[ 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: 87 KB, 1024x684, Scam Harris.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19509917 No.19509917 [Reply] [Original]

How many of you autistic retards believe in this nonsense? And how can you justify it's belief as anything more than religious/dogmatism?

>> No.19509918

>>19509917
determined hands typed this post

>> No.19509929

>>19509917
A reminder Harris's mom created the Golden Girls and his father was an actor. Of all the neuroscientists to be in the spotlight, it happens to be him.

>> No.19509936

>>19509929
Don't forget the fact that Sam Harris himself got his PHD through "Philanthropy" and not education.

>> No.19509944

>>19509936
And he couldn't complete his thesis by himself.

>> No.19509945

>>19509917
Are you retarded? Any atheist worldview is inherently deterministic.

t. Atheist

>> No.19509951

>>19509945
Atheists are retarded

>> No.19509954

>>19509936
>>19509944
Wait, really? And hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions, treat this pseud's words as the gossip? Un-fucking-real.

>> No.19509961

>>19509954
> gossip
Kek. Gospel

>> No.19509987

>>19509951
Why?

>> No.19509988

Determinism is unfalsifiable, prove me wrong

>> No.19509992

>>19509987
Because God literally exists, yet they refuse to accept their own gift of existence. They are literally Mentally Retarded (Stunted from growth of their own Minds)

>> No.19509994

>>19509917
Meanwhile, sensible man believes in free will, because our choices aren't determined, nor are they random. They're just...uuuhhh...le free.

>> No.19509996

>>19509917
Neuroscience.

>> No.19510001

Of course I am a determanist. God created the universe, God knows the future thus it is predetermined.

>> No.19510002

>>19509996
>Muh signals!
>How does that account for such discrepancy between beliefs across a literally infinite timeline?
>MUH SIGNALS!
ok nigger.

>> No.19510011

>>19509917
Its either determinism or free will as irrational magic god gave us basically

>> No.19510014

>>19509917
Why shame me? I didn't choose to believe in it

>> No.19510015

>>19510011
Determinists don't believe in God, they believe in literal magic.

>> No.19510017

>>19510015
Determinism is just "thing causes other thing". No magic involved

>> No.19510019

>>19510017
What started the "Thing"?

>> No.19510027

>>19509917
Who knows, who cares. It’s all abstract ideas (unreal non-being) from premise to conclusion.

>> No.19510029

>>19510019
Either god or it was always around. They come down to a similar concept in the end, the bedrock and sustenance of reality. But determinism is not in need of explanation; it is the way we understand the world.

>> No.19510034

>>19510015
>empirical science
>literal magic

>> No.19510045

>>19510029
Cope

Determinism is just belief in God.

>> No.19510052

>>19509992
>Because God literally exists
Proofs?

>> No.19510056

>>19510019
What started the "God"?

>> No.19510057

>>19510045
Youre not being very precise about your statements here. You can have God or no God each with both determinism and free will. The concepts are quite flexible.

>> No.19510059

>>19510052
Link to proof: https://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/home.html

>> No.19510062

>>19510057
Determinism is belief in God. PERIOD. HARD STOP. YOU WILL NEVER BE A WOMAN. I AM STILL NOT VACCINATED.

>> No.19510068

>>19510019
Theists are so retarded.
A God could have created the universe. I can even grant this.
You have still not moved your argument towards why this needs our free will to be a thing.

But you don't even see this problem. Actual sheep.

>> No.19510071

>>19510059
Too pussy to use your own words?
Whatever
Aquinas fails to establish why infinite regression is impossible.

>> No.19510073

>>19510068
Free Will exists because God created us explicitly with that purpose. You people are so stupid it's crazy thinking you are made from the same clay.

>> No.19510079

>>19510071
I don't think you even read my source

>> No.19510083

>>19510062
I'm not vaccinated either and will [redacted] if they try to make me. Also dubious of gender bending. You still arent making any sense.

>> No.19510086

>>19510079
Of course not. You didn't give an argument.
You posted a link with the word: Aquinas
Is that just a red herring?
I don't care. If you can't present your point, I'm not going to engage with you.

>> No.19510087

>>19510073
What does that have to do with a first-mover creating the universe?

>> No.19510093

>>19510086
It's a bit lengthy. I think you should read it

>> No.19510103

>>19510087
Why are all atheists so stupid? Don't you guys have basic reading comprehension? Are you just pretending to be retarded?

>> No.19510104

>>19510093
And what happens if I challenge a point in it?
Will you direct me back to the article? I seriously doubt your ability to argue on behalf of Aquinas' case.

>> No.19510107

>>19510104
Well you'll be incorrect, so that will be easy to show

>> No.19510109

>>19510103
You have established that a first mover created the universe.
How does humans having free will follow from that?

>> No.19510111

>>19510109
>Free Will exists because God created us explicitly with that purpose
I literally wrote it in my post >>19510073 Seriously, are you pretending to be retarded?

>> No.19510125

>>19509917
To say the universe is not deterministic would be to imply you have some kind of god-like power to manipulate cause and effect at will, which you don't.

>> No.19510129

>>19510107
Okay. I read the Summa.

Aquinas fails to establish why infinite regression is impossible.
Aquinas presents his argument as deductive despite not exhausting all logical space. Making it an inductive one.

The one about nature having intent, is retarded.
Does an acorn desire to be an oak tree? Okay.
By what force is an acorn guided when it becomes squirrel food?

