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

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 1.03 MB, 284x300, 1596763999145.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16189890 No.16189890 [Reply] [Original]

Determinism is the final red pill isn't it?

>> No.16189905
File: 625 KB, 1036x2498, Determinism.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16189905

>>16189890
https://esotericawakening.com/is-free-will-an-illusion

>> No.16189910

I hereby choose to laugh at you and word it in such a way as to illustrate my based correct and factual opinion that obliterates your cringe and incorrect and homosexual opinion.

I thereby declare victory.

>> No.16189912

If it helps you cope with why your life sucks

>> No.16189919

hard determinism renders itself useless as a lens through which to live or make decisions. so accept it, realize you'll never actually be able to grasp whatever rail you're on, and move on

>> No.16190056

>>16189912
I feel the same, but I'm trying to not channel the incels thinking. At the same time you gotta admit, 99%(I pulled that number out of my ass) of people are born into success, molded by their upbringing, and/or very lucky.

>> No.16190062

>>16190056
what the fuck are you talking about, have you looked at suicide rates recently?

>> No.16190100

>>16190062
What the fuck are you talking about? Where did suicide talk come from?

>> No.16190117

>>16190062
99% of successful people are born into it is what I meant to say. You're over here having a conniption

>> No.16190184

Nihilism was the ultimate, though not final, all-consuming red pill. You can't know the true meanings in existence as they are not provided. Human meanings and definitions are only for us despite any attempts to share them by transmitting data into space. Nihilism, however, doesn't have to crush you beneath the weight of a lack of clearly defined meanings. Instead, you may establish your own and hold true to them.

>> No.16190192

>>16190100
>>16190117
yeah well ignore me then

>>16190184
thx sartre

>> No.16190198

Free will does not exist, but that fact has no impact on the every day lives of ordinary people, so ultimately it doesn't matter.

>> No.16190224

>>16190184
Nihilism isn't a thing in philosophy.

>> No.16190402

>>16190224
As it negates itself in a way, it isn't.

>> No.16190611

>>16190184
>Nihilism, however, doesn't have to crush you
Atheism demands nihilism. It will ruin you like it ruins every man. It will grind you down regardless of your wealth or status. When you finally get ready to blow your brains out from the soul crushing depression, remember to ask Christ if He's there.

>> No.16190628

>>16190611
I'd sooner ask Jayzus if he's there than ol' Sky Daddy. Or say fuck it and go become a Buddhist monk, given many of them are atheists.

>> No.16190662

>>16189890
Determinism is clearly true but humans are incapable of really accepting it because the illusion of agency is fundamentally built into our conscious experience. You may think you accept it but as long as you're in the realm of conscious experience you aren't.

>> No.16190697

>>16189890
Forget Everything about determinism and free will, its all habits

Free will is earned, not given

>but neuroscience proves even the feeling of free will is an habit!!!
I don't give a fuck faggot lmao. I feel like free will exists and thinking beyond it is counter productive

>> No.16190702

>>16190662
>Determinism is clearly true
It's ironic that atheists say this even though their religion demands free will. It's a sad way to deal with your own sin of ever there was..."hey it's ok that I did that terrible thing because the God I disbelieve in wouldve made me do it and it's totally not my own wicked soul and free will at fault"

>> No.16190716

>>16190662
>the illusion of agency is fundamentally built into our conscious experience.
Not entirely sure about this. There is a difference between the feeling of will and the consciousness observing said feeling. You could say that the actual self is just the observer, making the will just an object it observes, and therefore there is no illusion of agency, will is just one more of the things the observer watches happening.

>> No.16190721

>>16189890
I made a thread similar to this and gay mods banned me for 3 days but this shit is still active

>> No.16190733

>>16190716
Rational deliberation requires the self-deception that the future isn't already fixed. Practical rationality therefore requires epistemic irrationality.

>> No.16190741

>>16190733
>Rational deliberation requires the self-deception that the future isn't already fixed.
Don't think it does. Most people just automatically reason about stuff without thinking about what they're doing at all.

>> No.16190742

>>16190716
There is no observer, only observations.

>> No.16190746

>>16189890
The final redpill is that determinism is real but this anon>>16189919 is correct. Essentially this is because the level at which things are determinate is so infinitesimally detailed that one can never truly predict or understand the universe’s determinism from within it, particularly the complexity of human thought and action, and so we should act as if we are free because we are in a practical sense

>> No.16190749

>>16190742
Makes no difference, just reduces your self to any single moment of observation, or if you prefer you are a multitude of selves, as many as exist moments of observation.

>> No.16190761

>>16190741
Wrong. They don't bother reasoning about things they believe are already decided. The problem is, everything is already decided.

>> No.16190769

>>16190746
>and so we should act as if
You're speaking as if we have a choice. We don't.

>> No.16190774

>>16190761
People don't think 'the future is undecided therefore I will reason about stuff'', rather they just automatically reason about stuff, observe themselves doing so, and if they had to answer why they would say 'because I want x' but the 'I' here is conflating the thing they are watching reason automatically and the observer, hence the confusion.

>> No.16190776

>>16190628
Buddhists arent atheists. Not real ones anyway, maybe the dude bro weed birkensotck faggot in Berkeley you know is but not an initiated Buddhist

>> No.16190781

>>16190774
No, they don't deliberate about what to have for lunch if they believe there is only one option available to them.

>> No.16190790

>>16190781
Again, you're conflating two different things into one, the observer and the automatic agent that reasons. If the automatic agent thinks it has no choice then it will not deliberate, but the agent in fact does have a 'choice' in the sense that it is applying the preferences it has to the given situation, the second, observing I just watches this happen, there is no paradox.

>> No.16190815

>>16190790
I never said there was a paradox. I simply said that practical rationality requires epistemic irrationality. The deciding agent will not enter deliberation mode if he doesn't believe -- falsely -- that there is more than one option available.

>> No.16190837

>>16190815
You are confused about what options are. The deliberating agent does have multiple options, he can turn left or turn right, the agent applies his own preferences to the situation and chooses one of the outcomes. This is all deterministic. The observer I watches the agent apply his preferences to the situation, making the choice, he watches the deliberation occur.

>> No.16190854

>>16190837
I don't understand why you keep talking about an "observer". I am talking about the deliberation process. Deliberation does not even kick in unless the agent believes the future is not already decided. Since the future is always already decided, the whole process of deliberation relies on holding false beliefs.

>> No.16190865

>>16190854
deliberation is done by the automatic agent, not the observing I. You observe the deterministic deliberation just as you observe your heartbeat.

