/lit/ - Literature

>>6040867
https://www.youtube.com/watch?x-yt-cl=84503534&x-yt-ts=1421914688&v=J3fhKRJNNTA

How would you refute him?

WHAT. A. NAIVE. IDIOT.

*EXECUTE AMUSEMENT PROGRAM*

HA. HA. HA.

>>6040886
With his own statements.

He cites the experiment that shows decisions are made before a person experiences them, yet still claims we have agency over such decisions.

Free will is essential to his political writing.

He's an overrated idiot.

the question is dumb, the answer is dumb, what did you expect?

>>6040894

This is funny, but accurate, life is a complicated pinball game.

>>6040912

It's just funny that people take him so seriously, yet he is so so thick on free will.

>>6040910
The point is that the decision being present in the unconscious before it's made has fuck all to do with what we call agency.

I honestly can't believe there are still idiots who think we don't have free will

>>6040936
You are looking at it on a surface level only. It's so obvious there is no free will once you start examining your own life.

Give an example of free will you have experienced.

I would like to see hard determinists explain the nature of arbitrarity without mental gymnastics

>>6040936
>The point is that the decision being present in the unconscious before it's made has fuck all to do with what we call agency.

You just think you have agency.

>>6040949

Things just appear arbitrary, it's a matter of perspective.

>>6040945
No, you're looking at it on a reductive level only. I'm saying the fact that are made of a biological mechanism doesn't disprove free will. Which, by the way, is the most popular position among philosophers.

>Give an example of free will you have experienced
Fucking anything. Raising my arm.
>"But that was caused by your unconscious brain!"
So what? That has nothing to do with what we call agency and choice.

Watch the first half of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRmQ3eHhdqk

>>6040867
I think this is a job for our hero Sam Harris

>>6040949

Give an example of something you think is arbitrary.

>>6040958
I don't think. I don't have the agency to do it.

>>6040964
>Fucking anything. Raising my arm.
The argument against that is you only raised your arm because you were incited to express your free will, and therefore did it only as the effect of telling you to express your free will. Not as an objective expression of free will.

>>6040964

You don't "dissprove" free will. You have to prove it, but you can't.

Raising your arm doesn't prove free will.

>>6040969

You do think, and you're right you don't have agency over your thoughts. You don't will the will.

>>6040970

This

I am surrounded by morons

>>6040967
It's one of those days of the week in which I don't feel like cooking.
I decide to have either pizza or a burger, both of which I objectively like equally.
There are no external influences pushing me towards one over the other.
The stores are side-by-side, and I stand in the middle.

Without any thought or internal discussion whatsoever, I just go inside one of them.
Not because I prefer one over the other, even just in that moment. I just act, simple as that.

Explain to me, apart from the obvious context of why I am in front of fast food stores (because it was a hard day, yada-yada), how arbitrarity such as that is explainable?

>Without any thought or internal discussion whatsoever, I just go inside one of them

>I feel totally free, therefore I'm free
Every time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mthDxnFXs9k

>>6041012
>I just act, simple as that.

Thank you for proving there is no free will.


Joking, but you can't just pick a situation out in a vacuum. Why didn't you feel like cooking?

>There are no external influences pushing me towards one over the other.

Just because you are not aware of the external influences doesn't mean they're not there. Besides, there are, the pizza and burger store are external influences. The fact that you know what burgers and pizza are is another, and this continues.

>Explain to me, apart from the obvious context of why I am in front of fast food stores (because it was a hard day, yada-yada)

This is not a middling factor.

>>6040970
The problem is the word "only". You could about the atoms in my brain bouncing off each other , but it's still irrelevant. I was free to have moved my foot instead of my arm, there's nothing mysterious about that statement.
>objective expression of free will
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Free will isn't an object, it's not a thing.

>>6040984
No I don't. You're the one who gets confused as soon as you posit a distinction between determinism and free will, since you don't even have a coherent conception of free will.

What were you expecting to find in a brain that would prove free will? A soul?

>>6041040
To elaborate a bit on this, studying the biological mechanisms of a wolf will tell you absolutely nothing about the behaviours of a wolf pack. There would be nothing there to tell you what condition influence the wolf pack to take certain courses of action when hunting. It's the same sort of thing with free will.

>>6041040
>No I don't. You're the one who gets confused as soon as you posit a distinction between determinism and free will, since you don't even have a coherent conception of free will.