Whatever. You are useless.
It's impossible to discuss such a length of text.
I gave you a proper question in the first post. And you refused to answer. Why should I belive that will change?
Maybe you'll jump in if I make a particularly weak argument, eh? Yeah. Baby.

>> No.19510134

>>19510111
You didn't argue for that, though.
You just wrote it.

You argued for a first-mover, someone that made "things".
Okay, someone made "things"...
That doesn't get us towards anything

>> No.19510142

>>19510134
"Toward anything"
What is all this shit? Your new gospel?

>> No.19510144

>>19510125
Proofs?

>> No.19510146

>>19510125
To say the universe is deterministic would be to imply you have some kind of god-like power to manipulate cause and effect at will, which you don't.

>> No.19510147

>>19510073
Is that an empirically verifiable statement? Do you have any peer-reviewed sources to back up your argument?

>> No.19510155

>>19510146
No, it wouldn't. You are a slave to the laws of the universe, not the other way around.
>>19510144
What? This is a basic concept. You don't control the universe, the universe controls you, as you are part of it and operate by the same rules.

>> No.19510159

>>19510142
Doesn't move you argument towards what you later asserted, or anything
the "God" you've argued for, (first-mover) has no features beyond creating things

I'm going to stop replying unless you contribute to discussion

>> No.19510160
File: 1.01 MB, 350x262, 1305920845397.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19510160

>>19510147
Wait, you think humans are capable of measuring the universe in a neutral and empirical way?

>> No.19510165

>>19510147
fuck off

>> No.19510166

>>19510155
>NUH UH!
LMAO you didn't even call out the fact that I forgot to edit the second half of your statement.

>>19510159
You gave up easily.

>> No.19510168

>>19510155
Oh, I see.
So you have some kind of proof that refutes dualism, there being such a thing as a "soul"? (literally unfalsifiable)

>> No.19510169

>>19510166
My point stands, you're wrong. Free willers are just copers, their egos can't stand the idea that they aren't God and don't get to operate on a different ruleset from the rest of reality.

>> No.19510171

>>19510166
Say something meaningful!
You can't. Baby.

>> No.19510172

>>19510168
There is no soul. Your mind is produced by your brain, if it stops working, you stop existing.

>> No.19510173

>>19510171
NPCs are incapable of feeling meaning.

>> No.19510174

>>19510129
1. The acorn became squirrel food because it didn't have proper faith in God. You stupid fucking idiot. How could you not see that.
2. Infinite regression approximates to a linear function when appropriate statistical modeling considerations are not taken.
3. I dont think you read the article very carefully. Did you even make it to first part of the second part section 15? Or did you give up because your fake Reddit sky daddy told you it was too hard and you should just stick to the bible?

>> No.19510178

>>19510169
>they aren't God and don't get to operate on a different ruleset from the rest of reality.
Proofs of this?

>> No.19510184

>>19510178
IT JUST IS OK??

>> No.19510185

>>19510172
At what point in the reply chain did you mistake what position I was arguing for/against?

>> No.19510186

>>19509992
Something that created us, does exist. Your shitty made up "God" doesn't.

>> No.19510190

>>19510186
I will pray for you.

>> No.19510192

>>19510173
Not an argument. Not in the Bible.

>> No.19510194
File: 176 KB, 540x810, p_soul_disneyplus_v2_20907_764da65d.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19510194

>>19510172
>No Soul
Explain this then faggot

>> No.19510196

>>19510178
You can't will yourself to stop being bound by gravity right now. There's absolutely nothing you can do about it, it's pinning you to the Earth and you can't stop it.

You also can't will yourself to not do something you did today. Every action you took was the result of a calculation made in your brain based on given inputs. The only way you could have acted differently today than you did is if you weren't you, or someone else weren't themselves, thus causing a different calculation with a different result being produced.

>> No.19510200

>>19510196
Maybe you can't

>> No.19510202

>>19510185
I didn't actually read it, I just jumped in at the end.

>> No.19510205

>>19510200
You can't, you just don't want to believe it. Your brain needs to believe it has free will to cope psychologically with reality.

>> No.19510210

>>19510190
For what exactly. The higher "being" "thing" or whatever it is, is incomprehensible by humans. Imposing man-made values on something that is greater than man itself, is stupid.

>> No.19510212

>>19510174
1. Give a proper response, or concede the point
2. ? I'm referring the Thomists main objection to why an infinite past is impossible. Or an infinite succession of causes, if you will. They fail to prove so.
3. Of course I'm not going to read a lengthy article on some weird webpage from 1995. You didn't even pick a point to stick with. It's all over the place.

>> No.19510216

>>19510205
I don't have such conceited beliefs. I simply believe in Truth.

>> No.19510217

>>19510001
Yes, God's plan will be realized, but there are an infinite number of ways for that to happen because of the necessary existence of free will.

>> No.19510219

>>19510196
>You can't will yourself to stop being bound by gravity right now.
So what? That's not what free will is supposed to do. It's not antigravity.

>You also can't will yourself to not do something you did today.
So what? That's not what free will is supposed to do. It works in the present, not the past.

>Every action you took was the result of a calculation made in your brain
Proofs of an immaterial free willed soul not playing a part in this?

>> No.19510224

Uhhh, I thought Christians was supposed to have faith in Jesus?
Not cause and effect being some absolute thing...

>> No.19510226

>>19510219
I'm not talking about changing the past you dumbfuck. I'm saying that when you decided to do whatever you did today, you were never going to do otherwise. There was no possibility you would ever do anything but what you ended up doing.

There is no soul you idiot. You exist so long as your brain works. Brain stops working, you stop existing.