>> No.16190868

>>16189890
if you're 15 maybe

>> No.16190872

The final red pill is realizing it makes no discernable difference if free will or determinism is true. It's not worth thinking about.

>> No.16190885

>>16190865
We're not talking about "the observing I", whatever that is. We're talking about the process of deliberation.

>> No.16190890

>>16190872
Nonsensical comment.

>> No.16190895

>>16190885
The process of deliberation is an automatic application of mental algorithms to a given situation the agent occurs. It has to do this deliberation because it is programmed to do so, just as an amoeba is programmed to do whatever it does, down to the chemical reactions. You simply observe this happening, the process of deliberation is just as much out of your control as anything else you observe.

>> No.16190900

>>16190895
>the agent occurs.
the agent encounters*

>> No.16190903

>>16190868
This isn't atheism we're discussing

>> No.16190909

>>16190721
Because mods know you are a bitch lmao

>> No.16190911

>>16190895
Yes, and the deliberation process will not engage unless the agent holds false beliefs. Therefore practical rationality requires epistemic irrationality.

>> No.16190919

>>16190911
Not true, let me give you an example, agent encounters spider, is programmed to dislike spider, deliberates that best option is to move away from spider. You watch this choice occur, there was no false belief involved, there was simply an agent acting out its deliberative process deterministically. All of your choices and deliberations are like this.

>> No.16190932

>>16190721
Think of yourself as a martyr for the cause of fatalism. The mods crucified you, and you rose again after three days.

>> No.16190937

Determinism (though not necessarily physical determinism) is true but that doesn't mean that you aren't responsible for your choices. After all, determinism is perfectly ocmpatible with self-determinism which is just another pphrase for free will.
Determinism doesn't conflict with free will because free will is about intent, not causality. Yes, you and your actions are the result of a long string of causes, many of which originate outside yourself, but so long as the intent to do X rather than Y still originates within you, you still have free will.

>> No.16190940

>>16190746
By reaching this level of minutia to describe your coping mechanism you've essentially defined your own religion that exists outside of empiricism.

>> No.16190950

>>16190937
>many of which originate outside yourself,
ultimately all of them

>> No.16190954

>>16190937
Intent is just another link in the causal chain.

>> No.16190958

Books?

>> No.16190965

>>16190890
Nonsensical is even worrying about it.

Show me the world where free will is true; then show me the world where determinism is true. Can you even do it? If not, don't worry about it. Move on to another "problem" of philosophy.

>> No.16190973

>>16190937
>Determinism (though not necessarily physical determinism)
What the hell does that mean? Determinism means causal closure of the physical. It's not the thesis that behavior has causes, which no one would deny.

>> No.16190991

>>16190965
The two worlds could not be more different. The deterministic world is a single causal tree tracing back to the big bang. The free-will world has trillions of ex nihilo causes that intrude into the main causal tree from some sort of 'spiritual' dimension. A total mess.

>> No.16191019

>>16190954
Yes, and? That does nothing to address my position, which is, again, that what matters for free will is the origin of the will to do X, not the origin of the causal chain that leads up to a person doing X.
You can argue that you were caused by the big bang to choose to do X, but it was still you who chose to do it, not the big bang.
>>16190973
>Determinism means causal closure of the physical.
I take it you've never heard of theologicaldeterminism.
Determinism in and of itself doesn't require the existence of any physical causes. As a concept it can apply to the world of idealism just the same as it can apply to the world of physicalism.

>> No.16191051

>>16191019
>You can argue that you were caused by the big bang to choose to do X, but it was still you who chose to do it, not the big bang.
The spatial particulars of the causal chain has nothing to do with free will. In the case of a computer, one can distinguish a mistake due to an internal malfunction versus an external event. That doesn't give the computer free will, it just allows you to localize the error.

>> No.16191052

>>16189890
yee you can use the Determinism question to filter midwits easily.

>> No.16191104

>>16190932
Ok this is based

>> No.16191112

>>16191019
>You can argue that you were caused by the big bang to choose to do X, but it was still you who chose to do it, not the big bang.
This relies on the abstraction of a "you" to mean anything, but this abstraction of course is just that. It means nothing in an absolute sense as all distinctions between "things" are somewhat arbitrary and this one is only useful in that it can help (you) cope I guess.

>> No.16191145

>>16191051
>The spatial particulars of the causal chain has nothing to do with free will.
I never said that they do. I literally just said that what matters is the origin of INTENT, NOT CAUSALITY. If you disagree with my definition of free will that's fine, but you don't even seem to realize that I'm not using whatever definition you hold.
>In the case of a computer, one can distinguish a mistake due to an internal malfunction versus an external event. That doesn't give the computer free will, it just allows you to localize the error.
A computer lacks free will because it lacks intent.
>>16191112
>This relies on the abstraction of a "you" to mean anything, but this abstraction of course is just that. It means nothing in an absolute sense as all distinctions between "things" are somewhat arbitrary and this one is only useful in that it can help (you) cope I guess.
By the same token, this reply you just typed out doesn't mean anything in an absolute sense either, so whatever.

>> No.16191160 [DELETED] 

>>16190991
Not that anon, but it makes no difference, bro. It doesn't change anything in anyone's life if it's one or the other. You still think the same, do the same, decide the same, vote the same, do science the same way, it doesn't matter.

It's like saying the color blue is actually the color grumpflerpliff, people just see everything that is grumpflerpliff as if it was blue. Just call it blue, bro. Makes no difference.

>> No.16191168

>>16191145
>I never said that they do. I literally just said that what matters is the origin of INTENT, NOT CAUSALITY. If you disagree with my definition of free will that's fine, but you don't even seem to realize that I'm not using whatever definition you hold.
Intent is just another brain state. The only basis for your attribution is spatial: it is located inside the agent. That has nothing to do with free will.

>> No.16191175

>>16191160
It makes a difference in how much empathy you will feel for people who do bad things

>> No.16191181

>>16191145
where do you think intent comes from anon?

>> No.16191188
File: 61 KB, 284x300, mpv-shot0277.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16191188

panicked gurgling

>> No.16191191

>>16191145
>By the same token, this reply you just typed out doesn't mean anything in an absolute sense either, so whatever.
That's fair I suppose, but I would still say accepting the illusory nature of the self is at least somewhat more doable than accepting the illusory nature of all ideas in general. Maybe there is no point though aside from avoiding these discussions altogether though and just accepting what you want.

>> No.16191192

>>16191160
Nothing in Wissenschaft makes any difference in the lives of low-IQ plebs. The status of string theory or the natural selection makes no difference to the farmer or merchant. That doesn't mean physics and biology are not worth pursuing.

