/lit/ - Literature

I cope by having prolonged, passionate sexual intercourse with your mother while mocking her son's vapid misunderstanding of antique misconceptions about the relationship between axiology and ontology

I reject them

>>5163608
Best reply EVER

>>5163596
I acknowledge the fact that Skinner got absolutely dumpstered by Chompsky and therefore anything Skinner suggests is invalid.

>>5163596
I take more drugs

⇒the self is an illusory experience

The very notion of "illusion" presumes a self/consciousness to experience said illusion. Calling the self an illusion is like calling your CPU a software. Sam Harris would beat the shit out of you for being so ignorant of neuroscience.

>>5163596


>“...Let me live deep while I live; let me know the rich juices of red meat and stinging
>wine on my palate, the hot embrace of white arms, the mad exultation of battle
>when the blue blades flame and crimson, and I am content. Let teachers and
>philosophers brood over questions of reality and illusion. I know this: if life
>is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is
>real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and am content.”

Deal with it like Conan did.

>>5163771
No, I think you're wrong, and are actually presuming that to be able to be aware of something as a concept of an illusion, you would need something beyond the self.

>>5163828
I can't be arsed to explain it to a scientifically illiterate /x/tard like you. Google Sam Harris and watch all his youtube videos. Somewhere he explains it in a manner even understandable for morons like yourself.

>>5163837
Great answer, champ. The notion of an illusion does not imply nor require a function or process to be able to interpret it as such.

>>5163885
You are talking out of your ass. Please learn some science.

“Tell me, Harry, what difference would it make if it wasn't real?"

Harry thought a moment, his chinless face sour. "We wouldn't have to do what we think we have to do. But even if we don't have to do what we think we have to do, it won't make any difference if we do it Which means we should just go ahead."

Mavis sighed. "Just go ahead."

"Just go ahead," said Hagbard. "A powerful mantra."

"And if we don't go ahead," said George, "it doesn't matter either. Which means that we just do go ahead."

"Another powerful mantra," said Hagbard. "Just do go ahead.”


Just don't think about it

>>5163928
>science
Actual scientist here. You're not arguing or discussing science at all, just having a wank over semantics. Please go fuck yourself and learn some real science.

>>5163596
I choose not to think too much about it :)

>>5163596
>there is no free-will
Ok I get that. Destiny and fortuna are cruel spinsters.

>>5163596
>the self is an illusory experience
What kind of caca-mimi modern/post-modern bullshit is this?

>>5163596
>there is no free-will
Citations please.

Even if free will is an illusion, it's so fan-fucking-tastic as one that you'll never tell the difference. So don't think about it, you might hurt yourself.

>>5163959
Cause and effect.

>>5163957
>What kind of caca-mimi modern/post-modern bullshit is this?

If you have no free will, and an action is simply the resultant output arising from the trillions of chemical reactions that have taken place in your brain prior to "your" action, then your experience of your action is simply an illusion of independent autonomy and free will. You really have no control over anything and consciousness, or "the self", is illusory.

>>5163948
I'm paraphrasing Sam Harris. He has a PhD in neuroscience.

>>5163991
Please look up the meaning of the word "illusion". An illusion is a (mis-)perception within your consciousness. Consciousness itself cannot be an illusion. You are producing semantical garbage.

If only Wittgenstein were here.

>>5164125
⇒Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen.

We don't need Wittgenstein to realize that metaphysics is pointless nonsense and should be avoided. Every child knows this.

>>5163596
Die Welt ist meine Vorstellung

>>5164139
>We don't need Wittgenstein to realize that metaphysics is pointless nonsense and should be avoided. Every child knows this.
>Every child knows this.

Zizek-tier sophism/10

>>5164013
Even if you were paraphrasing Harris, you still wouldn't be arguing science.

I'll just wait and see how I like.

>>5164210
Consciousness, perception and free will are topics of neuroscience.

>>5163970
What is quantum mechanics

>>5164013
appeal to authority you dumbshit, maybe you need a PhD in common sense

>>5164232
I don't know. I didn't study theoretical physics in depth and thus have only a layman's understanding of quantum theory.

>>5164223
Perception yes. Consciousness and free will, no, not really. Please learn more about neuroscience.

>>5164232
I love how "quantum mechanics" is the immediate go to argument for people who take issue with determinism. You can tell immediately that they don't actually understand the first thing about quantum mechanics.

>>5164255
>I love how "quantum mechanics" is the immediate go to argument for people who take issue with determinism. You can tell immediately that they don't actually understand the first thing about quantum mechanics.
Oh elighten us

>>5164232
>quantum mechanics
>invalidates the law of cause and effect
I'd hate to hear your take on Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment.

>>5164255
⇒Consciousness and free will, no, not really

Are you seriously suggesting they are magic? Please read Sam Harris. He solved the free will problem neuroscientifically. Also look up the Libet experiment. And just because neuroscience hasn't yet solved the hard problem of consciousness, this doesn't mean you can fill the holes with whatever /x/ fairy tale most appeals to you. The soft problems of consciousness are currently being researched and solved.

>>5164264
I'm not here to spoonfeed you your babby's first QM lesson.

>>5164274
>Are you seriously suggesting they are magic?
I'm seriously suggesting they don't exist or are grossly misunderstood by the likes of you.

>Please read Sam Harris. He solved the free will problem neuroscientifically.
I'm quite familiar with Sam Harris but just... Holy fuck I can't stop laughing. Jesus H Christ. I'm done.