>> No.19510233

>>19510212
1. That is a proper response. It chose to sin and therefore it gets what it deserves. I'm sorry if your "morality" can't handle that
2. Infinite past requires infinite information density violating all conservation laws. Try actually reading Aquinas instead of Bertrand Russell's butthurt polemical against him and the Lord.
3. It's from 1274.

>> No.19510234

>>19510226
So determinism is a lot like being a fortune teller, except you can only tell me about what already happened? What a stupid belief system.

>> No.19510256

>>19510226
>when you decided to do whatever you did today, you were never going to do otherwise
Proofs?
You just keep asserting things.

>> No.19510258

>>19510234
Because quantum randomness prevents us from actually being able to perfectly predict all events that will happen, only assign potential outcomes a probability.

The exact mechanism for how everything works requires a more concrete understanding of quantum mechanics; as it currently stands we have literally no idea how discrete outcomes emerge from quantum probabilities. So as far as we currently know, the universe is a continuous series of events that influence the probability that subsequent events will or will not occur, however the actual mechanism by which each outcome comes to be is unknown.

>> No.19510259

>>19510233
>Infinite past requires infinite information density violating all conservation laws
RIP God

>> No.19510262

>>19510256
Because it would violate cause and effect.

>> No.19510264

>>19510258
>Because quantum randomness prevents us from actually being able to perfectly predict all events that will happen
That's cuz you don't know the hidden variables (yet)

>> No.19510267

>>19509917
I don't like shit harris.

However determinism is true, or has enough evidence to be considered true in teh scientific community.

Compatabilists (or whatever they call themselves) just play pedantic definition games with free-will so they dont have to admit its an illusion
Obviously anti-determinists are just flat out delusional.

>> No.19510269

>>19510262
>>19510258
Which one is it, can things be indeterministic or not?
Clearly cause and effect, are not violated by randomness.

>> No.19510270

>>19510256
If you could do anything other than what you will do, then why haven't you? In view of that reason why, how can you say you could've done otherwise?

>> No.19510271

>>19510264
>He doesn't know about the experimental proof against hidden entanglement information

>> No.19510273

>>19510262
>cause and effect.
Proofs of cause and effect being absolute things, governing the whole of reality?
Pretty sure that makes for an awkward cosmology on naturalism.

>> No.19510275

>>19510270
>how can you say you could've done otherwise?
In the same way you say I couldn't.

>> No.19510276

>>19510259
The universe began at a finite point in time, specifically the first chapter in Genesis

>> No.19510279

>>19510271
There is none. Don't be retarded.
Hidden variables is an unfalsifiable theory. They are hidden.

>> No.19510280

>>19509961
Godspeed.

>> No.19510282
File: 95 KB, 500x305, thats-bullshit-but-i-believe-it.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19510282

>>19510267
>This is bullshit
>But I believe it

>> No.19510284

>>19510276
I'm just saying God couldn't possibly have existed forever - it violates all conservation laws

>> No.19510286

>>19510275
No.

I'm using logic.

You're using wishful thinking.

>> No.19510290

>>19510267
>Compatabilists (or whatever they call themselves) just play pedantic definition games with free-will so they dont have to admit its an illusion
Are you retarded?
"Compatabilists" are all about it actually being an illusion. But it's not like that fact changes what humans experience.

>> No.19510293

>>19509917
I do

>> No.19510294

>>19510269
It's not that it's indeterministic, it's that we don't know the mechanism that causes the outcome. *Something* causes us to see a single outcome in an event. We don't know what it is. Coppenhagenists will tell you it's random, that the universe has some built in coin-flipper, if you will. Many Worlders will tell you that makes no sense and therefore all outcomes actually exist, though that doesn't explain why we only see one.

>> No.19510296

>>19510286
Okay.
How can you possibly prove that I COULDN'T have done otherwise?
Go on, show proof.

>> No.19510301

>>19510293
I think determinism follows from any basic relationship concept like emanationism. Granted I don't think the world is fundamentally material

>> No.19510304

>>19510296
Let's rephrase the question

Let's say I hand you a loaded gun and tell you to kill yourself to prove free will exists.

What do you do?

>> No.19510306

>>19510284
Even forever is not mightier than GOD

>> No.19510307

>>19510273
There is literally no evidence to the contrary. None.

>> No.19510308

>>19510296
If you could do anything other than what you will do, then why haven't you?

>> No.19510309

>>19510280
kek

>> No.19510311

>>19510294
>though that doesn't explain why we only see one.
The explaination is built into reality. What part of a person exists in multiple outcomes simultaneously?

>> No.19510312

>>19510294
>we don't know the mechanism that causes the outcome. *Something* causes us to see a single outcome in an event
Why can't "free will" do the same work as this random thing?
Cause one outcome, instead of another. No cause and effect needed.
Seems entirely symmetrical.

>> No.19510314

>>19510304
Man can only do that which he most wants to do in the best way possible given the circumstances.

>> No.19510318

>>19510304
Shoot you because you don't control me and I don't respect you

>> No.19510319

>>19510318
Heh, I knew you would do that.

>> No.19510323

>>19510319
No, you don't, because you no longer have a brain, so there is no "you" to know that. Fake God won't help you here

>> No.19510326

>>19509917
Determinism makes claims about something separate from the human experience. Using determinism to "invalidate" the concept of Will isn't appropriate and requires you to misunderstand what the Will is (possibly because you haven't experienced it)

>> No.19510327

>>19510304
Retard.
This is a whole other "argument". And just some PoS rhetoric, it doesn't even tangent to what we discussed.