>> No.16191201

>>16191175
not when you realize that empathy is just a deterministically evolved behavior like anything else and just take it at face value

>> No.16191209

>>16191201
You will still deterministically feel more empathy for bad people if you realize they had no choice but to be like that. At least many people will.

>> No.16191217

>>16191201
>deterministically evolved
You just said determinism doesn't matter. Make up your goddamned mind.

>> No.16191221
File: 3.99 MB, 4181x2521, 15733196029000.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16191221

>>16189890
In quantum mechanics randomness or nondeterminism reign supreme though. The very big is made of the very small and vice versa, never forget that.

>> No.16191225

>>16191221
Irrelevant. The point is that all causes are physical causes.

>> No.16191228

>>16191209
not if you realize that we don't possess empathy for that reason and that negative reactions to bad actions are there for a reason, so that your sense of 'fairness' doesn't override the pragmatic usefulness of hate or anger at bad actions.

>>16191217
that's not me

>> No.16191246

>>16191168
>Intent is just another brain state.
I don't see how that refutes anything I said. Pelase elaborate.
>>16191181
>where do you think intent comes from anon?
Yourself? Prior physical causes?
If you've got an argument to make then make it, because I can't think of any answer to that question which refutes what I've said.

>> No.16191248

>>16191225
>The point is that all causes are physical causes.
Materialism is pathetic garbage that was already refuted by quantum mechanics, your newtonian mechanic physical world was refuted over a hundred years ago.

>> No.16191257

>>16191248
There are no coherent explanations for how quantum mechanics really works, you are delusional or ignorant if you think otherwise.

>> No.16191280

>>16191246
"prior physical causes" are indeed the source, meaning intent cannot originate from within. seems pretty simple to me. there is nothing within you that cannot be traced to a cause before and outside of you
...
> but so long as the intent to do X rather than Y still originates within you

>> No.16191282

>>16191257
>There are no coherent explanations for how quantum mechanics really works
>you are delusional or ignorant if you think otherwise.
>"The point is that all causes are physical causes"
If you already know QM is based on empirical knowledge who is up to the interpretation
of it, then why you bother claiming nonsense? You are the delusional one my dude. If the point of the thread is determinism being the final "red pill", QM is the actual red pill.

>> No.16191288

>>16191228
I said 'at least for many people' which is true, many people will develop empathy for people if they realize they 'had no choice'.

>> No.16191297

>>16191248
>Materialism is pathetic garbage that was already refuted by quantum mechanics
You wish, moron. All causes in QM are physical causes.

>> No.16191302

>>16191297
>All causes in QM are physical causes.
According to which interpretation of it?

>> No.16191303

>>16191282
You've never taken a physics class in your life. Stop embarrassing yourself.

>> No.16191306

Materialism might have some truth to it but every materialist I've spoken to, especially here on /lit/, has been a fucking retard.

>> No.16191312

>>16191303
Nice response anon, just back off like the coward you are.

>> No.16191316

>>16191306
how so anon
what did they do to you

>> No.16191319

>>16191280
>"prior physical causes" are indeed the source, meaning intent cannot originate from within. seems pretty simple to me. there is nothing within you that cannot be traced to a cause before and outside of you
The fact that a cake would be baked might have been predetermined since the big bang, but the cake itself didn't originate with the big bang, it originated in a bakery, at the hands of a baker. Similarly, even though the decision to do X rather than Y may have been predetermined since the big bang, the intent to do X did not originate with the big bang, it originated in you.
Conversely, if you were being mind-controlled into doing X, then the intent to do X would not originate within you, it would originate within the person mind-controlling you, and so in that case you would not be exercising any free will.

>> No.16191321

>>16189890
only if you believe that dichotomy is the basis of reality

>> No.16191324

>>16191246
"Intent" is just another link in the causal chain. There is no free will because there is no cause that intrudes into that chain from the outside.

>> No.16191328

>>16191288
ok, rereading the comment chain I guess I was somewhat misreading your post. I would still say that your claim is not quite right though because what causes the difference is people's belief in determinism rather than whether determinism is actually true or not, because whether it is or is not is not what determines a person's reaction to the idea, not necessarily anyway.

>> No.16191332

>>16191302
All mainstream interpretations.

>>16191312
>>>/x/

>> No.16191333

Is the final blue pill and the end-game of materialism.

>> No.16191340

>>16191328
>because what causes the difference is people's belief in determinism rather than whether determinism is actually true or not,
Sure but this is true of all beliefs I think

>> No.16191344

>>16191319
>but the cake itself didn't originate with the big bang, it originated in a bakery,
false. your scope is arbitrarily defined by language and you can't even see it

>> No.16191345

>>16191332
>All mainstream interpretations.
Which one, say the name.

>> No.16191347

>>16191319
>but the cake itself didn't originate with the big bang
Yes it did.

>the intent to do X did not originate with the big bang
Yes it did.

>if you were being mind-controlled into doing X, then the intent to do X would not originate within you, it would originate within the person mind-controlling you
Again, this is just a question of spatial location. The proximate cause is located here rather than there. Makes no difference with respect to the question of freedom.

>> No.16191352

>>16189890
Determinism is a cope for impotent people

>> No.16191354

>>16191282
Physical things are just those that exert causal power, there is nothing else that can exist. Any supposed immaterial things are spooks that can be reduced to physical events.

>> No.16191355

>>16189890
How could anyone believe in determinism when you can change your mind?

>> No.16191360

>>16191355
because its about the decisions you already made

>> No.16191362

>>16191355
Where do thoughts come from? How can you prove it was you who changed your mind?
Neuroscience has proven so far that everything in the brain is a reaction, there is no initial causal meta-person that calls the shots

>> No.16191364

>>16189890
>All of my major decisions in life are predetermined to their outcomes so all I have to do is have faith that my decisions are absolute with no other possible outcome!
Determinism is just religion for pseuds

>> No.16191366

>>16191355
yes but that change is determined

>> No.16191369

>>16190776
Then why do so many Boodhist moonks blab out their ass about nothingness after death? Hurry your cunt up and tell me after you consider the fact that people asked Buddha if there is a God, leading him to answer both yes and no to the fucking question on two separate occasions. The Sid, as I call him, was just another cavedude sitting on his high rock proclaiming himself some spiritually transcendent badass when all the bastard was was a drivel-spewing quack. Fuck Buddhism, but at least it tried.

>> No.16191372

>>16191355
You can't ultimately change your mind. The future is already written.

>> No.16191375

>>16191354
What causes collapse of the wave fuction in QM then?

>> No.16191377

>>16191364
>so all I have to do is have faith
You're speaking as if you had a choice. You don't.