>>5164275
I imagine you moonwalked into the sunset right after typing out this reply

>>5164284
⇒I'm seriously suggesting they don't exist
Of course free will doesn't exist. This is what neuroscience proved.

⇒or are grossly misunderstood by the likes of you.
Hahaha, a non-scientist tells me I misunderstood a scientific topic. My lels are in orbit.

>>5164291
>This is what neuroscience proved.
And you call me a "non-scientist"? Who do you even think you're talking to at this point. Please read the thread you dense fuck.

>a non-scientist tells me I misunderstood a scientific topic.
Yes. It's painfully obvious you have very little in terms of an actual scientific education.

>>5163672

Please tell me this isn't serious.

>>5164307
⇒Who do you even think you're talking to at this point.
I think I'm talking to a youtube comment tier pseudo-philosophical teenager.

⇒It's painfully obvious you have very little in terms of an actual scientific education.
I'm doing my PhD at a top tier research institute. Keep projecting, kid.

>>5164264

Quantum uncertainty resolved into classical determinism at the macroscopic scale. This is why you are not teleporting around constantly as your wavefunction interacts with the wavefunction of the cumrag you've left on your bed.

>>5163928
>science
lol fukken autistic nerd

>>5164274
>anything that isn't muh hard LE SCIENCE! is magic
retard

>>5164331
Besides, even if the wave function of elementary particles is non-deterministic we still don't have any control over it and thus no free will.

>>5164139
>metaphysics is pointless nonsense and should be avoided
Whatever science can do, philosophy can do infinitely better.
We don't need your puny little "science", what has it ever done?
That's right, nothing, and it can never do anymore than that.

>>5164329
>I'm doing my PhD at a top tier research institute. Keep projecting, kid.
You expect me to believe this after that drivel you just typed out back there? This is such obvious bullshit it's almost painful to read.

Unlike you, I actually am a PhD student. I've done my fair share of bench time as an undergrad and then some. As an undergrad I worked in genetics and neurobiology labs, I trained as a microbiologist in a government lab and I even co-authored a biogeography paper during that time. As a PhD student I'm currently investigating the effects of DNA methylation regarding certain psychiatric illnesses. Who the fuck are you?

>>5163596

I tend to think of it like a dream. Our brain takes images and thoughts in our head and tells us a story about them that we believe. It's the same thing when we're awake, except the "images" are our sensory experiences.

>>5164274
the terms in which you situate those concepts already makes them into /x/ fairy tales, you just like to assume you are correct because muh phd in neuroscience. In reality Harris is a third rate philosopher.

for instance, how do we know doing things unconsciously is not related to free will? perhaps what you see as cause and effect in the brain is subconsciously activated via free will. the free will then would decide to a lot of certain actions in a way designed for the quickest response in the human brain, it would choose to follow preset brain mechanics in many situations for survival. That doesn't negate free will. The science is too primitive, for one, and scientific methods are incapable of answering questions like this, and current scientists tend to ignore many things that don't fit into systems as yet, it's all built on a fuck of a lot of assumptions. Do you see the assumptions now?

you see a processor and assume determinism.

>>5164368

I walked bob dylan up on stage in 1975.

>>5164368
>I even co-authored a biogeography paper during that time.
post it

>>5164374
Have you ever read Kant?

>>5164361

>>5164388
Nope. Does he touch on this? If so I am intrigued.

>>5164384
I value my privacy too much to post something like that on 4chan of all places.

>>5164397
Yes, a lot too.
Read his Critique of Pure Reason

>>5164349
>>5164361
Consciousness is being researched by science. If science can't fully explain it, then nobody can. Philosophers are baselessly talking out of their ass on this topic and never produce anything of value.

>>5164368
⇒mfw you're proud of doing a soft science like biology
I'm so many levels above you in the hierarchy of sciences. You're a trained lab monkey. You've memorized a lot of shit and you've done a lot of lab work. That's all you ever did. At no point did you need any mathematical rigor or analytic skills. It's almost painful being forced to descend to your level by replying to you.

>>5164406
>a soft science like biology
>I'm so many levels above you in the hierarchy of sciences.
>At no point did you need any mathematical rigor or analytic skills
>The rest of this post
Thanks for letting us all know you're an obvious troll. Thanks for also admitting that you're not an actual PhD student. Thanks for also letting us all know that you're retarded.

>>5164406
>Consciousness is being researched by science.
Give us examples. Link some papers.

>>5164406
>muh empiricism!
>b-b-but any science that relys on it (even though all of it does) is shit!
>M-M-M-UH SCIENCE
science is retarded shit for nerds that doesn't even work
if science is so perfect why isn't there a science 2?

If the self is an illusory experience, you wouldn't be upset about it.

'Who' is the illusion fooling?

>>5164433
tmnt fucking sucks

>>5164439
you suck

I like books

>>5164423
I am still a PhD student. The fact that you're offended by the truths I posted doesn't change this. Come back when you have actual content to contribute instead of ad hominem.

>>5164428
>>>/google/

>>5163608
#rekt

>>5164445
ur mum sukd my dik
>>5164447
nerd

>>5164447
Get the fuck out of /lit/.

>>5164452
>I am still a PhD student.
No you're not. Sorry.

>The fact that you're offended by the truths I posted doesn't change this.
>But shitposters on /sci/ said there was a hierarchy of sciences! XKCD wouldn't lie to me! It's fact!
lol

>Come back when you have actual content to contribute instead of ad hominem
>ad hominem
Pic related

>/google/
>I have no argument.
Thanks for playing kiddo.