You don't even understand how the burden of proof works.

Sorry m8

>>6041040
>What were you expecting to find in a brain that would prove free will? A soul?

Typical of someone who can't wrap their head around the idea that if there is no free will then there had to be a mystical element in it's place.

What is the force that is deciding for me whether I shitpost more or go to bed now?

They're both so compelling.

>>6041060
>thinks free will is an empirical claim

No problem.

>>6041040
>I was free to have moved my foot instead of my arm, there's nothing mysterious about that statement.


No you weren't.

>>6041073
Is defying my physical need to sleep an act of free will?

Or is it just an attempt to defy the notion that I don't have free will, and therefore a product of that notion and not my own free will?

>>6041040
>I was free to have moved my foot instead of my arm, there's nothing mysterious about that statement.


This is really how the average person would prove free will.

kek

>>6041070
Hahahahaha way to prove my exact point.

>>6041078
>>6041085
So when you goes go about life and someone randomly punches you on the street do you just say "well, he couldn't have done otherwise!"

>>6041098
He literally couldn't have, because the action is over, he already punched your face.

Even the most reductionist philosopher there is believes in free will:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Utai74HjPJE

>>6041098

He couldn't.
At first glance it seems random, especially when you isolate the one action, but nothing is that way.

We both could have only been on the street at that point, even if I avoided the punch wouldn't prove I had free will to avoid it, I avoided it as a result of him throwing the punch.

There is always a cause for that

>>6041104
Literally all you're saying here is that the action has already happened. Even a metaphysical libertarian (believes in free will but not determinism) would agree with that.

>>6041119
Nothing is random when you're only looking at the atomic level (forget quantum mechanics for now). But at that level there isn't such thing as a punch either. Different levels of explanation.

I'm not sure this is deja vu but I'm under the impression this whole thread has happened before, down to specific posts...

>>6041121

Maybe the puncher had mental issues, that were inflamed by my red shirt.

Maybe he mistook me for someone else.

Maybe he was on drugs.


and so on.

>>6041119
>even if I avoided the punch wouldn't prove I had free will to avoid it
What do you think "free will" means?

>>6041133
Just like the Nietzsche, Harris, Rand, Steiner, Joyce, Green, Mishima, christianity and antinatalism threads.

>>6041135
Ok, what does any of that have to do with free will?

>>6041119
doesn't the word random, or arbitrary, ontologically prove the existence of random or arbitrary behavior

or is there no such thing as random or arbitrary behavior, and those things only came about through misunderstanding seemingly-random or seemingly-arbitrary behavior?

>>6041140

The common belief that we can do whatever we like whenever we like, and have total agency over these actions.

>>6041148
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

>>6041143
>Steiner

>>6041148
>doesn't the word random, or arbitrary, ontologically prove the existence of random or arbitrary behavior

lol no. Those are just words, call it chingy chongy if you like.

>or is there no such thing as random or arbitrary behavior, and those things only came about through misunderstanding seemingly-random or seemingly-arbitrary behavior

exactly this

>>6041147

Well that was to do with randomness, those causes are not known to someone who thinks they were randomly punched on the street.

>>6041151
Nobody believes we can do that. We can't fly. If we're tied to a chair we can't walk. If we're having a panic attack we can't breathe. But under the limitations of having a physical body, there are loads of things we can do whenever we like. What's wrong with that?

And define "total agency"

>>6041164
That's what "random" means.

>>6041159
>lol no. Those are just words, call it chingy chongy if you like.
Have you ever heard of the "linguistic turn"?

>Christian
>want to believe in determinism
>don't want to be a Calvanist heretic
>don't want to be a heathen
wat do

>>6041171
>Nobody believes we can do that.

I'd say 99% percent of people believe that.

> We can't fly

Don't be an idiot.

> If we're tied to a chair we can't walk.

That's exactly right.

> But under the limitations of having a physical body, there are loads of things we can do whenever we like.

At first glance it appears so, but on closer examination the opposite is true.

>>6041174

That's not what was being asked though in the punching question.

>>6041175

kek

>>6041174
>Have you ever heard of the "linguistic turn"?