>> No.16191379

Nice religion

>> No.16191380

>>16191372
isn't that predestination?

>> No.16191381

>>16191375
There is no collapse, objectively. There is only entanglement.

>> No.16191384

>>16191360
>>16191362
>>16191366
>>16191372
Yes you can actually change your mind, is called neuroplasticity, and it isn't deterministic.

>> No.16191388

>>16191375
The fact that all other "potential" outcomes become cutoff from the one you experience. They no longer are causally related to you and are thus gone, but they theoretically live on from their perspectives.

>> No.16191390

>>16191384
No, no, and no.

>> No.16191391

>>16191372
Your wants are written, but your actions are not

>> No.16191398

>>16191391
Your actions are manifestations of your wants, most wants are just hidden from your conscious thought processes despite the control they have over it.

>> No.16191399

>>16191391
The future in all its detail is as fixed and determined as the past. Special relativity rules out the very concept of an absolute present. Events in your past can be in my future and vice versa.

>> No.16191405

>>16191384
That doesnt fucking prove its you calling the shots, that only proves your brain can adapt lmao

>> No.16191410

>>16191398
The BIG uncosncious is a huge fucking meme

>> No.16191419

>>16191391
Your entire future life is as written in stone as your life up to now. There is no metaphysical or physical difference between past and future.

>> No.16191424

>>16191410
sounds like the cope of a consciousness to me, you are literally an afterthought.

>> No.16191428

>>16191324
>"Intent" is just another link in the causal chain. There is no free will because there is no cause that intrudes into that chain from the outside.
I've told you repeatedly that I don't consider the causal chain to be the deciding factor in the question of whether or not free will exists, yet you keep bringing it up instead of engaging with my definition.
>>16191344
>>16191347
You both seem unable to grasp the fact that words can have more than one definition. Yes, in one sense it can be said that the cake originated with the big bang, but in another sense it can also be said that it originated in the bakery.
When I speak of a thing's origin, I'm referring to the point at which it was brought into existence; the point at which its existence became a present rather than a future fact; the point at which it went passed potentiality to actuality.
Conversely, when you two talk about a thing's "origin", you're referring to the point at which it was determined that it would eventually come into existence.
What I'm proposing is that, in order to have free will, you need to be the one to originate your decisions in the former sense of the word; their origin in the latter sense is irrelevant.

>> No.16191434
File: 82 KB, 963x1024, 1532462868540.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16191434

>>16190702
>atheists say this even though their religion demands
>atheists
>their religion

>> No.16191435

>>16191381
>There is no collapse, objectively.
That's a pretty bold claim, since you'll have to prove the Copenhagen interpretation, the objective collapse interpretations, the transactional interpretation, the von Neumann interpretation in which consciousness causes collapse, are all false, and that every other interpretation that has no objective collapse is correct (or the one that you specifically are claiming), go ahead if you can do that. I doubt you will, since there is no agreement in science which interpretation is the actual correct one.

>> No.16191446

Consequence Argument is still unrefuted. That's all there is to say on the topic, really.

>> No.16191469

>>16191446
what is the consequence argument?

>> No.16191470

>>16191428
The problem with your definition is that any mechanism can be the proximate cause of the existence of something -- a cake, say -- without that mechanism having free will. You then say the difference is that humans have something called "intent" that machines don't. How do you know that? "Intent" is a term from folk psychology, not science. If it has any scientific validity, then it is implemented via some physical state in the cake-making system. What are the defining characteristics of that state, and how do you know which organisms or complex systems implement it? And why would the existence of such a state entail anything about the existence of 'free will' in that system?

>> No.16191478

>>16191388
Care to explain further? I'm interested in what you are trying to say. I guess you mean the many worlds.

>> No.16191480

>>16191435
None of those interpretations posit a nonphysical cause of collapse.

>> No.16191495

>>16191478
Basically many worlds, yes. Our universe is bound by what things are causally related to us, which is why there is an apparent collapse when the entanglement is applied to it and each potential outcome becomes real to one and only one particular universe. Other universes are theoretically real but not casually related anymore and so are not real from our perspective as causal influence is the only method of defining reality.

>> No.16191509

>>16191434
it essentially is.
t.athiest

>> No.16191518

>>16191369
>>16190776
buddhism's gods are not really what you're devoting your time and study to, nor your daily rituals. Buddhism has gods because historically gods have been considered a part of the world as real as any other. If a religion was created today, it would likely embrace science. Buddha has on multiple occasions, talked with someone of a certain faith, and he always puts the lesson in terms they would understand. So if a man comes and says he needs to appease Brahma to go to heaven, he would basically just give his normal shtick and say "this is what will help you so surely it will appease Brahma". It's not about what path a person has chosen, they can all learn from the discourses, so there's no "converting," and no worship in the common sense. As opposed to hinduism, where you are submitting your entire being to serving, and the only true knowledge is the knowledge that is passed on to you (because it comes from a more reliable source than yourself), buddhism is a practice for absolving yourself of your convictions, and "faith" in buddhism is not blind faith, but rather a confidence the practitioner has when they understand the teachings and the reality of here and now

>> No.16191519
File: 73 KB, 960x716, f8e582db3eb4cc7aa0bc071a9c85b03f.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16191519

>>16190184
>>16189890
Do you guys nihilism and determinism are actually on the same spectrum?

>> No.16191528

>>16191480
We are not discussing nonphysical/physical but alright. All those interpretations are non deterministic. And for instance the Consciousness Causes Collapse is non-physical if that's what you want to discuss.

>> No.16191531

>>16191470
>The problem with your definition is that any mechanism can be the proximate cause of the existence of something -- a cake, say -- without that mechanism having free will.
That is correct, and I never said otherwise. Free will only exists for that which originates intent, not for that which originates cakes.
>You then say the difference is that humans have something called "intent" that machines don't. How do you know that? "Intent" is a term from folk psychology, not science.
I know it the same way that I know I'm consicous: beacuse I experience it.
Even if you're a physicalist and believe that mental phenomena such as intent can be reduced to their corresponding physical phenomena, that just makes "intent" a particular pattern of behavior in physical things, it does not actually eliminate its existence.
>and how do you know which organisms or complex systems implement it?
Same way you know (or "know) that other people are conscious just like you are.

>> No.16191535

>>16191369
>but at least it tried
you didn't you mistook your assumptions for fact. try reading some buddhist texts and find out why they talk about what they talk about instead of shitting on my board faggot

>> No.16191543

>>16191528
>Consciousness Causes Collapse is non-physical
False.