>>5164472
>oh no, she is smarter than me
>better insult her and deny her superiority

Your tears are showing. It's time to stop posting before you cut yourself.

>>5164433
>>5164439
>>5164445
>>5164447
Thanks for the OC /lit/.

>>5164482
How's that thesis coming along? Still trying to desperately get the last word in?

>>5164433
Illusion does not exist to 'fool' anyone. Mirage you see in a desert wasn't planted here to trick you, its just the way light bends. Now, imagine if your entire consciousness is the same kind of mirage formed inside your brain.

>>5164485 (You)
>(You)

>>5164494
>Mirage you see in a desert wasn't planted here to trick you
Yeah it was, God put it there to test our faith you retard.

>>5164482
>she

Nice try.

>>5164494
Who or what is perceiving the illusion of consciousness? How can a non-conscious observer perceive it?

>>5164496
Oops. Oh well. I still found it amusing.

>>5164503
Now you're even denying my gender? This is getting more and more pathetic. Spare yourself the tears and go back to whatever manchild board you came from.

>>5164507
>How can a non-conscious observer perceive it?
The same way your computer percieves keystrokes as you type them. Consciousness is in no way a required prerequisite for data perception and analysis

>>5164519
So you still have no actual argument then?

>>5164519
you're not officially a "she" until the doctor finally lops off that little excuse for a penis, no matter how many hormones you guzzle

>>5164528
But illusions are a content of consciousness. You're saying software can exist without a computer.

>>5163596

>People not knowing arrowstemfag is a grill

You guys are retarded/new as fuck.

>>5164537
>But illusions are a content of consciousness.
The fact that we can use the word "illusion" and agree on a conceptual meaning between us doesn't mean either one of us has "consciousness".

>>5164528
but you do a lot more than data perception and analysis. A computer does not perceive that it is a computer, does not think that it is a system of mirages. You are conscious.

>>5164544
a real womyn-born-womyn or a "gurl"?

>>5164544
Why am I supposed to keep up with what everyone's sex is?

>>5164544
Honestly who gives a fuck? Doesn't make him/her any less of a dumbass.

>>5164533
I was the only one who presented arguments ITT. Read the thread, dumbfuck.

>>5164503
arrow gril is a she but she left a while ago
now it's just neckbeards pretending to be her trolling

>>5164558
You, because you shitposted about it when if you lurk for more than a month it's obvious. Just shit up retard.

>>5164561
>I was the only one who presented arguments ITT.
Sloppy, poorly thought out, dead wrong or childish arguments perhaps.

>But Harris PROVED it because he has a PhD in Neuroscience!
>I am a PhD student because I like to lie on the internet.
>Muh sciences hierarchy.
>I can't provide any evidence for the point I was trying to make so I'll just direct them to google.

>>5164546
The definition of illusion presumes a conscious observer being aware of the contents of the illusion.

>>5164573
>You, because you shitposted about it when if you lurk for more than a month it's obvious.
I didn't though. I never brought up gender even once during the conversation.

>>5164551
>A computer does not perceive that it is a computer
Does a dog percieve that its a dog?
Does a frog?
A worm?
A virus?
A cell?
Are you implying that implying that consciousness is some of special property that stands unique, and not just an evolutionary trait we achieved after billions of iterations that were not self-aware?

>>5164576
It presumes no such thing.

>>5164581
>Are you implying that implying that consciousness is some of special property that stands unique
Yes, God gave it to us.

>>5164581
Why do you think consciousness and being self-aware are the same?

>>5164590

>>5163608
A mighty victory.

>>5164590
Actually, the forbidden fruit gave it to us. Adam and Eve were blissfully retarded before that

>>5164574
⇒>But Harris PROVED it because he has a PhD in Neuroscience!
Free will is a falsifiable hypothesis and it has been falsified by neuroscience. Maybe it wasn't Sam Harris who did the research, but he elegantly presents the results in a manner even understandable for non-science plebs like you. That's why I recommend to read him.

⇒>I am a PhD student because I like to lie on the internet.
Why are you so jelly of my position?

⇒>Muh sciences hierarchy.
Could you as a (self-proclaimed) biologist read and understand a research paper in physics, math or theoretical computer science? No, you couldn't because you're lacking the educational background. And that's not a matter of simply googling the definitions, it's a matter of years of university education. I on the other hand could easily understand a biology paper. Maybe I'd need to look up a few experimental methods mentioned in the paper, but that's a job of less than an hour on google, nothing indepth. Because biology is just a collection of facts and methods to be memorized mindlessly. Your daily research is intellectually undemanding and consists of boring lab work routine.

⇒>I can't provide any evidence for the point I was trying to make so I'll just direct them to google.
If you're too stupid to google something like "neuroscience research consciousness", then I highly doubt you ever studied biology, or attended any university at all.

>>5164581
The hard problem of consciousness exists and some day it will be solved by science. Until this happens, people like you will talk out of their uneducated ass and annoy everyone else with their baseless bullshit. Please kill yourself.

>>5164610
No that just gave us the knowledge of Good and Evil.

>>5164616
>it will be solved by science.
see >>5164361

>>5164623
Philosophy never solved a problem.

>>5164625
Yeah it has
Science hasn't done anything

>>5164628
What is the meaning of life?

>>5164625
Philosophy proved what justice is.

>>5164611
>Free will is a falsifiable hypothesis and it has been falsified by neuroscience.
Incorrect.