>>19510308
Because I did what I did?
That's what free will does. You only get one outcome.
The idea is that it could've been different. If I did otherwise, things would have been different.

>> No.19510328

>>19510308
Jokes on you, I already did

>> No.19510341

>>19510312
Because it's blatantly obvious we can't do that. No amount of wishing for an outcome has ever made it happen. WE are clearly not what does it, beyond the fact obviously quantum probability decides what happens in our brains too. But you don't get to decide how that plays out, you just experience it happen. Whatever causes a single quantum outcome applies to your brain as well, obviously, since it's part of the universe. It therefore, also, causes all your thoughts and therefore all your decisions.

>> No.19510350

>>19510341
I just want you to show how it's logically impossible.
I'm not particularly concerned about the mechanics.

>> No.19510357

>>19510341
>WE JUST CAN'T OK??

>> No.19510366

>>19510341
>Blantantly obvious
>Clearly
>Whatever causes it
>Obviously it is also in the universe therefore therefore
This is the power of your brain when you watch science YouTube but have never read a book by an actual logician

>> No.19510375

>>19510327
Why did you 'freely' will what you willed?

>> No.19510381

>>19510366
You can't do it. I don't know how else to explain it to you except that you can't do it. It doesn't matter if you want to, or try to, you can't do it. Because you're not some separate, special entity. You follow the rules like everything else.

>> No.19510387

>>19510381
Anon, without any irony, start looking into logic. There are like 30 ways to say what you're trying to say. Knowing how to arrange thoughts coherently, as well as understanding proof, makes you much more persuasive

>> No.19510392

>I am a materialist therefore I am a determinist
Retarded
>I am a transcendental idealist therefore I am a determinist
Based

>> No.19510408

>>19510327
You are not a deep thinker, which is to be expected from a free will.

>> No.19510409

>>19510366
>>19510381
>>19510387
I don't think formal logic is really needed here. The anti-determinist argument is literally just asserting they can control the outcome of events in their own mind (ie free will), but this makes no sense because the events in their mind are determined by quantum phenomena common to everything in the universe which means their actions are 'willed' by the universe, not them. They, in fact, as a consciousness, far from being an arbiter of causality, are nothing but a product of this.

>> No.19510414
File: 802 KB, 510x510, Pepepepepepepepepepepepe.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19510414

>>19510408
Yeah? What determined that? LMAO

>> No.19510419

>>19510409
>are determined by quantum phenomena common to everything in the universe which means their actions are 'willed' by the universe, not them
Proof?

>> No.19510420

>>19510409
This is much better way to express that thought. All I know is that after studying formal logic I never ran into the issue where I didn't know how to explain something

>> No.19510424

>>19510409
but quantum phenomena is free?.

>> No.19510426

>>19510419
All events are determined by quantum phenomena. It's impossible to be part of the universe and not be. That's what it means to be fundamental, or a 'law' of physics.

As for the specifics of that proof, ask a physicist. I hate math.

>> No.19510431

>>19510426
>Idk bro, I just FEEL THIS WAY
LMAO yeah I thought so

>> No.19510434

>>19510409
>the events in their mind are determined by quantum phenomena common to everything in the universe
The dualist will usually assert some kind of soul-stuff, that does not act like everything in the universe
they don't believe the mind is (fully) reducible to those physical parts, governed by natural laws

besides, you can't PROVE natural laws
it's induction, induction got a problem

It boils down to epistemology. Why believe there are such a thing in the first place? (soul, mind partly/fully located outside the physical, etc)

>> No.19510435

>>19509945

do you look both ways before crossing the street

>> No.19510438

>>19510431
Your mind is made of the same fundamental particles as everything else in the universe. Therefore it is governed by the same physical laws as everything else in the universe. This is basic shit bro, did you not finish high school?

>> No.19510439

>>19510426
>All events are determined by quantum phenomena.
In a computer program, the events (viewed within the program) are free from quantum phenomena

>> No.19510440

>>19510438
And what is the proper conceptual interpretation of quantum mechanics?

>> No.19510441

>>19510434
It's literally the same as an argument for God in a different form. It's unfalsifiable, but there's literally no reason to believe such an assertion is true so we can safely discard it as the wishful thinking of existentially terrified retards.

>> No.19510444

>>19510435
Yes.

Is that supposed to be a "gotcha"?
Walk me through this.

>> No.19510446

>>19510439
False. All events are governed by the laws of quantum mechanics. Period. Electrons in a computer do not operate differently from electrons outside it, that doesn't even make sense.

>> No.19510447

>>19510446
Proof?

>> No.19510448

>>19510438
>Your mind is made of the same fundamental particles as everything else in the universe.
Proofs?

I assert that my mind is a soul. It's not even located in the universe. It's immaterial.

>> No.19510449

>>19510441
>Falsifiability
>Popperian
I don't think so. Crack a book, your scientism is showing.

>> No.19510453

>>19510440
There isn't because we can't physically perform the experiments required to refine quantum mechanics. It's whatever you want - doesn't make it true, the truth is that we don't know. But the interpretations make physicists feel better about not being able to figure it out empirically.

>> No.19510457

>>19510448
I don't care what you assert, there's nothing to prove your claim.

>> No.19510461

>>19510446
Computer program
as in ONES and ZEROES, all conceptual-like
they can be written out on a piece of paper, or a big mechanical differential engine
Within the program, do you think it matters if it's paper, notches or semi-conductors?