>> No.16191563

>>16191543
>This interpretation relies upon an interactionist form of dualism that is inconsistent with the materialism that is commonly used to understand the brain, and accepted by most scientists[3]
You are wrong, I'm right.

>> No.16191564

>>16189905
Fuck off Bodhi

>> No.16191574

>>16189890
The final red pill is epistemic relativism.

>> No.16191607

>>16191469
Determinism can be expressed as such: By logical necessity, the complete past of the world at a time + Laws of Nature yield any given true proposition. This is just meticulous way of saying all events are determined completely by previously existing causes aka the wikipedia definition of determinism.

The Consequence Argument basically argues that this implies that no one had a choice about anything ('anything' meaning 'any true proposition'), because we don't have a choice about anything that is true by logical necessity. It's really just a logical expression of what everyone intuitively already understands the moment they learn what determinism is. The thing is that the actual arguments for it (there are three) are very well-crafted, and pretty much were never decisively refuted.

The CA is basically the reason Compatibilists abandoned the classical definition of free will as being about choice between alternatives, which this argument makes use of, because they realized it was a dead end trying to refute it. So they pretty much jumped at Frankfurt's criticism of the Principle of alternative possibility (basically: we are morally responsible only if we had a choice about X), even though Frankfurt himself didn't believe this said anything about free will, just about moral responsibility. And now you have everyone running around with their own definition of free will based on some ambiguous concept of sourcehood. Source incompatibilist will just say "okay, an agent is only free if he contributes something to an action that can't be traced back to causal conditions outside of him" which is obviously impossible. Compatibilists will say "nuh-uh the requirements for freedom are something else [less restrictive]" It's all silly and goes nowhere.

>> No.16191624

>>16191531
That analogy breaks down. I can know with certainty that I feel pain and experience 'qualia'. Whereas 'intent' is by all accounts an illusion. If science suggests that intent doesn't exist as folk psychology understands it, there is no reason not to jettison the concept. Science may suggest that in any complex system capable of producing human-like behavior, there is a state that acts as a 'staging area' which transforms 'preferences' and 'beliefs' into motor instructions, and that this is the closest thing to our naive concept of intent, then there is no reason to deny 'free will' by your definition to robots etc. That seems a rather arbitrary definition. Anything that transforms input into output is going to have an internal state that proximately causes the output behavior.

>> No.16191640

>>16191563
That's in the "Objections to the interpretation" section. Nobody serious subscribes to a dualistic understanding of collapse.

>> No.16191675

>>16189890
Determinism is a stupid doctrine in many respects, but up until 20th century science (quantum mechanics and to a lesser extent mendelian genetics) it had the prestige of the success of Newtonian physics to back it up, or rather to provide emotional support for it. Now it has nothing.

>> No.16191683

>>16191675
Quantum mechanics is fully deterministic.

>> No.16191695

>>16191528
>Consciousness Causes Collapse is non-physical
Is there a reasoning for that like Bell inequality stuff or are you just saying Penrose is dumb as a stone for fun?

>> No.16191705

>>16191683
Yea so if I send a photon on a hydrogen atom you can tell me which wavelength will come out?

>> No.16191706

>>16191531
Not the other anons you have been talking to but it's obvious you are just using "intent" to simply mean choise or free will. All you are arguing is semantics to avoid admitting free will doesn't exist without immaterial souls.

>> No.16191731

>>16191683
>>16191705
lmao knew it

>> No.16191734

>>16191706
>choise
Choice

>> No.16191743

>>16191734
>Choice
choise

>> No.16191758

>>16191705
Suppose you step into the Star Trek transporter, and step out on Venus. But unknown to you there's a bug and "you" have actually rematerialized on 10 different planets. 10 exact clones, each thinking he is "you". There is nothing objectively non-deterministic about this process; the only unpredictability is subjective.

>> No.16191762
File: 602 KB, 963x720, 1445658458237.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16191762

>>16191743

>> No.16191770

>>16191762
>>16191743
>>16191734
choyz

>> No.16191779

>Determinism is the final red pill isn't it?
No, pyrrhonism is the final final final redpill

>> No.16191805

>>16191770
trotsky.

>> No.16191838
File: 116 KB, 624x624, 1597793717972.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16191838

>>16189890
Free will exists because I can decide to move my left arm

>> No.16191861

>>16191838
https://academic.oup.com/brain/article-abstract/106/3/623/271932?redirectedFrom=fulltext

>> No.16191869
File: 12 KB, 400x469, tumblr_pvbj659O4c1wxy4xzo1_400.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16191869

>>16191861
Free will exists and I'll beat the shit out of you if you think otherwise

>> No.16191883
File: 20 KB, 500x283, 738e10a9c02eb209fe63222b1582ceb0.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16191883

>>16191869

>> No.16191896
File: 257 KB, 1056x649, 1578994037770.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16191896

>> No.16191924

>>16191896
>thinking people who just exist aren't themselves weak untermensch

Ngmi

>> No.16191934
File: 335 KB, 997x1272, 1588354945814.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16191934

>>16191896
NEVER IMPROVE

>> No.16191938

>>16189890
determinism, just like in-determinism is made-up, fantasy, bullshit, imaginary. the question should be why do you feel the need to believe in made-up things? do you believe it makes you more knowledgeable and thus superior to others? or do you believe it will help you finally understand life? neither are true

>> No.16191939

>>16191924
cope

>> No.16191946

>>16191934
bottom post is an epic superiority complex

>> No.16191949

>>16191939
its not even a cope. Genetic dead end losers who want to self improve are the scum of society
Normies are a little above them but are still untermensch

I look down upon all you losers

>> No.16191953

>>16191949
superiority complex

>> No.16191963

>>16191953
Cope. Its the objective truth

>> No.16191973

>>16191963
prove it

>> No.16191976

>>16189890
What is "choice?" The operation of selecting items from a list according to some criterion, the primordial buraucratic task. It is entirely an eliminative operation, the extinction of alternatives, so why would we expect to find freedom in such an operation?
The mutagenic and generative aspect of experience is questioning, not choice. Questions emerge from questionable experiences, which are apprehended without choice by contradicting our expectations. A question isn't merely a linguistic object, but an information or experience-seeking action: a quest. We can not only question our choices and actions, but question our questions and quests (How is this question satisfied? Is this question worth pursuing?) which gives us an additional degree of freedom (ability to mutate our own mutability.) The faculty of self-awareness is self-questioning, where one's line of experiential inquiry includes the querent as the subject in question.

>> No.16192017

>>16191896
Bottom pic is /fit/ before they realize that getting fit or reading books won't get them laid, fix their problems, or even that getting laid won't fix them. The reality of being genetic trash is beyond their understanding. A concentrated and pure form of absolute cope.