>Why are you so jelly of my position?
How can I be "jelly" of a position you don't actually have?

>Could you as a (self-proclaimed) biologist read and understand a research paper in physics, math or theoretical computer science?
Depends on the type of paper. Could you understand a research paper in any of the various fields of biology I've trained in? I doubt it. I doubt you'd understand any research paper in physics, math or theoretical computer science either.
>Because biology is just a collection of facts and methods to be memorized mindlessly.
Oh look, it's this argument again. Maybe if you keep shouting buzzwords you picked up off of freshmen from /sci/ they'll eventually come true.
>Your daily research is intellectually undemanding and consists of boring lab work routine.
What the fuck do you think goes on in labs in any other field? Virtually all lab work is routine and tedious. You can't honestly be this stupid.

>If you're too stupid to google something like "neuroscience research consciousness", then I highly doubt you ever studied biology, or attended any university at all.
Then why don't you go ahead and show us all your credentials at work and link some papers to back up your claims?

>>5164625
>Whatever science can do, philosophy can do infinitely better.
>what has it ever done?
>That's right, nothing
0 * ∞ = 0

>>5164625
Not true, philosophy solved unemployment problem for many fastfood corporations

>>5164633
whatever u want it 2 b bby ;)

>>5164616
>Please kill yourself
That really hurts you know. Do you ever think before saying stuff? What if do, and blame your post in my suicide note? I bet that'll teach you a lesson

>>5164368
>the effects of DNA methylation regarding certain psychiatric illnesses.

Could maybe sum up in brief? My dissertation was on transgenerational epigenetics so I'm always interested in keeping up with epigenetics research.

>>5164611
>name calling

Why bother?

>>5164658
Ame pls go

>>5164581
ok, I'm who you were actually replying to, and I don't really see what those questions have to do with it. I can't talk to a dog. I don't know if he perceives the same way we do, but if he does, he is also conscious. It doesn't really matter whether consciousness stands unique or is evolutionary (besides, what's the difference in those two categorizations?), it only matters that we have it and use it, it doesn't even matter if some scientists want to reduce it down to brain science, that won't change anything. It's the phenomenon itself that is important. Neither science or philosophy can disprove or change it.

I choose to ignore it

>>5164616
how's that? How does neuroscience even have anything to do with subjectivity? neuroscience can't reduce a personality to the brain, it is developed by experience. such fucking horseshit. its amazing the voodoo quality you types apply to philosophers when you're completely full of it.

How do u contradict self wen pointing out that soe's selfcontradictin, which is a contradiction in itself. Hem-aid, pls!...h asht ag

>>5164640
⇒Incorrect.
Your religious fairy tale beliefs do not invalidate scientific research.

⇒How can I be "jelly" of a position you don't actually have?
You're so jelly that you have to deny it. What makes it emotionally unbearable for you to be beaten by a PhD student? Why do you need to translate your uncomfortable feelings over losing the debate into baseless and ridiculous personal attacks? Are you emotionally unstable? Are you in psychotherapy? Do you take meds?

⇒Depends on the type of paper.
No, it really doesn't.

⇒Could you understand a research paper in any of the various fields of biology I've trained in?
By "trained in" you mean after you memorized simple instructions you received the official certificate saying you're legally allowed to work in a lab? Cool story. Literally any non-retard could do this.

⇒I doubt you'd understand any research paper in physics, math or theoretical computer science either.
Your hurt feelings do not affect my intellectual abilities. Cry harder.

⇒Maybe if you keep shouting buzzwords you picked up off of freshmen from /sci/ they'll eventually come true.
It's so funny how people of lower status in the hierarchy cannot imagine what it feels like to be in the upper ranks. I know several biology PhD students and whenever I talk to them I'm amazed by the low intellectual level they're operating on.

⇒What the fuck do you think goes on in labs in any other field? Virtually all lab work is routine and tedious.
I never claimed lab work was interesting. I'm glad I don't have to do any. But at least in physics the lab work occasionally has some non-trivial underlying theory.

⇒Then why don't you go ahead and show us all your credentials at work and link some papers to back up your claims?
Why don't you use the fucking google? I already told you what to search for. Are you cognitively impaired?

>>5164659
I'd rather not go too into detail regarding the specifics of my lab's research but suffice to say that certain molecules are regulators of DNA methylation and that deficiencies of these molecules may be linked with bipolar disorder and its treatment.

>>5164697
n o b o d y
c a r e s
n e r d
b y e
o k
:)

>>5164697
see >>5164361

>>5164697
>Your religious fairy tale beliefs do not invalidate scientific research.
I never made a single claim of religious belief. I even stated previously that I doubt free will exists. What the fuck are you even arguing child?

Your entire post only reinforces my previous assertions that you are a child. You haven't posted a single substantive piece of evidence or argument, instead opting to spam idiotic shit about like
>biology a hard science
Every step of the way you've gone out of your way to prove to me that you literally have no idea what your talking about.

>I never claimed lab work was interesting. I'm glad I don't have to do any.
I thought you were a PhD student? You don't have to do any lab work? How odd. Oh wait, that's right. Your entire post is bullshit.

Please just do yourself a favor and stop embarrassing yourself. This is far too amusing.

Could someone point out a flaw in this line of reasoning?

