can come into contact with one another either by a part of themselves or by the whole; for atoms, devoid as they are of parts, the first hypothesis is inadmissable; thus only the second hypothesis remains, which amounts to saying that the aggregation of two atoms can only be realized by saying that the aggregation of two atoms can only be realized by their coincidence purely and simply, whence it clearly follows that two atoms when joined occupy no more space than a single atom and so forth indefinitely; so, as before, atoms, whatever their number, will never form a body. Thus atomism represents nothing but sheer impossibility.

If you need anyone to refute that emotional self-contradictory tirade, you first need to get a brain.

>>18805690
>Retroactively
Learn this, Guénonfag: when a person says something in the past, you call it "preemptively"; when in the future in relation to the past, "retroactively".

>>18801773
>thinking SEP is a worse resource than some random anon

>>18805690
Holy... based (PBUH)

>>18805961
I don't get why you guys worship that website so much. Pick any topic of philosophy that you know anything about and check out the article. You'll see how much bullshit it contains.

>>18805949
Not that anon nor do I care about guenon but although I am an ESL I felt compelled to fix your faggot ass as this is a lit board Retroactively means taking effect from past. So his usage is correct and you are a brainlet.

>>18806085
Moreover when it is in relation to the past you just say he refuted because it is by default in relation to the past.

>>18801773
Sam Harris tier thinking, the question of free will isn’t solved by ‘neuro chemistry n sheit’

>>18801773
Refute this, determicucks

>>18801773
>we can't know anything for sure
Nobody did prove or disprove this. But materialistic philosophies make much more sense.

>>18806238
I'm not a determinist but this comic is embarrassingly stupid.
>dominoes don't have intentionality, therefore humans must have free will

>>18806261
What do you mean by materialistic? People who value money and wealth over spiritual things and knowledge?

>>18806297
Good job missing the point, which was that humans being part of a causal system in no way reduces the existence of free will. The domino comment was just a response to a possible objection trying to generalize will to entities without intentionality.

>>18806300
Yes

Why do NPCs have this drive to convince other people that they're NPCs too?

>>18806326
>Why do NPCs have this drive
Shouldn't your philosophy explain it?

>>18806340
No.

>>18806326
Imagine you've grown up all your life not seeing color. Everything is monochrome, but you can deal with it. Now suddenly you encounter people who claim to see color. You don't even understand what it means, you just know they're talking bullshit. They believe in some magical quantities that only they are able to perceive. They claim it's all part of the natural world, even though they can't account for their perception in currently known physics. You try to convince them they don't perceive this mysterious magical "color" but they just won't listen. It annoys you to no end.
It's the same with free will. NPCs can't stand that not everyone is born the same.

>>18806316
>which was that humans being part of a causal system in no way reduces the existence of free will
Which he entirely failed to prove. That's why I said it's embarrassingly stupid. If I can not only predict your choice in any given situation empirically, but also determine your choice myself (with you thinking it's yours), so that I have absolute control over your actions, how are you free in any sense of the word?

>>18806316
The low IQ NPCs constantly pull this shit.
First they say that laws of physics are deterministic therefore we don't have free will. When you point out that they're not, that quantum physics is not determinstic, they say "well just because quantum is random doesn't mean you have free will". I never said it does, retard. It's a refutation to YOUR argument.
Same with dominos in this case. Sometimes I genuinely think they're incapable of thought.

>>18806360
That's what npc would reply

>>18806410
Lol seethe harder.

>>18806410
Nah, an NPC can't deny his programming to preach his NPC doctrines.

It's amazing how NPCs can't stand being called NPCs. Even though they believe themselves that they're NPCs.
The NPC is immunized against all dangers: one may call him a irrational, self-contradicting, scientifically illiterate, provocateur, it all runs off him like water off a raincoat. But call him a NPC and you will be astonished at how he recoils, how injured he is, how he suddenly shrinks back: “I’ve been found out.”

>>18806432
>>18806445
Why are two NPCs replying to one post?

>>18806403
>When you point out that they're not, that quantum physics is not determinstic,
Quantum physics is still not entirely worked out, it's not a valid argument. It may be partially refuted and merged into a superior theory once it and relativity are finally integrated (we have no recourse given the inductive nature of scientific experiment except to assume that cause and effect are always valid; the principle of sufficient reason). It's not a valid argument (nor are any arguments from scientific hypotheses). The metaphysical postulate underlying reality, which is a collection of effects, each of which has a cause, is that everything at a given moment is necessarily connected to prior things. Therefore there is no self-sufficiency or "free will" at any given moment, because each moment is "chained" to the previous moment which gives it existence. Again, I'm not actually arguing for determinism, I'm arguing that determinism is necessarily the case given physicalist or materialist dogmatism. "Choice", which is the fundamental underpinning of free will, and entails the potentiality of two exclusive outcomes, means that the chain of ordinarily unbreakable causality must be interruptible by something which is not constrained and determined by that same chain. If it were not, then this chain would have already determined the interruption itself, and two potential outcomes could never exist; for the principle of sufficient reason necessitates that there can only be one outcome, and therefore that choice is null. And so no free will.