>> No.19510464

>>19510441
>It's unfalsifiable
Yeah, no shit.
And you guys have been shitting yourself all thread trying to "disprove" it.

>> No.19510467

>>19510461
If it's not an actual program, it's a thought in your mind, which is governed by quantum mechanics. If it IS an actual program, it's physically manifesting in a computer via electrical signals, which also are governed by quantum mechanics.

>> No.19510468

>>19510448
Nigga, you need to read more. This is something von Guericke (1672) solved by accident, and he was prefigured by Pascal/Descartes. Education in material science would help you in arguments like these.

>> No.19510475

>>19510464
Unfalsifiables are the ultimate cope. If you have to resort to believing in things that are conceptually impossible to debunk, you might as well just admit you don't actually fucking care what is real and what isn't, you just want to believe whatever makes you feel better even if it's not true.

>> No.19510477

>>19510457
>I don't care what you assert, there's nothing to prove your claim.

Then you don't get to assert: "That minds are made of the same fundamental particles as everything else in the universe."
unless you can prove it
yeah, and also meaningfully prove what those particles can and cannot do, while you're at it

>> No.19510478

>>19510475
Just like you

>> No.19510481

>>19510468
My position is unfalsifiable. (and unreasonable)
I'm very curious how you think it could be "solved"

>> No.19510484

>>19510477
But that is true. We know what minds are made of. We proved that literally everything is made of fundamental particles before we even knew what all of them were. It's been proven many, many times, to the point no one except retards like you even bring it up because it's just common fucking sense at this point.

Your assertion is baseless. You believe it because you want it to be true. My assertion is literally just a factual statement, something that has been settled science for over a century.

>> No.19510487

To the pseuds in this thread:
>Quantum
Please stop abusing words you're not qualified to use. It makes you look like a Highschooler "explaining the 4th dimension." Just stop.

>> No.19510488

>WII ARE MATERIAL VEINGS
>EVRYTING ISH MA-TER-IAL
>UNYOUR THOUGHTS ARE MA-TER-IAL
>MY UNDERSTANDING OF MA_TTER IS JUST MA_TEER
>IUM FREEI OF RILIGIOUS STIPID PIOPLE

>> No.19510489

>>19510467
what part of "within the program" don't you get?
if you don't grant that there is such a thing, that's fine

I would just ask why you think minds are different

>> No.19510493

>>19509992
>Because God literally exists,
God isn't going to save you from me, so, what's the point of caring if he exists?

>> No.19510494

>>19510489
There is no "within the program", the program and everything it does is part of the universe and follows the same rules as everything else whether it exists as an actual program or a figment of your imagination. There is no separate world of the program, that's just a useless thought experiment, it doesn't apply to reality.

>> No.19510500

>>19510487
Make me.

>> No.19510504

>>19510484
>Your assertion is baseless
Except the philosophical/experiential/whatever arguments, lmao

>> No.19510505

>>19510493
God is on my side, who do you think you are?

>> No.19510506

>>19510493
And yet God, in His infinite graciousness, already has saved me from you, for he placed you across the world in the poor neighborhood, and me safely in the rich neighborhoods.

>> No.19510507

>>19510500
I shouldn't have to. The fringe cringe is too strong.

>> No.19510508

>>19510484
>We proved that literally everything is made of fundamental particles
How did we PROVE this?
Did we discover literally everything? Wow, science complete, pack it up! Roll it in.

>> No.19510511

>>19510505
>>19510506
Your god didn't stop Constantinople from falling to Muslims. Your god didn't the Bolsheviks from purging you. Your god didn't stop COVID from taking the lives of your followers. And your god certainly won't save you from an untimely death. Your god is too weak to matter to anyone but the voice in your head that insists he's real.

>> No.19510515

>>19510494
When you enter 2 + 2 into a calculator, it's going to respond 4
quantum stuff isn't doing work here

>> No.19510517

>>19510511
I will pray for you

>> No.19510518

>>19510508
If you're gonna start denying basic physical laws like that I'm gonna put you in the same camp as flat earthers and just call you a retard from here on out.

>> No.19510523

>>19510515
Every single thing that happens inside that calculator is governed by quantum mechanics.

>> No.19510524

>>19510518
He's calling you a retard for not understanding the limited scope of the elementary particle model theory. For one thing, it answered absolutely nothing about the mind body problem

>> No.19510525

>>19510517
Praying didn't stop Christians having heads put on pikes by Roman Emperors and the throats of their children slashed. All it does is ignore the inevitable of him not saving you from monsters like me.

>> No.19510526

>>19510523
Proof?

>> No.19510527

>>19510518
>he don't know the fundaments evolve with science and is a taliban of this fundaments of this exact time.

>> No.19510532

>>19510526
It's made of atoms, atoms are made of fundamental particles, which operate via quantum mechanics. How many times do I have to explain this?

>> No.19510535

>>19510532
That is not proof of anything. Are you illiterate?

>> No.19510541

>>19510527
The laws of physics are, as far as we know, always been the same. They are what they are. What has changed is how well humans understand them, not the laws themselves.

ie, it doesn't matter if you're a literal dinosaur with no mental capacity to understand what gravity is, it still exists. It doesn't matter if you're a pre-quantum physicist and you're trying to explain things using Newtonian mechanics, quantum mechanics still exist, you just don't know it.

>> No.19510543

>>19510535
Yes, it is. You just don't like it.

>> No.19510545

>>19510535
Failing to understand concepts is a ‘You’ problem. There’s no point arguing against your thought experiment because it isn’t based on reality and only follows your rules.