>> No.16192023

>>16191976
All that is of questionable relevance to free will.

>> No.16192029

>>16192017
meant to reply to>>16191934

>> No.16192030

>>16191976
The only questing you've done is in WoW.

>> No.16192040

>>16191973
I am god

>> No.16192061

>>16189890
Free will is a spectrum determined by how conscious you are.

>> No.16192062

>>16192040
that would be true if it weren't the case that I'm actually God

>> No.16192070

>>16191758
everything is subjective dumb bastard and don't talk to me about american pop culture ever again. In fact don't talk to me. dumb bastard don't even know what a manifold is wants to talk to me

>> No.16192081

>>16192062
Impossible, there can only be one god

>> No.16192087

>>16192023
Questionability is freedom from the determination of the will.

>> No.16192094

>>16192081
We are all god on this blessed day.

>> No.16192098
File: 20 KB, 148x200, Lucretius1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16192098

Free will is the final red pill anon
>>16190184
The only people more pathetic than determinists are nihilists holy shit

>> No.16192108

>>16192098
Prove free will

>> No.16192114

>>16192108
You won't get answers from these drive-by shitposters. They're here to give textual upvotes to things they agree with.

>> No.16192115

>>16192108
Swerve

>> No.16192120

>>16192070
>everything is subjective
Get a load of this faggot.

>> No.16192126

>>16192120
Prove objectivity

>> No.16192139

>>16192108
Prove determinism

>> No.16192140

>>16192120
Read Descartes you miserable wretched son of a bitch

>> No.16192142

>>16192140
kys

>> No.16192146

>>16192142
>Read
>Kill yourself
The absolute state of determinoids

>> No.16192149

>>16192139
Neuroscience has already proved that everything boils down to habit and conditioning. The only standing bastion of free will that Neuroscience can't disprove is qualia

>> No.16192155

>>16192142
Sentire, idem est hic quod cogitare you pseud

>> No.16192156

>>16192149
>Neuroscience has proven
Proofs?

>> No.16192157

>>16192146
Go to /x/ and end your life there. It'd be a shame to make a mess here.

>> No.16192161

>>16192139
Determinism is the default because it is the natural world. Free will is what has to be proven because it is not part of the natural real world.

>> No.16192164

>>16192149
Does Neuroscience boils down to habit and conditioning? Does the judgement that everything boils down to conditioning boils down to conditioning? submit to the easy yoke and accept the sovereignty of your spirit

>> No.16192165

>>16192161
>Natural state of the world
Not on the quantum level

>> No.16192166

>>16192156
I have my Cognitive neuroscience textbook from uni somewhere, but go search it yourself faggot

>> No.16192172

>>16192166
You're the one making the arguement, why should I look for your evidence you worthless shitstain

>> No.16192174

>>16192164
>Does the judgement that everything boils down to conditioning boils down to conditioning?

Yes. and the degrees of logic stop there. 2 layers. Not infinite

>> No.16192176

>>16192157
you're not talking to me anymore here mate. Anyway you're embarrassing i don't even know what board /x/ is

>> No.16192182

>>16192165
Yes, on the quantum level too.

>> No.16192184

Determinism is the axiom from which you arrived at determinism, its all circular reasoning. Symbol games that we confuse for actual reality, which is unknowable

>> No.16192186

>>16192172
You're literally the one who asked you cum dumbster faggot

>> No.16192189

>>16192176
Just end it.

>> No.16192190

>>16192182
>On the quantum level too
Proof?

>> No.16192196

>>16192174
Then explain human creativity. How are we able to change so much, both individually and historically, with just "habits and conditioning?"

>> No.16192201

>determinists still act like habit- and environment-controlled belligerent retards

>> No.16192202

>>16192186
You made an arguement
I asked you to justify your arguement with evidence

>> No.16192204

>>16192190
Take a physics class.

>> No.16192213

>>16192165
I'm not a quantum object and neither are you. Laughter and automatic reactions to things are my proof of determinism, what is your proof?

>> No.16192232

>>16192196
>Then explain human creativity. How are we able to change so much, both individually and historically, with just "habits and conditioning?"

The outside world exists too. We react in accordance to it

But hey, I don't really care about the Determinism VS Freew ill argument. I'm just saying all proof so far edges toward determinism, altough there are still things unxeplicable even with science, I don't like to disregard science alltogether like 99% of this board does

>> No.16192233

>>16192174
I'm not saying there's an infinite loop or whatever rubbish. What I'm saying is that something like neuroscience, ie a body of affirmations, can't justify itself. The starting point is me, because it is me who decides for myself if something is true or not (in that sense the popular view that science rules over me and decides what I hold to be true, in addition to being idiotic just historically, ressembles a certain Marxist-looking alienation of the individual). If I decide to lend credence to the neuroscience stuff, as i was saying, the neuroscience can't convince me I can't be convinced (for instance if i'm only a heap of habits I can't really be convinced in the authentic sense of the word), because it is because of my ability to be convinced that it exists. Ego cogito, ego sum. Read Descartes and meditate him.

>> No.16192248

>>16192204
You are the one who should take a physics class. Yes psi(t) evolves deterministically, no, the wavelength emitted by an atom does not.

>> No.16192255

>>16192248
Yes it does.

>> No.16192259

>>16192204
No proof?
Good to know
>>16192213
>I'm not a quantum object
Strawman harder retard
>Laughter proves determinism
It doesn't

>> No.16192263

>>16192233
>The starting point is me,
The self is the ultimate axiom, but its as arbitrary as any other

>> No.16192267

>>16192255
Proof?
You haven't provided a single shred of evidence for any of your claims

>> No.16192271

>>16192259
>>16192267
Determinism doesn't entail predictability, dumbfuck. QM is deterministic.

>> No.16192276

>>16192263
What is "the self?"

>> No.16192277

>>16192255
Tell me what's H^(CP) and ill bother explaining you why you're wrong

>> No.16192285

>>16192277
You're confusing determinism with predictability.

>> No.16192287

>>16192276
An axiom

>> No.16192289

>>16192271
>QM is deterministic
Still waiting for evidence

>> No.16192290

>>16192259
>Strawman harder retard
I assume you don't even know what strawman means. Prove free will. Automatic reactions, responses, conditioning, etc are all proof of determinism if you have no proof for free will.

>> No.16192293

>>16192289
Crack open a physics textbook, jackass.

>> No.16192304
File: 127 KB, 824x830, Image 19-02-2020 à 00.34.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16192304

>>16192263
No, that's all of Descartes and modern philosophy that it is not! It is not because you are you and it is you who decides, in all the systems that you believed, in all the doubts that you had, you were at the beginning all along!