Yeah it's bs

>>6041182
>At first glance it appears so, but on closer examination the opposite is true.
You're failing to see my point of view and we're going in circles. Do you think I don't know this? I believed in hard determinism as well once, and after further reading just realised is was based on a false assumptions. There isn't any contradiction in saying that I make choices and I'm a biological mechanism. What you're doing is privileging the mechanistic foundations over what you call a "first glance", and that's just false. They are completely different levels of explanation and none is more true or right than the other. Like I said earlier, studying the biology of a wolf tells you nothing about wolf packs. Likewise, studying the brain tells you nothing about human decision making. Just because it has a mechanistic foundation doesn't mean it's JUST that. Read Ryle's Concept of Mind. Or any post-linguistic turn philosopher for that matter.

>>6041193
Welp, that's that sorted. I guess philosophy can stop now, science has looked at all the atoms and didn't find any free wills or moralitys.

Isn't it then plausible to acknowledge seemingly-random or seemingly-arbitrary behavior as what we realistically grasp and describe as actual random or arbitrary behavior?
What I mean is, while those things might actually have some long-running explanation for their occurrence, that simply isn't realistically applicable in society.
Like what is known as a 'random' act of violence. I'm sure there are plenty of reasons like proximity, time, etc. for a bad coincidence such as that.
We know it as 'wrong place, wrong time'. It's just like we know that seemingly-random/arbitrary behavior has explanation, but if it IS seemingly-random/arbitrary without any relevant context or history, then it's known as random/arbitrary behavior because it may as well be.

In simple terms, every occuring action is the result of every action preceding it.

Cause -> effect

Since we can't really comprehend every action it gives the illusion of free will.

I don't think I will argue with you today OP but rest assured you're still a moron.

>>6041216
>I guess philosophy can stop now

Definitely, it's a joke.

>>6041245
>Cause -> effect

Oh shit man I didn't know this. Are you a scientist?

>>6041245
We believe that every thing and every event must have a cause, that is, some other thing(s) or event(s), and that it will in its turn be the cause of other effects. So how does a cause lead to an effect? To make it much worse, if all that I think or do is a set of effects, there must be causes for all of them going back into an indefinite past. If so, I can't help what I do. I am simply a puppet pulled by strings that go back into times far beyond my vision.

Again, this is a problem which comes from asking the wrong question. Here is someone who has never seen a cat. He is looking through a narrow slit in a fence, and, on the other side, a cat walks by. He sees first the head, then the less distinctly shaped furry trunk, and then the tail. Extraordinary! The cat turns round and walks back, and again he sees the head, and a little later the tail. This sequence begins to look like something regular and reliable. Yet again, the cat turns round, and he witnesses the same regular sequence: first the head, and later the tail. Thereupon he reasons that the event head is the invariable and necessary cause of the event tail, which is the head's effect. This absurd and confusing gobbledygook comes from his failure to see that head and tail go together; they are all one cat.

The cat wasn't born as a head which, sometime later, caused a tail; it was born all of a piece, a head-tailed cat. Our observer's trouble was that he was watching it through a narrow slit, and couldn't see the whole cat at once.

>>6041255

>I-I don't have the ability to do so, instead I will just try to insult you OP

k thanx bebe

>>6041267

Yet you still think there is free will. You shouldn't be using sarcasm m8.

>>6041276
He couldn't have done otherwise

>>6041213
all you did was change the definition of free will to change your opinion.

Also, how do you think philosophers know anything about the physicists domain? Free Will/ determinism is obscured by philosophers and cleared by scientists.

i skimmed wikipedia and found this

> behaviorism may insist that stimulus-response mechanisms produce the behavioral responses of the conscious individual

surely this is not your main defense against determinism, and if not please tell me what is

also saying shit like
>studying the biology of a wolf doesn't tell you about wolf packs
yes it does, that is a complete fallacy
you are saying "we can't completely understand wolfs brains so that means the inner workings are "hidden" or some shit"
Wait 30 years when we will be able to map a complete wolf brain, stick it in a simulation with 20 other wolf brains and let them create a pack, then the neurobiology will tell us about wolf packs

>>6041280
lol, trust me, me and 90% of philosophers are doing just fine

>>6041273
>We believe that every thing and every event must have a cause, that is, some other thing(s) or event(s), and that it will in its turn be the cause of other effects. So how does a cause lead to an effect? To make it much worse, if all that I think or do is a set of effects, there must be causes for all of them going back into an indefinite past. If so, I can't help what I do. I am simply a puppet pulled by strings that go back into times far beyond my vision.