>Free will reflect decisions
>Decisions reflect brain states
>Brain states reflect biochemical reactions
>Biochemical reactions reflect stimuli internal and external to the brain
>internal and external stimuli reflect quantum mechanics
>therefore quantum mechanics reflects decision making
>free will is the ability to choose a different path under the same conditions.
>we have no control over quantum mechanics
>therefore we have no control over our decisions


I've never studied philosophy or logic; but does this make sense?

>>5164697
>It's so funny how people of lower status in the hierarchy cannot imagine what it feels like to be in the upper ranks. I know several biology PhD students and whenever I talk to them I'm amazed by the low intellectual level they're operating on.
This is what non-scientists actually believe.

>>5164727
⇒I never made a single claim of religious belief
You are defending free will even though it has been scientifically disproved.

⇒Your entire post only reinforces my previous assertions that you are a child.
You call me a child because you can't argue against the facts I posted? How childish.

⇒You haven't posted a single substantive piece of evidence or argument
I posted a shitload of arguments and I told you what to google.

⇒you've gone out of your way to prove to me that you literally have no idea what your talking about.
This doesn't even make any sense. Unlike you I know what I'm talking about. You're posting gibberish. Come back when you finished crying. Your emotional perturbation is affecting your (very limited) cognitive functions.

⇒I thought you were a PhD student? You don't have to do any lab work?
Yes, there is more to science than lab work. If you ever attended a university, you'd know this. Even biology has theoretical branches. Thanks for admitting that you've never seen an educational institution from the inside.

>>5164777
>scientifically disproved.
>M-M-M-MUH S-SCIENCE
lol

>>5164777
No really. You can stop posting. It's all very funny but you're just digging yourself even deeper every time you post. I could go out of my way to point out specific sentences you just typed but this is getting very tiring.

Just remember that you have to be 18 years or older to post on 4chan. Also if you're going to try and argue science with me, next time I highly suggest you try to be a little less obvious in your trolling or perhaps actually try and understand what it is you're talking about.

I'm done with you though. You've provided an amusing little distraction but I've got some assays I need to look at a bit later tonight, so bye.

>>5163794
>fair-haired, blue-eyed Conan
Disgusting. Conan is black-haired, black-eyed.

>>5164796
What a pathetic response. Your ignorance has been called out. A mature person would admit that he was wrong and then be thankful for the correction. I hope you learned something today.

>>5164815
You'd do well to take heed of your own advice.

ITT a bunch of dummies wasting time replying to someone parading as the /sci/ troll (poorly, I might add).

>mfw

Man can do as he wills, but he can't will what he wills.

>>5164818
Did you even read the thread? This "biologist" guy seriously claimed there is no research on consciousness. He also never heard of math, theoretical physics and theoretical computer science and is therefore unaware that research in these fields does not require lab work. Troll or high schooler - I don't care, but he's a hilarious dumbass.

>special snowflake arrowman using 'Google Sam Harris' as his 'proof'
were free will threads ever good?

>>5163596
>there is no free-will
Because I don't have the choice not to.

>>5164837
>Did you even read the thread?
I did. You didn't obviously. That and you're an obvious troll.

By knowing that knowing that changes nothing and so does not change my behavior.

In other words, just as I always did.

>>5164842
I'm still not a man and why the fuck would I waste my time typing out a longer explanation on the non-existence of free will, when Sam Harris has already done this?

>>5164849
Sam Whorris?

>>5164849
Why is Sam Harris your only source of argument? Why is he so obviously right and beyond criticism?

>>5164846
Show me one post where you think I "trolled". Some of my facts might offend you but they're facts nonetheless.

>mfw when they're still replying.

As long as the illusion is perfect enough for us humans, and it is, it don't give a shit (outside debate).
In the same vein you could ask about brain-in-the-vat or the true resolution of the world, and you'd just the same at this very conclusion.

>>5164862
Not that guy, but if you read "Free Will" (I think it's less than 90 pages) you'd see. It's pretty definitive. I've looked for criticisms against his book and found nothing convincing.

>>5164728
This is exactly right as far as disproving the "QM refutes determinism" argument for free will goes.

>>5164864
Take your pick of just about any of your posts.
>facts
Opinions =/= facts anon.

>>5164866
I know I shouldn't but I find it kind of fun. Sorry.

>>5164862
He is a great educator with a original entertaining style and other qualities. His books are a good summary of contemporary research on free will for the non-science audience.

>>5164881
I did not post any opinions.

>>5164866
My face when you're so sure you know that you don't even entertain the possibility that perhaps you don't.

>>5164897
You actually posted pretty much nothing but opinions.

>>5164905
Show me one opinion I posted.

>>5164908
See >>5164881
>Take your pick of just about any of your posts.

>>5164875

No, it's not definitive.

Harris thinks that he has proven determinism, and therefore the "irrationality" of a number of our judicial policies. His solution is reform. But if determinism is true, there's nothing that we can ACTUALLY CHOOSE TO DO, in good faith, that would bring about such reforms. They will either happen, or they won't--end of story.

Free will, or some for of agency, is a necessary presupposition of any practical reasoning. Harris demonstrates this remarkably, if only unintentionally.

>>5164913
My posts are full of facts. I can't see any opinions in there. Prove me wrong.

>>5164919
He had no other choice.

>>5164919
>Harris thinks that he has proven determinism, and therefore the "irrationality" of a number of our judicial policies. His solution is reform.

Translation:
>la, la, la, look at me, I haven't read a fucking word Harris wrote, la, la, la.

You can't fake your way through this one, retard.

>>5164925
I could very easily point out all the opinions lauded as facts that you posted, but you'd just outright deny it and claim superiority anyways, so I don't see much point in bothering.

