[ 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]
20742343 No.20742343 [Reply] [Original]

If you believe in Determinism, you MUST post in this thread

>> No.20742370

>>20742343
Define post, define definition, define meaning. And then once that feat is achieved, define "determine."

>> No.20742388

Have sex

>> No.20742390

>>20742343
I DON'T believe in determinism and I DID post.

>> No.20742444

>>20742390
Same here

>> No.20742561

>>20742343
What's been determined in advance? Without predeterminism it seems that there can be no determinism, right? What am I missing here?

>> No.20742594

>>20742561
The Sam Harris determinist will conveniently say they don't know, that there's no empirical evidence to suggest anything has been determined or left indeterminate. Which is basically a self-defeating position because they are logically admitting they don't know if things are ultimately determinate or not.

>> No.20742742

>>20742594
What, then, *is* a 'Sam Harris determinist'? Why subscribe?
The only book by him I've read is The End of Faith but that was some time ago

>> No.20742755

>>20742742
>What, then, *is* a 'Sam Harris determinist'?
In a word, "neurology explains all human behaviour and thoughts." Which is then conflated via sophistry with "neuraly determines all human thought and behaviour", and which is never contextualized in a broader metaphysical framework (allegedly because of the stigma against metaphysics as "wild speculation"). At best they might allude to the big bang theory or something as though that explains anything.

>> No.20742772

>>20742370
fpbp

>> No.20742780

>>20742755
eww neurology

>> No.20742844

>>20742343
Sam Harris is a hack fraud. This is the same man that "solved" the is-ought problem in like nine tweets. I have no idea why he is taken seriously. That the irony in a logical positivist seriously advocating a metaphysical framework is lost on him is proof of his fucking retardation.

>> No.20742848

Aaahh, I'm not sure! This thinking makes my head hurt. I hate it. I want to have free will but I'm won't do shit anyways.

>> No.20742861

>>20742343
Can I post if I just want to have sex with Sam Harris?

>> No.20742891

>>20742844
He is right most of the time. I agree he is hack fraud because he acts this rational science man but has couple of huge blindsides

>> No.20742911

>>20742755
he obviously has a materialist worldview. literally what more do you want him to say about metaphysics?

>> No.20742921

>>20742911
You can't say "I'm a materialist" as if that somehow excuses you from being irrational. The point is he makes logical errors or unacknowledged assumptioms, and being a materialist does not excuse you for being held accountable for them. If you are a materialist, or at least the type that Harris is, you have no justification to assert that determinism is true.

>> No.20742928

>>20742343
He's got to learn how to ride something besides his hobby-horse.

>> No.20742939

>>20742921
>The point is he makes logical errors or unacknowledged assumptioms
such as?

>> No.20742945

>>20742939
see
>>20742755
>>20742594

>> No.20742946

>>20742939
>putting your hand on a stove is a universal bad
This is literally a statement that for him has a truth value of "true". Acknowledge this or take issue with it.

>> No.20742963

>>20742945
right, he can't prove determinism to you. he has a materialist metaphysical position from which it takes only a minor logically sound step to determinism. it's a belief. where are the logical errors or unacknowledged assumptions or sophistry?

>> No.20742973

>>20742963
It is not logically sound step. Materialism does not logically necessitate (entail) determinism. It is not a step, it is a leap.