>>18806473
>Quantum physics is still not entirely worked out, it's not a valid argument
It is. If quantum physics is not worked out, that means they don't actually have the laws of physcis that govern everything, let alone deterministic ones.

>>18806238
What does it mean to have intent? Intent obviously require that we have an agent who has a will (whether that will is free or not).
Now, assuming some form of physicalism, we can see that brain states naturally lead to other brain states, i.e. the intent of an agent at time 2 is determined by the intent of an agent at time 1.
We must now determine whether the agent at time 1 and the agent at time 2 are the same agent. Under an idealist or a dualist view, it is easy to conclude that agents can have persistence in time. If a physicalist cannot demonstrate that these agents are the same, we must conclude that the agent at the second time has had his will decided by the agent at the first time, which makes it hard to say that he has the power to decide his own intent, and that he does not have free will.

>>18801773
At what moment the act of free will is executed? People with brain damage still have free will? Do animals have free will? If we remove brain cells from a person at which point he loses free will?

>>18806496
The question is not do they have or not these laws but do the laws of nature exist at all

>>18806521
You misunderstand. The claim they make is that we have laws of physics which are deterministic and predict the behavior of physical systems completely from initial conditions. When I point out this is wrong, we DON'T actually have them, they screech how that doesn't prove free will.
If you claim that we don't have them, but they exist in some platonic realm, I can't even begin to imagine how would you go about justifying it. Do you think such laws exist? Why?

>>18801773
Even simpler refutation:
We don't exist outside the universe looking in to make judgements on it being pre-determined or allowing for free will. Any attempt to prove it to be either of the 2 ways will require you to account for all possible inputs and all possible actions resulting from those inputs and prove that they are completely deterministic all the time. Which is impossible to do.

>>18806496
No, it's not. Scientific enquiry can never have everything worked out. It may turn out that, in a hundred or two hundred years, some additional physical fact is discovered, via some sort of new experiment, which enables us to determine what previously seemed non-deterministic (just as Newtonian gravity, which seemed so stable and indisputable for hundreds of years, was radically overturned by Einstein). Scientific laws are all inductive and contingent, and so we can't use them in matters of universal importance. Note: Cause-and-effect, and the principle of sufficient reason, are not scientific laws, but stand at the logical basis of scientific enquiry; thus they are laws which overrule any inductive contingencies introduced by experimental indeterminacies. Scientific experiment, for example, cannot disprove the law of identity, the law of modus ponens (which is the purely logical equivalent of sufficient reason).

>refute this

Quantum uncertainty

>>18804698
nobody responded bc that would require the anons that already know this entry level knowledge have no need to and the anons that don't are too stupid and don't know how how to respond to being filtered this hard

>>18801773
She might be able to use empiricism to find causal relations between every single event of a human life and the conditions existing just prior.

BUT

there's no point in this argument of the timestamp at all, to discount free will as incompatible with scientific reasoning is to conclude that there are no moral imperatives.
Moral reasoning does exist, inside of human minds, so is represented by particles in those minds (if we want to be a bunch of fucking dense reductive tools about the whole experience) and plays a role in the human life. So what if free will is an illusion from our perspective? So to is the appearance ,disappearance, and reappearance of the tiniest particles that comprise her dead matter world an illusion.

This line of reasoning results in an amoral, universal permissivism. We do not need people living by this principle.

tl;dr Someone needs to shut this stupid bitch up.

>>18806555
contd...
All anons stating "quantum uncertainty" or some other theory as proof for the true nature of the universe don't realize:
1. >>18806555
2. A new theory that better explains new observations or previously unexplained phenomenon is just that, a theory. The instruments you use to describe and predict some aspect of nature don't imply that the characteristics of that tools are attributable to nature.

>>18804698
nobody responded bc the anons that already know this entry level knowledge have no need to and the anons that don't are too stupid and don't know how how to respond to being filtered this hard

>>18806717
contd...
For example, if I use a ruler to measure the length my phone, I don't say the phone is "rulery".
And later when I use a better instrument to measure the length of a table, say a pair of callipers, I don't say that the "rulery-ness" has been refuted, the phone is actually "callipery".
Basic logic anons. Surprised it slipped everyone's notice.

>>18806738
contd...
And finally, this whole debate about free will vs determinism is an exercise in futility, designed to keep you navel gazing and dependent on other sources and figures of authority for your ideas.
I'm surprised no one asked an even simpler question: what does it matter if there is free will or not? We continue the same either way.