>> No.19510549

>>19510543
>>19510545
You simply think that your belief is true and my belief is wrong. You have no proof, you have no coherent thought. You have dogma. And you repeat your dogma until you think you've won.

>> No.19510552

>>19510535
Woah sorry, ok. Set A is made up of multiple copies of B. B is also a set containing C. Therefore Set A contains C. Is that better? You realize QM turns into classical physics at the large scale without any contradictions and the basic postualtes of QM are the most experimentally verified results of the twentieth and twenty first century?

>> No.19510555

1. Do you believe non-human animals have free will?
2. At what point in our evolution out of the mud did we achieve free will?

>> No.19510557

>We proved that literally everything is made of fundamental particles
What about the word "Orgasm"
The colour red?
The number 1
An empty vacuum
My intention to grab something to drink
Gravity

>> No.19510562

>>19510549
What I said does prove it. Your belief is factually wrong. You are arguing against a century of experimental evidence here, you have no leg to stand on dumbass.

>> No.19510565

>>19510562
You said nothing of any substance.

>> No.19510568

>>19510562
>You are arguing against a century of experimental evidence here
I'm pretty sure people are arguing against (you)r incredibly poor arguments. Not mainstream science.

>> No.19510570

>>19510541
this is a response so retarded that if you don´t know how retarded it is its because you dont have the humility necessary to realize it. there will come a time when the paradigm of science will be broken and it would be replaced with another branch of knowledge to understand the world. laws dont exist outside of humanity for fucks sake. laws are concepts to understand the exterior, not reality. but you wouldn't understand it anyway.

>> No.19510571

>>19510557
>"orgasm"
A thought in your mind. Your mind is made of matter and thus fundamental particles.
>red
Ditto
>1
Ditto
>a vacuum
Space is a medium - or, rather, THE medium. Space is made of itself, it can be said to be 'made' of anything. More accurately, it's the property of the universe which dimensionally separates things from each other.
>intention
Mind again
>gravity
Gravity is a consequence of the warping of spacetime by masses. It's not a "thing", it's what happens to something when it travels through spacetime distorted by a mass.

>> No.19510576

>>19510568
>>19510565
The reason my argument has no substance is because I am too lazy to provide the scientific evidence that proves me right. However, I know it exists, which is all that matters to me. If you don't believe me that's your problem and you're still a retard.

>> No.19510580

>>19510570
If you're butthurt over the syntax just replace "laws" with "noumena" and the intention should become clear

>> No.19510586

>>19510570
1000% false (as far as we know). The fundamentals of how the universe operates have always been the same. The idea humans created the laws of physics is laughably retarded. We didn't create them, we attempt to identify and understand them. The fact we misunderstand or misinterpret them doe snot mean the universe itself is fucking changing, it means we fucked up when trying to understand how it worked. Jesus.

>> No.19510588

>laws of physics are
entirely descriptory?
not enforced
tenative
not actually doing work
human constructs?
approximations

>> No.19510589

>>19510580
new laws can completely broke and re-shape old laws that you arguing as "fundamental". science it´s a law in itself.

>> No.19510590

>>19510586
>it means we fucked up when trying to understand how it worked.
just think about it and how you think science is flawless and the tool to understand it and maybe, just maybe it´s not.

>> No.19510593

>>19510589
No, they can't. If your "law" of physics is "broken" that means it wasn't actually a law and you didn't accurately understand how the universe worked.

>> No.19510599

>>19510589
>Completely
The interpretations can change, but controlled hard experiments don't just start yielding different results every century

>> No.19510601

>>19510590
It's not flawless, obviously. But it's the best we can do. We're not God. Indeed, there is information it is physically impossible for us to ever know, so we will never, EVER, be able to understand everything about the universe no matter what we do.

But that doesn't mean you wishful thinking about free will is true, that's just cope. The actual blackpilled answer is that the universe is deterministic, but we may never actually know the rules by which outcomes are determined which makes it all one big, inevitable, but unsolvable mystery. If that frightens you, well, deal with it.

>> No.19510603

>>19510590
you see?. you confund reality with laws. you are basically a fundamentalist of science. we probably have inquisitors like you in two or three hundred years to preserve the scientific knowledge.

>> No.19510607

>>19510571
>A thought
elaborate, what is a thought?
>Your mind is made of matter and thus fundamental particles.
Proofs?

If 1 is mind my mind, how come it's also in your mind? You understand what I'm saying, yeah?
What's the common? Not the pixel symbols, those are not in our minds.

>Space is made of itself
Seems kinda circular, desu
Is it a thing? Part of "everything" ?

>happens
Hmm, cool word.
Obviously something that exists in the world. But it's not made of particles.

>> No.19510611

>>19510174
>1. The acorn became squirrel food because it didn't have proper faith in God. You stupid fucking idiot. How could you not see that.
my sides are in orbit

>> No.19510614

>>19510601
>its all deterministic but we will never know what is the final end of determinism.
this sound retarded to me. i mean, if the final end is not deterministic then you will never get outside of your deterministic box. anyway that is my point. when humanity see the lack of responses science have we eventually get over it.

>> No.19510615

>>19510593
what if they are not universal?
what if the universe is not rational?

>> No.19510620

this>>19510603 was for this>>19510593

>> No.19510621

To all the idealists/solipsists/subjectivists/anti-materialists/freewill copers out here:
FACTS DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS.
You're welcome.

>> No.19510624

>>19510621
proofs?