Exactly correct.

>>6041273
this is in agreement with the previous post I reckon

>>6041273
>Our observer's trouble was that he was watching it through a narrow slit, and couldn't see the whole cat at once.


Your observers trouble was caused by whoever told him to observe things in such a manner

>>6041286
nice fallacy

>>6041287
The narrow slit in the fence is much like the way in which we look at life by conscious attention, for when we attend to something we ignore everything else. Attention is narrowed perception. It is a way of looking at life bit by bit, using memory to string the bits together-as when examining a dark room with a flashlight having a very narrow beam. Perception thus narrowed has the advantage of being sharp and bright, but it has to focus on one area of the world after another, and one feature after another. And where there are no features, only space or uniform surfaces, it somehow gets bored and searches about for more features. Attention is therefore something like a scanning mechanism in radar or television, and Norbert Wiener and his colleagues found some evidence that there is a similar process in the brain.

But a scanning process that observes the world bit by bit soon persuades its user that the world is a great collection of bits, and these he calls separate things or events. We often say that you can only think of one thing at a time. The truth is that in looking at the world bit by bit we convince ourselves that it consists of separate things, and so give ourselves the problem of how these things are connected and how they cause and effect each other. The problem would never have arisen if we had been aware that it was just our way of looking at the world which had chopped it up into separate bits, things, events, causes, and effects. We do not see that the world is all of a piece like the head-tailed cat.

>>6041267
That's the thing, it's so simple a child could understand yet people like you see cause/effect and free will as two seperate things with free will is just a trick by cause/effect

>>6040936

>2015
>not being a determinist

>>6041285
>all you did was change the definition of free will to change your opinion
Aha, see, I didn't change any definition, I reminded you what the term means. YOU changed the definition when you posited the problem, and the definition of free will you were using was incoherent.

>Free Will/ determinism is obscured by philosophers and cleared by scientists
It's the other way around. How could a scientist study free will? It's not a "thing"! Watch this video >>6040964

>surely this is not your main defense against determinism, and if not please tell me what is
I have nothing to defend. You pose the problem as soon as you posit determinism and free will as incompatible. It's a classic case of conceptual confusion. Read ANY post-linguistic turn philosopher.

>yes it does, that is a complete fallacy
Watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZ_rHV2KTPY

And I never said we can't completely understand a wolf's brain (I actually said we could)

Also you don't know what a fallacy is

>>6041304
You don't know how hilarious this post is

>>6041285
>Wait 30 years when we will be able to map a complete wolf brain, stick it in a simulation with 20 other wolf brains and let them create a pack, then the neurobiology will tell us about wolf packs
You're assuming this can even be done. It's a very highly debated issue.

>>6041308

You're obviously a Philosophy student who is struggling to rationalize it's purpose in 2015, sorry mate, there is no free will and no amount of jingoism will save u

>>6041328
I know exactly what its purpose is, that's my field of research

>>6041052
Complete understanding of that brain and the environment and body that it is in would give you the ability to predict its actions. Just because you are ignorant to things doesn't make them non-existent.

>>6041340
See >>6041308

>>6041308
>all you did was change the definition of free will to change your opinion
Aha, see, I didn't change any definition, I reminded you what the term means. YOU changed the definition when you posited the problem, and the definition of free will you were using was incoherent.

from your previous self that was a hard determinist, as you said, the terms "free will" and "determinism" were incompatible, you you made them compatible by changing the definitions

I'm interested to see how you will try to dodge this

>>6041308
also i do know what a fallacy is

>a failure in reasoning that renders an argument invalid.

i.e. your whole post

>>6041350
I didn't change it, I was reminded of what it meant. I didn't solve the problem, the problem dissolved; I saw clearly that it wasn't a problem at all.

Like how you're worrying what to wear to a meeting, then you realise that was never any meeting in the first place. The problem doesn't get solved, it goes away; it ceases to be a problem at all. Read Wittgenstein.

>>6041363

>Read Wittgenstein.

Stop telling us to read philosopher's.

doye read Schopenhauer.

>>6041175
Spinoza

>>6041383
lol, sorry for having actual back up to my arguments.

Yes I've read Schopenhauer. He's 200 years old.