>>5164919
Why are you posting kindgarten tier pseudo-philospohical sophistry? We were talking about science. The neuroscience presented by Sam Harris is indisputable.

>>5164938
Unlike you I'm willing to change my mind when facing convincing evidence. I'm a scieintist and not a philosopher. I work with facts, not with dogma.

>>5164935

What's incorrect about what I wrote?

>>5164942

Dude, stop. You don't even do a good impression of her.

>>5164935
I wonder what Sam Harris would think if he saw that someone as uneducated or irrational as you was actually trying to argue in his defense?

>>5164942
>The neuroscience presented by Sam Harris is indisputable

So much cancer.

>>5164951
>I'm a scieintist and not a philosopher. I work with facts, not with dogma.
No you're not. And no you don't.

>>5164952
>What's incorrect about what I wrote?

1. Harris doesn't claim to have proven determinism.
2. Harris doesn't draw attention to anything like "irrationality" of judicial policies (only brings up that they're now under question).
3. Harris's solution isn't reform, and he never calls for it.

You fail.

>>5164952
You didn't address the neuroscience.

>>5164954
⇒ad hominem

>>5164956
⇒posts infantile cartoon
⇒complains about cancer
Oh the irony.

>>5164964
⇒ad hominem

>>5164951
What the literal fuck? Science is all dogma. Blind acceptance of the material world as being absolute and faith in the scientific method is dogma.

>>5164954
He'd care far more about 'tards misinterpreting and making up out of whole cloth things he "said".

>>5164973
>ad hominem
Do you not understand what words mean?

>>5164976
⇒muh sky daddy
⇒muh magic

Science made religion and philosophy obsolete. Deal with it.

>>5164985
⇒projection

>>5164979
So basically you?

>>5164995
Thanks for confirming my suspicions.

>>5164998
>you
>no you

Great discourse, moron. Might want to take a break from the internet. Come back when you have less time.

>>5164987

Okay, i'll play along. Philosophy made science obsolete.

how do you live with the reality that you have no friends and you cant connect with other human beings and the loneliness is crushing

>>5165008
I see irony is beyond your comprehension.

>>5164968

>Harris doesn't claim to have proven determinism
He might not outright say, "Look guys, I've done proven determinism," but he's arguing from the hard-determinist position, and he offers what he considers strong evidence in support of that position, which is in effect a similar thing. Maybe I was being a little rhetorical. You could stand to take things less literal, especially on 4chan.

If our policies towards criminals and others are now under deep suspicion, it is implied that we ought to go about changing these policies. Hence reform.

In any case, the very basic criticism still stands strong. Another thesis of Harris' is that we can come to an understanding of what is objectively "good" for human beings through scientific research. Again, if what is revealed by science to be "good" for us is at odds with any common practice, it is implied that we should reform that common practice to be better in line with what is "good" for us. But this presupposes the ability to do such a thing which, by Harris' own argument, is impossible.

>>5165018
By keeeping myself occupied with enjoying all the vices in life

>>5165019
Beyond as in below or beneath? Sure, kid.

>>5163596
Apathetically.

>>5165004
⇒schizophasia
Go see a doctor.

>>5165014
Your conception of humor is repugnantly autistic. Protip: When people are laughing, the don't laugh _with_ you, they laugh _at_ you.

>>5165014
wittgenstein made philosophy obsolete

>>5165031
>But this presupposes the ability to do such a thing which, by Harris' own argument, is impossible.

How so?

>>5165036
That gets old once you stop being a child. Then again, some people are stunted and never outrgrow stupid shit. You are one of those people.

>>5165047
Wittgenstein was wrong.

>>5163608
BTFO

>>5165047
This.

Wittgenstein is the very end of philosophy. It speaks volumes about /lit/ that people waste their fucking time with Bertrand Russell--a mere clod of mortar which supports nothing at all--when Wittgenstein is THE capstone.

This problem does not affect me because I haven't yet established that I exist, let alone that reality exists.

AM I BEING PROFOUND YET??

#philosophy
#FuckScience
#2kewl4school
#FedorasAreAwesome

>>5165042
⇒Your conception of humor is repugnantly autistic.

No, why dont you go to wikipedia and read on nietzche's ideas on humour. Cause you're obviously so wrong!

>>5165068
That's quite presumptuous anon. I mean, I understand perfectly why you would claim such a thing, but it's still presumptuous nonetheless.

>>5165078
Get your own implication arrow, faglord.

⇒nietzche's ideas on humour
Nietzsche was german and he died a virgin. He had no humor.

>>5165051

To use the reform example:

Change in practice can happen mainly in two ways (or, rather, these are the ways that concern us). Either people engaged in a certain practice CHOOSE to alter that practice (reform), or that practice changes gradually over time, through random alterations in the behavior of those who practice it. The first way seems to be what Harris has in mind when it comes to our moral responsibilities. The second way is pretty much the only way actually open to us, given his account of free will and human psychology.

>>5165072
Cogito ergo sum

>>5163596
I live exactly as I did before. Why is this even contentious?

⇒Get your own implication arrow, faglord

But this arrow is public domain though.

>>5165110
Prove to me that you do either of those. Or that I do for that matter.

>>5165068
>>5165047

No.

In the TLP, Wittgenstein raised a mirror to logical positivism and revealed it's own limits. That's it. The "philosophy" that was ended was the budding "analytic" philosophy.