>> No.19510629

>>19510615
There's no evidence they aren't. All evidence ever collected show them to be universal. Until you can conduct an experiment which violates a fundamental physical law - say, entropy, or the 2nd of thermodynamics - there is no reason to think the universe is irrational.

>> No.19510630

>>19510624
Its a fundamental of living. Ie every time you felt frustration.

>> No.19510633

>>19510615
What if the moon was made of cheese?

>> No.19510638

>>19510629
>there is no reason to think the universe is irrational.
Oh yeah?
I argue the fact that there is something, rather than nothing. Is a pretty good reason to believe the universe is irrational.

>> No.19510641

>>19510621
supposedly my feelings are facts. that is the argument of determinism.

>> No.19510644

>>19510633
>>19510629
It's incredibly naïve to assume the uniformity of nature

Do you think there was such a thing as causality (apparently cause and effect is a natural law now) "before" the big bang?

>> No.19510646

>>19510644
By definition, there was no "before". Time didn't exist until the universe existed.

>> No.19510647

>>19510641
Can you present this "argument of determinism" in it's strongest possible form, the way you percived it?

>> No.19510649

>>19510646
are you aware you are saying he is right?, dont you?.

>> No.19510652

>>19510646
I know.
But obviously something was going on, unless you believe the big bang popped in from literally nothing (nobody in science believe this)
can you have causal relationships without time?

>> No.19510656

>>19510649
That is not proper English. Which only confirms my assumption that you have no clue on what’s really being argued.

>> No.19510661

>>19510052
https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.04701

>> No.19510663

>>19510652
Nope.

>> No.19510671

>>19510661
I don't grant whatever "logic" is being used, logic are formal languages, you can literally invent an infinite variation
this one may not necessarily be descriptory of (all) reality

>> No.19510675

>>19510663
No to the causal relationships without time -part?
Glad we figured out "the rule of cause and effect" is not universal

>> No.19510679

>>19510487
Precisely how I feel every time one of these illiterate podcast-raised shit gremlins bludgeons about with the word "materialism", but this is a bait thread, friend.

>> No.19510684

>>19510679
>materialism
How you even define materialism? By what it's not? Not supernatural (what is this?)
If Ghosts were real, they would also be material

>> No.19510690

>>19510684
>what if x
…

>> No.19510694

>>19510571
> Your mind is made of matter and thus fundamental particles
So consciousness is innate property of matter? Your own flawed argument destroys atheism.
It is flawed since you confuse qualia with description of qualia, the fact that feeling orgasm or seeing red is associated with some chemical reactions in your brain doesn't explain anything about subjectivity. And if you think otherwise, then you are guilty of magical thinking, since science explains all the processes occuring in our mind without involving qualia, in other words imagine if a general AI was to be made, then you would be one of those people who believe that that AI has qualia and subjective experience just like us, meanwhile that AI is completely explained using math. So you are akin to pagans who believe that their statues are the actual gods.

>> No.19510696

>>19510690
It would just be whatever there was, right?
If something new is discovered. There is no reason it should be material just because it's composed of ectoplasm, instead of electrons.

>> No.19510699

>>19510621
>idealists
Schopenhauer was a determinist and wrote the most sophisticated argument for determinism

>> No.19510702

>>19510694
>So consciousness is innate property of matter? Your own flawed argument destroys atheism.
Destroys... Atheism, why?
I can believe matter is conscious, yet still not believe in a God.
There's no logical contradiction here.

>> No.19510704

>>19510696
>what if x
Still not making a point or argument.

>> No.19510706

>>19510699
So?
It's not like there are any facts proving idealism

>> No.19510710

>>19510694
>implying the human brain can’t be explained
That’s your claim yet you offer no arguments in favour for this.

>> No.19510715

>>19510704
Is your definition of material: "All there is" ?
Then it's not doing any work
It should include something, and disqualify other things
what's the word supposed to do?

>> No.19510719

bro, you can't split a mind, its like, atomic
this proves minds are immaterial

>> No.19510720

>>19510706
There are
Checkout Bernardo Kastrup, he applied Schopenhauerian metaphysics to recent scientific developments. There is a debate between Graham Oppy vs Bernardo Kastrup on 14 December I think so keep an eye on that too.

>> No.19510724

>>19510720
>Bernardo Kastrup
hackfraud

>> No.19510725

>>19509961
Daily reminder that most forms of modern protestantism betray and distort christian philosophy.

>> No.19510729

>>19510720
>Graham Oppy vs Bernardo Kastrup on 14 December
Also gonna watch this

>> No.19510732

>>19510724
I am skeptical about LSD woo woo too but desu I am more sympathetic to Schopenhauer's idealism over physicalism. But we will see in that debate, Oppy is the best New atheism has to offer.

>> No.19510736

>>19510732
>Oppy
I've never actually heard him debate "for Atheism"
just what epistemology/ontology is supposed to do, etc
And of course, Holy Bible -> not great epistemology

it's been forever ago

>> No.19510744

>>19510702
>I can believe matter is conscious,
So you accept that you are just like a pagan or some sort of pantheist?
If you believe matter is conscious, can you explain where those consciousness are localized and what separates one consciousness from another? Or is everything just a manifestation of one single consciousness?
> yet still not believe in a God.
But you are not an atheist then, but an anti-monotheist, like Buddhists and most of pagans are. By believing that matter is conscious, you are open to all sorts of beliefs and deities, spirits and ghosts, and if you don't like those labels, it is just a questio of semantics then.
>>19510710
>That’s your claim yet you offer no arguments in favour for this.
Sorry, where in my post did I imply that human brain can't be explained? Whether brain is explainable or not has nothing to do with my arguments. Seems like you lack basic reading comprehension.