>>6041363
the guy from oxford in the video said
"don't think of free will as a thing, think of it as a capacity"
if you follow this view, your definition changed to fit a more agreeable mindset, that made you think less and removed a difficult problem in your life.

also him saying
"when i speak I'm not making hundreds of conscious decisions" who the fuck ever thought that?
it seems to me he is making artificial "problems" to prove wrong to make himself seem more correct when any thinking person wouldn't connect those problems to free will or determinism, which in turn refers to the exact definition you hold in your brain of each

>>6041383
>Stop telling us to read philosopher's

lol

>>6040867
this "my ability to make autonomous decisions is incompatible with my being a physical entity" false dichotomy has always baffled me. how can anybody have trouble with reconciling these two concepts?

everything that exists is influenced by something else. anything that happens is directly caused by another thing happening (well, not really, because particles can spontaneously flick in and out of existence and all that, but it's a useful generalisation for structures on a macro scale).

humans are very complicated machines. we are fed inputs in various forms, process them, and produce outputs. this internal processing of information is called "making decisions", and they are made completely autonomously. that something else led to the machine being configured in a certain way so that it would make a certain decision when fed certain input does not in any way invalidate that it is still the machine making the decision. give that input to a different machine and a different decision would be made.

more familiarly, the person i am today was determined by a very complicated collection of influences: starting with genetic makeup, then adding the factors of what nutrition sources and hormonal influences my body did or did not receive during growth, then what other external stimuli (sights, sounds, smells) i was subjected to and so on. the collective influence of all these things has led me to be the person i am today. i can freely make decisions, choosing to act exactly as i wish to act. however, "how i wish to act" (somewhat of a misnomer, as this includes both "unconscious" and "conscious" thought) has been determined directly by all of those influences above.

>Moral universalism occupies the middle ground between absolute morality and moral relativism. The moral position advocated by Noam Chomsky, moral universalism posits that there exists some universal ethic by which actions may be considered objectively "good" or "bad", but does not necessarily accept monism. In contrast with absolute morality, moral universalist attitudes may be paired with value pluralism, which posits that individuals can have conflicting but equally correct values. Utilitarianism is an example of a philosophy built around the principle of moral universalism.
>... if we adopt the principle of universality : if an action is right (or wrong) for others, it is right (or wrong) for us. Those who do not rise to the minimal moral level of applying to themselves the standards they apply to others—more stringent ones, in fact—plainly cannot be taken seriously when they speak of appropriateness of response; or of right and wrong, good and evil.
>In fact, one of the, maybe the most, elementary of moral principles is that of universality, that is, If something's right for me, it's right for you; if it's wrong for you, it's wrong for me. Any moral code that is even worth looking at has that at its core somehow.
Why is Chomsky a shit tier moral philosopher /lit/? Has he read Nietzsche?

>>6041403
>if you follow this view, your definition changed to fit a more agreeable mindset, that made you think less and removed a difficult problem in your life.
No. To know the meaning of the word (or like free will), you don't sit and think what it means, you look and see how it is used in ordinary language. This is a key idea in Wittgenstein.

>who the fuck ever thought that?
The neuroscientists who say that the unconscious knowledge of a decision before it becomes conscious means we have no free will are working off the assumption that an action consists of consciously willing something and then having your body obey. But that's wrong. There is no difference between the two.

>>6041410
Thanks for taking up post, because I'm getting bored as fuck

>>6041435
Liberals like to use naturalistic arguments up until the point when it would undermine their deepest prejudices. That's why Chomsky is committed to free will and post-christian/humanist morality.

>>6041439
if >>6041410 is what you were trying to say, you are fucking horrific at explaining yourself

>"how i wish to act" (somewhat of a misnomer, as this includes both "unconscious" and "conscious" thought) has been determined directly by all of those influences above

"How I wish to act" (also known as free will)" somewhat of a misnomer" NO FUCKING SHIT that is why you saying "le problem has dissolved" is absurd

determinism, in common parlance, as your buddy witty would have liked, and free will in common language are completely incompatible

>>6041464
Yawn

Read Philosophical Investigations, then you can talk to the grown ups

>>6041464
>>6041464
ah, so you're saying it's just another case of people trying to put things in clean boxes when really they're all mushed together with lots of overlap?

also, i have noticed many ignorant people conflate "free will" and simple "will"

determinism and will are fine, and obvious

free will, by definition, is not determined, because determined things are not free

>>6041473
read the 1864 unabridged Websters Dictionary like real men and then you will make sense
B^)

>>6041473

Free will is not a philosophical problem any more.