But I can't convince you, that's the point. You have to meditate by yourself, because to come to believe it ('believe' isn't the right word), you have to start from yourself, because you are the provider of truth. That's why Descartes called his book the meditations, and that's why it's so peculiarly written and always in the first person. It's just a hint, the meditation is yours to accomplish. The Kingdom is within you, so only you can free yourself. Etc.

>> No.16192305

>>16192293
You need to evidently
You haven't refuted a single arguement made against you, you've only made empty dogmatic statements
>>16192290
>Automatic reactions are automatically, ergo all behaviour determined
Imagine being this retarded holy shit

>> No.16192314

>>16192305
>imagine
Not an argument. I accept your concession of defeat.

>> No.16192319

>>16192293
>>16192285
I just outed you as math illiterate, stop trying to mystify the other anon who's right.

>> No.16192323

>>16192314
Prove contemplated actions are determined scumfuck

>> No.16192330

>>16192319
You only outed yourself as a math and physics illiterate. Name one aspect of QM that is inconsistent with determinism.

>> No.16192333

>>16191469
>>16192149
It has done nothing of the sort. Neuroscience is the biggest meme, it is just slightly better than Behavioural Psychology for explaining the human mind.

>> No.16192334

>>16192323
Prove they aren't, I've already shown my proof. If you have literally 0 (zero), evidence then I have won.

>> No.16192342

>>16192304
>you were at the beginning all along!
Lierally the definition of axiom

>> No.16192343

>>16192334
You've shown no proof cumgargler, you've only made statements

>> No.16192347

>>16192330
what's H^n(CP) little guy?

>> No.16192353

Note to plebs: Empirical truths are not subject to mathematical proof. Thank you. Now carry on.

>> No.16192358

>>16192343
So you disagree with the entire world of living humans that laughter is automatic? Incredible.

>> No.16192366

>>16192277
>H^(CP)
>>16192347
>H^n(CP)
Are you drunk?

>> No.16192372

>>16192333
>Neuroscience is the biggest meme
cope

>> No.16192380

>>16192342
NO, an axiom is something that you put yourself. The self is before any such position. The idea of an axiom is dependent on the self.

>> No.16192382
File: 48 KB, 680x636, ceo based.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16192382

>>16192213
>I'm not a quantum object

>> No.16192390

>>16192366
My typo won't hide your basic higher math illiteracy very long kid

>> No.16192394

>>16192390
Switch to water, clown.

>> No.16192395

>>16192372
Can you prove its usefulness
Historically speaking, these kinds of "sciences" have all been incredibly retarded when looked back
The only article about neuroscience posted in this dunghill of a thread is a prime example of how little evidence is used to make retarded conclusions
>>16192358
>Holds laughter

>> No.16192398

>>16192380
Isn't the self predicated on the awareness of experience?

>> No.16192404

>>16192394
I'm on pastis right now. So what's H^n(CP)?

>> No.16192409

>>16192395
Yes its useless, but it's still the closest thing to an objective truth
But yes I disregard most of science for its uselessness, I read Evola

>> No.16192413

>>16192395
>holds [response that began before he even conceived of it in his mind]
For this poor of an argument I won't be holding back anything anon

>> No.16192415

>>16192380
>i put the axioms! I am.in charge here!
>do you feel in charge?

>> No.16192420

>>16192409
>But yes I disregard most of science for its uselessness, I read Evola
Please don't feed this obvious troll.

>> No.16192421

>>16192398
Well no, I don't think so, why do you say that? If that's a Husserl thing I'm not a fan 2bh

>> No.16192440

>>16192415
>feeling in charge
Choice is truly the primordial bureaucratic action, worshiped by the most bureaucratically-minded.

>> No.16192442

>>16192409
When did I imply that science isn't useful?!
Neuroscience as it is currently practiced is unscientific
If you want to have a serious study of how the brain works, go ahead but don't bullshit me with
>Closest thing to an objective truth
How and why? Especially for neuroscience
>>16192413
>If I sound smarmy I can dodge refuting an arguement

>> No.16192444

>>16192420
Have you even read him? I mean you arrived at the same conclusion as me, why does it matter if it was from different sources?

>> No.16192446

>>16192380
I would suggest perhaps reading Spinoza or Hegel on this.
I think the self is a very loaded term (see Foucault on this) that is tightly bundled up with liberal presuppositions about philosophy in general about subjectivity and subject positions. Of course Western thought cannot think outside itself.

>> No.16192448

>>16192440
>>16192415
read D

>> No.16192451

>>16192421
It's broadly an empiricist thing.
Also what is the self?

>> No.16192460

>>16192446
>Western thought can't think outside itself
Wat

>> No.16192463

>>16192442
I did refute it. You can't hold back something that you hadn't even conceived or realize existed yet. You are coping.

>> No.16192475

>>16192463
How do people hold laughter then?

>> No.16192480

>>16192460
Sorry liberal empiricism and the subject object dichotomy cannot think past this problem - Spinoza and Hegel are both fascinated by the outside of thought and are clearly different to Descartes

>> No.16192484

>>16189890
In physics in large scales (atoms and particles I think), yes.

>> No.16192486

>>16192480
>Liberal empiricism is the only tradition in western philosophy
Wat

>> No.16192487

>>16192446
That's interesting, could you point me to the passage syou have in mind from S and H? As for Foucault I like him but to say you can refute Descartes with sociological concepts is really what's disgusting in recent phil.

>> No.16192493

>>16189890
Determinism is not only false, it relies on retarded notion that has you pondering the impossibility of the tortoise escaping Achilles and coming to the conclusion that the tortoise will always escape. It's the delusional self-made prison complex of the ape software we have running.

>> No.16192497

>>16192484
No. Not even then. Too much noise and causal links relating all the way down to quantum randomness.

>> No.16192498

>>16192487
>>16192446
Also you can't refute D by criticizing the words he use because the actual substance of it doesn't use words. it's a meditation

>> No.16192499

>>16192475
Because they realize or conceived it happening? They don't. Stop coping.

>> No.16192500
File: 83 KB, 850x400, quote-the-misconception-which-has-haunted-philosophic-literature-throughout-the-centuries-alfred-north-whitehead-46-31-14.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16192500

>>16192480
Evolutionary thought can question past the problem however.

>> No.16192507

>>16192475
>>16192499
>because
Meant to write "before".

>> No.16192524

>>16192499
Laughter pops up, yes?
Sometimes people break out laughing like idiots, some times they make the conscious decision to hold it
I went to a comedic play but because I'm a smarmy asshole, I repressed it even when the joke wasn't terrible

>> No.16192529

>>16192497

Well I was taught that in large scales the objects aren't random or probabilistic, because its wave function collapsed.