>>18802118
Do you think she would cling to her beliefs if I savagely beat and raped her? Would it comfort her knowing that she couldn't have chosen a different time and place to be alone in that moment because muh reductionism?
Would she take comfort in the fact that she has no control over the moistening of her cunt during the most savage parts of the act?
Would she reason that the pheromones on my breath are rendering cells in her nostrils no choice but to signal to her brain that she is sharing the breath of a fertile, vibrant male youth? would she enjoy the sensation from the signals of the nerves in the cell walls in the recesses of her snatch, knowing that she has no choice in the matter, as I have no choice over the sizable length and girth of my cock?
Would she, in that moment, believe me to be totally beyond reproach because my actions are the results of my deterministic nature, and there is no blame because there is no control?

How would she react knowing that her permissive, dead matter argument was a part of my reasoning in my choice to plow her paleo style?

Oh well, it's all causal forces we can't control. no point in moral reasoning here folks. make way for the next caussal event. just distract your mind from things unfolding you can't control it anyway.

i really need to get my fucking manifesto together.

>>18806761
This is the most embarassing thing I've read this week.
Please go outside and talk to people.

>>18806771
Ok sally snowflake.
It's refutation by hypothetical universe. It reduces her position to absurdity. I have a social life that would put most of this board to shame.

>>18806238
>but the person IS the atoms
This is just compatibilism. It's determinism but with free will defined in a way where it can exist. That's fine and an acceptable position, but it doesn't refute anything in the OP. It really is just semantics.

>>18806618
>No, it's not.
No, I meant that the argument is valid, not that quantum mechanics have been entirely worked out.
> the law of modus ponens (which is the purely logical equivalent of sufficient reason).
What? How?

>>18806804
Please tell us more about your social life.

>>18806804
>you disagree with me so you have to be an offended snowflake!!
Not really, and I think a "reduction to absurdity" could be done without writing endlessly about how you would fuck her which just makes you seem juvenile, degenerate and similar in mentality to that of an ape or a black hoodlum.

>>18806878
first explain how my writing signified its nonexistence to you.

>>18801773
Why do physicists always act like they have all the answers? Just because a theory works doesn't mean it tells you anything about how reality works.

>>18806933
>you are triggered by the contents of my writing so i have to be a social inept

Not really, and I think you are not intelligent enough to understand "hypothetical", or to separate the author from his work.
I would not touch that bitch with a ten foot pole if you had a causal gun to my head.

And I agree, it could be done differently, but I did it my way and you should embrace the diversity of my approach faggot.

>black hoodlum
degeneracy is reality, your appeal to nature and racism is an equally degenerate and baseless ad hominem.

>>18806938
They don't. Sabine is a crank.

>>18806873
>No, I meant that the argument is valid
It's not valid in and of itself, because sufficient reason holds whether or not science is capable of seeing the exact mechanisms by which nature functions. Thus one needs to break out of nature as we know it, so to speak, in order for free will to be justified as a meaningful concept.
>What? How?
A -> B, A therefore B. Effect (A) implies a cause (B); there is an effect, therefore there is a cause. Note that this in itself does not preclude the existence of free will; it merely precludes free will if one is a physicalist or materialist, or any other sort of monistic (or even dualistic) reductionist for that matter. There are no tenable philosophical positions in modern philosophy on this question because they all face the same issue one way or another; it is merely a question of which terms you are willing to accept.

>"I'm a scientist"
BLAM BLAM BLAM

>>18807026
Lots of them seem to be into naturalism though, where the physical world is all that exists and science is the way you describe how it works. If they think about such issues at all.

>>18807051
>physical world
What do you mean by that? What distinguishes physical from nonphysical?

>>18807066
In this case things that can be explained via physical theories (physics). How do we know that everything is explainable by such methods? Could there not be something else that physics can't explain?

>>18807066
I will try a different method of definition:
Physicalism is the idea that the atoms create the mind.
Idealism is the idea that the mind creates the atoms.

>>18807085
Physics can't explain quantum gravity. Does that mean quantum gravity is nonphyisical? And what about large scale phenomena where physics is absolutely useless in explaining? For example evolution, biology and economics. Are those also nonphysical?

>>18807102
>Physicalism is the idea that the atoms create the mind.
That doesn't make sense. Do physicalists believe atoms are conscious and can create stuff? Instead of god, there's Big Atom?

>>18807178
Panpsychists unironically believe that but they are a minority. Some others think that consciousness is a product of the arrangement of atoms and the energy values of their electrons and so forth, but no one has yet offered detail on how it works.

>>18805949
wrong dumbass

>An objection can be issued against an argument retroactively from the point of reference of that argument. This form of objection – invented by the presocratic philosopher Parmenides – is commonly referred to as a retroactive refutation.[3]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objection_(argument)

>>18805690
based, many such cases if you know what I mean !

>>18807049
its a consequence of the pyramid scheme that everyone in academia participates in

How does this contradict Kant and the Idealists? They all accepted absolute causal necessity in the physical sciences. They would have not contested that from someone's current physical states his entire future and past can be inferred. Their notions of free will were specifically designed to account for this fact without denying it.

>>18801773
Plato's ideas come from within the things. Plato is a materialist. The key to understand it are the German idealists' dialectics and Marx