>> No.19510746

>>19510736
He is linked with that movement and he is going to defend physicalism.

>> No.19510749

Sorry theists, I choose free will

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnxkfLe4G74

>> No.19510754

>>19510715
Everything spiritual (soul, platonic ideals, the idea that the mind is deprecate from the body etc) is excluded. Your What if is materialist by default.

>> No.19510756

>>19510744
> And if you think otherwise, then you are guilty of magical thinking, since science explains all the processes occuring in our mind without involving qualia, in other words imagine if a general AI was to be made, then you would be one of those people who believe that that AI has qualia and subjective experience just like us, meanwhile that AI is completely explained using math. So you are akin to pagans who believe that their statues are the actual gods.
This post implies qualia cant be explained.

>> No.19510757

>>19510749
>I choose free will
because you were meant to choose free will

>> No.19510762

>>19509917
>...autistic retards...

Oxymoron.

>> No.19510766

determinism is for when you do not trust your decisions. have faith in your abilities anon, you are the master of your fate.

>> No.19510767

>>19510766
Thanks captain platitude.

>> No.19510772

>>19510756
>This post implies qualia cant be explained.
Of course it can't. It is not an implication, but it lies in the definition of qualia itself. Qualia is always oposed to whatever you describe it is.

>> No.19510775

>>19510757
and you were meant to choose determinism. its not absurd?. we literally can´t do nothing to change it.

>> No.19510777

>>19510775
we literally cant

>> No.19510860

May i offer my own thoughts on this subject?
Free will is an illusion, but it is a necessary one. Without it, the moral systems that constitute our society will fall apart. Everyone will fall into depression, because without free will, there is no more incentive to do good - you were damned before you were born. People need to believe in the lie to give meaning in their own lives.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusionism_(philosophy)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886921003676#!

>> No.19510863

Science is not about laws but models. And no, not even models of laws but literally models of models, since our perception of the world is already a model and that's all we can work with. That being said, this model of the world *is* The world for us humans, so we can talk about "discovering" "laws" in that sense. But these laws can by no means be asserted as universal, but are particular to the human mode of being in the world, as far as we can tell.

>> No.19510889

>>19510772
Then you’ve assumed there’s a dichotomy between the human brain and qualia or the human brain cannot be explained. Where the former requires more clarification or it’s a hypocritical example of magical thinking you’re accusing others of.

>> No.19510961

>>19510611
I also lol-ed. That was a crazy sentence to read.

>> No.19510968

>>19509917
Sam harris is about as overrated as christopher hitches if not more. The only reason he is relevant is due to him not being an alcoholic. I honest to god do not understand how anyone could look up to him,

>> No.19511003

>Determinists
Hundreds of peer-reviewed and experimentally verified theses on physics, mathematics, engineering, neuroscience and computer science
>Free willcopers
Feelings, subjective experience, MEMEMEMEMEME

>> No.19511044

>>19510326
schopenhauer was a second-rate philosopher, rightly ignored for hegel

>> No.19511055

>>19511044
all philosoyphers are second rate, there's a reason philosoyphy is dead

>> No.19511081

>>19511003
Okay
solve the hard problems of consciousness

>> No.19511085

>>19510326
>Using determinism to "invalidate" the concept of Will isn't appropriate and requires you to misunderstand what the Will is
will is deterministic, meanwhile Will is beyond cause and effect, but it cannot be dirrectly experienced.

>> No.19511086

>>19511055
>there's a reason philosoyphy is dead
Politics?

>> No.19511097

>>19510068
>not being a determinist Christian chad
>I'm not even Calvinist

>> No.19511099

>>19510889
>Then you’ve assumed there’s a dichotomy between the human brain and qualia
I rely on qualia based on the fact that I am self aware, maybe you are not, I don't know. I didn't assume a dichotomy or any kind of separation, between qualia and brain/

>> No.19511145

>>19510174
>The acorn became squirrel food because it didn't have proper faith in God.

lmao kek yeah how couldn't you see that!?!?!

>> No.19511159

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u45SP7Xv_oU

>> No.19511179

>>19511081
Schopenhauerian idealism solved it centuries ago.

>> No.19511234

>>19511081
it happened because it was supposed to happen

>> No.19511245

>>19511179
Well, people still seems to disagree on that one.

>> No.19511317

>>19511081
>hard problems of consciousness
>muh qualia
You mean your feelings?

>> No.19511342

>>19511317
You don't feel?
What part of feelings makes your intuition go: YEP this is atoms

>> No.19511372

>>19509917
Determinism is really behind criminal phenomenon

>> No.19511387

>>19511342
>feelings
>intuition

Sorry, determinists only accept concrete quantifiable evidence like
>CT Scans
>FMRIs
>EEGs
>Neurotransmitter Testing
>Behaviourism
>Intelligence Quotients
>Algorithms
>Mathematical modeling

>> No.19511393

>>19510652
>unless you believe the big bang popped in from literally nothing (nobody in science believe this)

Hawking, and following him many others did/do. Well it's more intricate than that, it's not that there "was nothing before", but that talking about anything "before" the big bang is fundamentally meaningless. Look up the "no-boundary proposal".

>> No.19511639

>>19509929
>>19509936
>>19509944
>>19509954
and he's a kike

>> No.19511669
File: 226 KB, 500x309, idc.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19511669

>Philosopher
>jew
>atheist

>> No.19511853

>>19511393
So in other words it's akin to religious belief with absolutely no way of proving it?