Chemistry doesn't use probabilistic calculus as QP

>> No.16192539

>>16192497
QM is deterministic.

>> No.16192542

>>16190056
No they are not

>> No.16192548

>>16192539
No

>> No.16192550

>>16192493
Based and redpilled

>> No.16192551

>>16192548
Yes it is.

>> No.16192553

>>16192487
Foucault doesn't use sociology in this regard it is literary scholarship in Culture of the Self looking at the theory of the self from the Greeks to the Renaissance, showing the development of the concept showing its baggage etc.

>> No.16192555

>>16192493
Can you give me your 5 favorite books?

>> No.16192556

>>16192486
It is the exemplar - I clarified the relevant bit in my second comment

>> No.16192558

Determinism is the ultimate filter. If you believe in it you've failed.

>> No.16192564

>>16192524
You can't repress something you don't even realize is happening. Let me guess, another "hurr repress response you literally cannot even comprehend existing durr" reply is coming my way? I'm just going to accept this as your ultimate concession of defeat. Imagine losing to a single piece of evidence, how cringe.

>> No.16192567

>>16192553
I meant to use words like liberal, etc

>> No.16192578

>>16192558
Dont be so harsh anon, we have all been there once, and it is actually hard to abandon it

>> No.16192584

>>16192500
Whitehead was heavily influenced by Bergson who loved Spinoza - (hence why Deleuze cites both frequently) - this is the alternative strand of Western thought I mentioned in my first post - so yes I agree with you.

>> No.16192589

>>16192551
No

>> No.16192600

>>16192558
It's a simple truth about the world. Sorry that truth conflicts with your fragile ego, pantywaist.

>> No.16192601

>>16192564
Can you please explain
I don't understand what you're talking about

>> No.16192612

>>16192567
Foucault's analysis of "liberal" philosophy is on the raw level of argumentation supported by an academic/cultural context. He is a proper thinker with far more depth in most work than the nonsense freshman gender studies analysis of power.

>> No.16192615

>>16192600
Its ironic considering determinism is the egos last line of defense

>> No.16192618

>>16192615
How so?

>> No.16192632

God indisputably exists
If he wills it, free will exists

>> No.16192640

>>16192632
Free will is inconsistent with omnipotence and omniscience. Try again.

>> No.16192650

>>16192612
No no I agree of course I said I like him but I also oppose falling the other pitfall of treating people like Descartes or Plato as outdated to the benefit of the more recent people. Of course nobody is radically stupid enough to just refuse to read altogether them but you often see a sort of bastard stance along the line of 'they're old but we still have a lot to learn from them' or some compromise like that, which is not at all how I think phil should be done.

>> No.16192651

>>16192640
It isn't
Read Boethius

>> No.16192659

>>16192640
Oh also
>Inconsistent
>With omnipotence
How would that even be possible?

>> No.16192664

>>16192651
>>16192659
God created the whole world from beginning to end. Not just a part of it or a time-slice. The whole enchilada.

>> No.16192667

>>16192601
If you don't understand after this long, I can't help you, you have brain damage or something I don't know.

>> No.16192671

>>16192664
That is not inconsistent with free will
It's inconsistent with your understanding of time and omnipotence

>> No.16192676

>>16192017
Not everyone is a genetic trash

>> No.16192681

>>16192671
Nope. God created the whole world in all its detail. The entirety of spacetime.

>> No.16192684

>>16192161
How is determinism the natural state? Matter doesnt come from nothingness

>> No.16192698

>>16192684
>How is determinism the natural state? Matter doesnt come from nothingness
These two statements do not form a cohesive argument.

>> No.16192699

>>16192681
Even if we accept your premise, you still haven't gotten over the I say so power of omnipotence
It doesn't matter if it isn't consistent with your language game
If God will it, then it exists

>> No.16192702

>>16192699
Can God make a boulder he can't lift?

>> No.16192714

>>16192702
Yes

>> No.16192730

>>16192714
Why can't he lift it? Is he a dyel?

>> No.16192746

>>16192730
Who said he can and can't lift it
Why does the omnipotent need to follow logic
The very concept of omnipotence goes above any logic
If omnipotence followed the rules of logic, it wouldn't be omnipotence since it would have to be within logic and therefore be only potent within logic
Negating the whole Omni bit

>> No.16192763

>>16192746
You are very confused about what logic is. Logic only governs our language. It establishes what counts as a coherent description. If you say both P and not-P, you are not making a coherent assertion. God isn't being constrained, you are.

>> No.16192772

>>16192763
Why should omnipotence care about coherence
It is a completely incoherent concept

>> No.16192780

>>16192772
Omnipotence is a concept. Concepts by definition cannot care about anything.

>> No.16192792

>>16192780
And now you're just fucking around with language
You know very well what I meant by care

>> No.16192795

>>16192792
You basically admitted that god is an incoherent concept. Not much else to add.

>> No.16192817

>>16192795
When did I ever deny God or Omnipotence is incoherent
From the point wherein God exists (exist is of course a terrible word for it but the language play used in my native language isn't available so it will have to act as a stand in for God's "existence"), something like coherence is of no importance

>> No.16192828

>>16192817
You are literally not saying anything.

>> No.16192833

>>16192828
Not my fault you can't understand something so simple

>> No.16192839

>>16192833
You literally just said it is not understandable.

>> No.16192854

>>16192839
That's what I'm trying to tell you
God and omnipotence is not understandable
It is simply is (again, "is" is a bad word but whatever)

>> No.16192871

>>16192601
Not that guy but if you didn't know, the reaction of "laughter" happens before you can think to stop it. You can stop the action of laughing out loud, but not the reaction itself. Also laughter isn't a conscious decision, people laugh at literally anything without rhyme or reason. You can test this yourself, people laugh at bizarre shit like "I'll see you around Jim", even if it's a normal situation and they don't find it funny. Ask them why they laughed and they don't even know why.

>> No.16193118

>>16191640
Damn you can't even read? When it says "This interpretation" is referring to the interpretation itself dumbass. It doesn't matter that it is in that section, learn to read.

>> No.16193159

>>16191695
Is called Von Neumann–Wigner interpretation, is just one among a dozen.

>> No.16193179

>>16192500
Any other western philosophers who take this position? It seems weirdly ignored from what I can tell.

>> No.16193377

>>16193118
You're not very bright, are you?

>> No.16193478

>>16190184
>Instead, you may establish your own and hold true to them.
This is what kids these days are referring to as "cope."