Wittgenstein didn't think you should dedicate your life to philosophical pursuits. That's probably sound advice, but he didn't follow it himself.

>>5165093
⇒>>5165123

>>5165110
⇒Cogito ergo sum

The full quote is "Cogito ergo sum atheos" - "I think, therefore I am atheist".

>>5165036

while i do medicate as needed, i find that stuff to mostly be a distraction/shallow indulgence

i want companionship with other humans but ive isolated myself so perfectly that it probably cant be done

>feel

>>5165072
Everything you perceive, including yourself, is a determination of substance.

>>5165142
I disagree. Prove me wrong.

>>5165141
I went from isolation to being one of the most attractive/popular people in my environment, and I discovered I don't find this kind of life satisfying after all. Regrets all around. But you won't know unless you've tasted it for yourself, I suppose.

>>5165155
Proof: you're wrong.

>>5165160
>I went from isolation to being one of the most attractive/popular people in my environment
H-how?...

>>5165139
⇒The full quote is "Cogito ergo sum atheos" - "I think, therefore I am atheist".

Wrong!

>>5165170
I don't actually know. It just happened.

>>5165173
⇒replying seriously to a joke
⇒literal autism

>>5165183
>⇒stop using these fucking arrows

>>5165183
⇒thinking it was serious
⇒literal autistic

>>5165189
⇒backpedaling

>>5163991
You worded OP poorly.

You should have said it like this: "Since there is no free will, there is no personal autonomy. Any notion that a person has autonomy over themselves merely self-deception. How then does one live under such a pretense."

I have an answer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medusa#Nihilism

Slay the medusa that is the nihilism which haunts you as you fight for the truth.

>>5165204
⇒pedaling at all
⇒not owing a car

>>5165222
⇒having only one car

poorfag pls

>>5164728
Greedy reductionism

>>5164728
Ultimate causation is what you're looking for.

Dumb nigger.

>>5165240
⇒this much implying

I own 5 cars, a helicopter and a sphinx.

>>5165155
Subtance: a particular category of matter with certain properties.

If you are able to perceive such matter to deny the existence of, such as the blue light coming from your monitor, you cannot deny its existence from the plane in which you perceive it.

>>5164728
>>5165246

indeed. It's a bit indirect but if you read this a few times it'll make sense:

> http://organizations.utep.edu/portals/1475/nagel_bat.pdf

>>5165260
I can deny facts very hard. I'm a professional philosopher.

>>5165270
Oh, wow. That's a long time since I've read that one. Thanks. Rereading.

>>5164728
You're assuming complete knowledge of causation where none exists.

>>5165155
All appearances stem from substance, and you obviously perceive.

>>5165280
But... what if your eyes aren't real?

>>5165280
>hurr

>>5165285
But we do.

>>5165312
Good summary of philosophy.

>>5165280

That's an easy reality, you don't have to take blame for your fuckups and if you never do anything with your life, you can say, "I far smarter and greater than others, but it is destiny that I analyze rather than partake."

>>5165366
But they do, there are whole committees that work with "actual scientists".
Are you also denying that theoretical physicists are scientists.

>>5165366
>Rekt
Shouldn't you be having a circle jerk on twitter or some shit?

>>5165280
you are a troller, now get out of /LIT/ "professional philosopher"

>>5163608
>relationship between axiology and ontology

What is the relationship between axiology and ontology?

>>5165415
None. Nothing good comes from the sky.*

*Except rain.

>>5165321
No we do not. We do not understand the causation for quantum particles. Also, your very basic intuitions of causation are probably too narrow. Let's assume the axiomatic deduction "all objects that have mass have gravity" is true. This means that, the total summation of force on any one object of mass has to include the force between all objects of mass in the entire universe. Granted, only an impossibly small amount of the mass in the universe has a significant effect on force, but it is still part of the equation.

Similarly if you think you can walk up to a river and not effect it, then you're making the same mistake. The light that comes off your person travels at different wavelengths and alters the river.

The point is that ultimately, everything interacts in innumerable ways. We may be able to represent some aspects with rough mechanisms but ultimately it's incomplete. The amount of data is too large; a Turing complete model of the universe is a contradiction

>>5165447
>rain
>good
trigger warning that shit next time. My entire family was raped and murdered by a patriarchal flood.

>>5165458
>We do not understand the causation for quantum particles
Doesn't matter, physics is reliant on time, and cause and effect is not temporal.

>>5165475
Physics does not rely on time. Go watch videos on Einsteins relativity theories (or read the papers if you are so inclined). Much of classic mechanical physics only holds true in our "arena" of experience.

>>5165488
>Einsteins relativity theories (or read the papers if you are so inclined).
They still take time into account.

>>5165498
..no they actually are the source of implications about time. The relativity theories imply time is not linear, and if time isn't linear then it is spatial. If true, it implies that time is a product of physics, not the other way around.

I'd just like to point out how shit the mods are on this board for letting this bullshit philosophy thread go on where the original post mentions nothing whatsoever about books yet they delete the movie thread after it's gotten >200 replies. Silly cunts.

>>5165525

Also, not to mention how many godawful feminist threads that drag on. How fucking stupid are you, mods?

Something has to sound vaguely intellectual or academic to meet the arbitrary cut? Way to contribute to the shittifying of this board.

>>5165525
This isn't your space. You can do whatever you want, but there will be consequences. I highly doubt you're going to solve the problem by this methodology

>>5165509
>time is not linear
Thermodynamics

>>5165549
How does thermodynamics prove the linearity of time?