>>6041473

This is the sort of thing people resort to when they really have nothing left to stand on.

>>6041410

This proves absence of free will more than it proves free will.

Pg. 7 of Moby Dick sums up what most people think they have in regard to free will.

"...I think I can see a little into the springs and motives which being cunningly presented to me under various disguises, induced me to set about performing the part I did, besides cajoling me into the delusion that it was a choice from my own unbiased freewill and discriminating judgement."


Melville wrecking all the philosophers playing silly word games.

Whats the definition of free will and why is it so?

>>6041610
damn nice catch on moby dick, that book is brilliant, my next goal is to read the confidence-man because I figure it is equally brilliant

>>6041298
But the world can be broken down into bits. You need a finite amount of bits to describe a closed system. If everything were continuous like you are saying, you would need an infinite amount of bits. You can then break down any interaction within the system down to bits, and it will change in a way determined by the rules that govern the system. These bits are interlinked in the same way the bits of a cat are, which doesn't mean that you can't talk about the system or the cat as a whole, but they will always be reducable to fundamental parts.

Is it fair to define free will as variety?
A variety of potential reactions, at least.

>>6042657
No, because there is only one reaction.

>>6042713
Ultimately, yes.
But there are a variety of potential reactions in the process of decision making.

>>6042750

Even a variety of potential reactions does not mean there is free will.

>>6042764
I'm not implying there is 'free will'.
What I said is, is it fair to define free will as variety.
That is, a small variety of potential reactions obviously dependent on context.

How can somebody misunderstand that which is inherently nonsense?

>>6042793

Noam manages!

Seriously what is great about Noam?

>>6041273
cause and effect are the same thing
like meets like
those two concepts are used for convenience

O

>>6041028
kek.

>>6041261

Funny how a joke can still provide some food for thought though.

Does anyone think there will ever be a "scientific" discovery on the basis of which morality can be fixated?

By scientific I mean something empirically verifiable.

You're a creative bunch, what do you think this empirical "phenemona" would be?

anyone who thinks they could take on chomsky in a debate is a fool and would get rekt

>>6040894
lel :^)

>>6044695
No.

Bernard Williams' "Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy" argues against this (and any moral theory based on 'foundations'). It's a great read, probably the best book on ethics of the 20th century. Recommend.

>>6041040

>You could about the atoms in my brain bouncing off each other

>>6045996

Hitchens rekt him.

Depends on the subject, also these days he is less coherent than in his prime.

Honestly, he would be easily rekt these days, he is a formerly sharp 86 year old.

>>6047878

When did Hitchens debate him?

>>6047887

Slate, they had an exchange of letters around the time Bin Laden was killed.

Hitchens truly rekt him.

>>6047892

Interesting, I'll look those up. I thought you meant an actual debate where they stood across from each other at podiums and shit.

>>6047900
In that case Chomsky wouldn't even have a chance, he has no flair.

>>6047905

True, Hitch had an unrivaled charisma in the intellectual sphere. It's a shame that fedora tippers are trying to appropriate his legacy.

>>6047915
>True, Hitch had an unrivaled charisma in the intellectual sphere. It's a shame that fedora tippers are trying to appropriate his legacy.


Yeah, and a sense of humour. I miss him.

>>6040867
the nomchomkomskom is still fundamentally Mosaic or perhaps Christaic, whatever his ridiculous level of intellect. You can't expect him to just throw out Western Civilization due its logical inconsistencies when his very fibre is strung of cross and dreidel.

>>6047878
>>6047887
>>6047892
>>6047900

I'm the guy who said he'd look them up. Thanks for pointing my attention- it was an interesting read. I'll admit I was skeptical of your claim that Chomsky was "rekt," but that's honestly not too far off from what happened. Anyway, thanks again- always good to find some Hitchens work I hadn't seen before.

>>6048094

No problem, glad you enjoyed.

denial of free will relies on essentially the same argument as epistemic solipsism, but I bet none of you idiots are denying the existence of external reality

>>6048276

keep dreaming

>>6040867
At what point am I separated from the chemical reactions happening in my brain? If what's occurring in my brain is not my free agency to act, that what even constitutes my self?

>>6045996
chomksy got rekt by foucault