>>5165549
A good number of foundational literary works deal with non-linear time, see prophecy.

>>5165558
Second law

>>5165558
It does. Check some courses outside the humanities curriculum, namefag.

>>5165475

cause and effect is temporal as fuck

im inclined to say its just really really accurately measured and quantified spatio-temporal contiguity. we never observe the power of causation, the power of necessary effect, only the constant conjunction of cause and effect (Hume here), in physics, everything is reduced to motion and radiation/absorption (except some mysterious quantum stuff, but causation is a classical physical conception I would think, quantum indeterminacy is not causation, though there is a causal nature to other parts of the quantum physics)

>>5165569
How does that imply anything about time?

>>5165576
>im inclined to say its just really really accurately measured and quantified spatio-temporal contiguity.

And this is the same /lit/ where I, newly arrived a week ago, was scolded for my love of sci-fi.

>>5165571
If it's such a great proof, then restate it. If you can't articulate it then you clearly don't understand what you're talking about

>>5165581
Energy systems infinitely digress into states of lower energy. At each stage, energy is lost to inefficient conversion, also called heat.

Local maxima of complexity and higher energies are temporary, as the quantity of usable energy decreases. To make matters more interesting, island of mater are being torn apart over gigayears by black energy.

>>5165584
Time and causality are philosophy, not sci-fi.
>>5165509
>if time isn't linear
It is, read some Kant, we can't perceive time in another fashion, and ultimately time is an appearance of substance.

>>5165588
Good enough for you?

>>5165581
Thermodynamic processes (i.e. fucking everything) cannot be reversed. Time flows in but one direction. Even if you could reverse a process, when run a second time probability dictates that it would not be the same as the first.

>>5165595
Kant's still working in a newtonian universe, where time could be reversible.

>>5165595

>Read some Kant

Read some Reichenbach, then read some Michael Friedman on the subject.

http://www.naturalthinker.net/trl/texts/Science/M.Friedman%20-%20Kant,%20Kuhn,%20and%20the%20Rationality%20of%20Science.pdf

>>5163608
#badboy

>>5165594
>>5165596
>>5165613
Holy fuck guys, are you stupid? I never said you can go "back" in time

>>5165716
Then what did you mean with the nonlinearity of time? Cause usually, that's what's understood with nonlinear time: a kind of time where past, present and features resolve into eachother without a seam. Classic example is Hume's pooltable.

>>5165733
>features
>Hume
fuck I need to sleep

>>5165733
>>5165733
What I mean is it makes no sense to describe "simultaneous" events; because you can't reduce time to frames where everything is absolutely in one position. Time doesn't work that way.

>>5165766

It does in Newtonian mechanics, which is, I think, where the confusion is coming from. These guys seem to think we still view the universe as Newtonian, which we most definitely do not.

>>5165778
Reference frames and the limit to the speed of distribution of information do not prevent a realistic model of time where each time frame exists of and for itself. Frames simply encode their deterministic past and their non-deterministic possibilities.

>>5165778
Well yeah, and that's the problem. There may be something like "time" that transcends the "time" we think of intuitively, but they are functionally different.

In any case, fundamentally I do believe the entire universe is a reducible system (for instance, the mass of a solid is equal to the mass of it's atoms summed), but like I said the whole system of causation is so complex that we can't ever understand it in practice. Any one identifiable physical item has infinite causations, in order to completely objectify one item we must objectify them all, which is impossible

>>5165787
"Nondeterministic" precludes complete understanding, and thus the reductionist model.

>>5165814
>"Nondeterministic" precludes complete understanding
Here's a word you need to understand: probabilistic.

>>5165823
Here's a word you need to understand: deterministic

>>5163596
Free will exists.

Prove me wrong, neckbeards.

>>5166126
I don't want t... aww shit.

>>5166126
Will yourself into wanting to cut yourself.

We don't have free will, ergo we don't need it.

And illusory in comparison to what? Define something more real or empirically given than the self.

>>5163596
there is no but a clash of wills within every human being
And the greatest will of all of THE WILL TO POWER

>>5166302
Patterns.

>>5163596
One day at a time.

>>5163596
Its like watching a movie, I get to see what my genetic configuration does and its fun even if my genes decide to an hero

For how long can this ⇒ bullshit go on. Just how much steam does a single autist have?

>>5168343
at least another -1/12 years

>>5163934
Horrible

>>5168792
top lel

>>5163596
Just because the consciousness is only a sum of it's parts doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Sure, it isn't an individual magical entity, but it's still something we can experience. Books are just a combination of ink blots on paper, Vidya games are just lines of code and pixels, but the illusions that they create are still tangible to us.

>>5164625
That's the point

>>5166126
You do not control or understands the chemical states in your brain that propitiate your behaviour.

>>5163596
i'm really fine with that

there is no other right approach to life but unquestioning materialism

>>5163596
only racist neckbeards believe in bullshit like biological determinism

go back to /pol/

I don't. Noone does, on an emotional level, since we can only understand it on abstract levels.

well if the self is an illusion then there's no "you" to live with the reality of there not being free-will

Not literature.

>>5163596

>>5168812
get greenpilled nigga

/lit/ - pseudo-intellectual random

>>5171520
Fine by me, I actually enjoy being a pseudo-intellectual.

>almost 300 replies
Holy shit, why does anyone give a damn about whether we have free will? One of the worst questions.

There's no free will?

Damn.

Well, I guess I'll just have to live with that.