>> No.20742983

>>20742963
>right, he can't prove determinism to you
No, his assertion is that determinism is true because he believes it is true. That is just an assertion, and has no necessary truth value. If your philosophy consists of asserting X is true, and then going forth into the subsequent rationalizations of that assertion (by presenting swathes of scientific data which do not help in the least of confirming that dogma, because they are just appearances), are you really doing philosophy? The answer is no.
>he has a materialist metaphysical position from which it takes only a minor logically sound step to determinism
What logically sound step? Everything he asserts is fundamentally contingent upon sense data, which does not logically give rise to or follow anything.
>where are the logical errors or unacknowledged assumptions or sophistry
A) By asserting that appearance of a phenomenon equals a determination of a phenomenon (he presupposes that an explanation of an appearance is equivalent to a cause or a real thing).
B) By asserting that a phenomenon is absolutely determined because it has relations to other phenomena (no evidence and no rational justification therefor).
C) He has never once proven that there is nor could be a first cause which enables hard determinism to be true, he tacitly presupposes this without ever engaging with this problem.
These are three very basic and serious assumptions which he is unable to justify. He is not even intelligent enough to acknowledge them himself, though, I am simply spelling out the consequences of his belief in determinism. Fundamentally he is just a dogmatist, not much more, as this anon >>20742946 points out in a different scenario.

>> No.20743049

>>20742983
fundamentally we are all dogmatists, literally no philosopher has ever proven anything at all logically, otherwise there would be no philosophy to contend with. you can say sam harris has no thought-out philosophical base to his beliefs, but to say that his beliefs are indefensible due to logical errors is another thing and not true

>> No.20743082

>>20743049
You're a dogmatist in my books when you refuse acknowledge that your view is inherently subjective. Sam Harris asserts that his beliefs are true beyond what he believes, he asserts that they are "scientifically proven" or "undeniable" at least. Again, where does he gain the authority to assert this?

>> No.20743085

>>20743049
He believes himself to have proven what he believes. That's the problem.

>> No.20743289

>>20742343
>determinism triggers the brainlet

>> No.20744137

>>20742343
I'm a determinist, and you can't make me-ACK!

>> No.20745051

>>20742343
What if it's already determined that I won't post here ?

>> No.20745074

>>20742343
>the look of serene contentment with knowing your neurons are cogs in a giant chemical reaction and you are utterly without agency

Feels good rationalbros. What have y'all been determined to do today?

>> No.20745095

determinism is pretty stupid and partially true at best for me. it requires a previous event to the Universe to be true which doesn't make sense, and it simply outright dismisses the mind as a factor, humans are causal agents that means we are either exempt or in direct conflict with whatever is externally causal

>> No.20745530

>>20745074
Well I overate and then fucked my cat. Things are pretty normal for me

>> No.20745544

>Determinism
Retroactively refuted by quantum physics.

>> No.20747033

>>20745544
Refuted by Karl Marx

>> No.20747041

>>20742755
Metaphysics is a joke

>> No.20747046

>>20747041
If metaphysics is a joke, then who is laughing?

>> No.20747051

>>20742343
Poo poo out of bum hole, etc.

>> No.20747057

What are the best books that refute materialism?

>> No.20747064

>>20747057
There are none; materialism is simply the idea that material things exist, and matter more to the life of the average human being than abstract concepts.

>> No.20747080
File: 114 KB, 757x835, 1652500604753.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20747080

>>20747064
>materialism is simply the idea that material things exist, and matter more to the life of the average human being than abstract concepts.
So it refutes itself?

>> No.20747097

>>20747064
The idea that material things matter more than abstract concepts is an abstract concept

>> No.20747151

>>20747080
No it doesn't

>> No.20747189
File: 20 KB, 220x220, Zizek.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20747189

>>20747151
You need an ideology to tell you that ideology doesn't matter?

>> No.20747215

>>20747151
>the idea that material things exist and matter more
>not an abstract concept

>> No.20747230

>>20747057
Berkeley Principles of Human Knowledge

>> No.20747234

>>20742561
>What's been determined in advance?
everything

>> No.20747240

>>20747234
How many fingers am I holding up?

>> No.20747245
File: 87 KB, 976x850, _.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20747245

>the past determines the future
>the past cannot be changed
>thus the future is determined by an immutable past
>thus the future is immutable
Determinism proven.

>> No.20747253

>>20747240
What is this meant to prove? How does me not knowing this refute determinism?

>> No.20747260

>>20747245
>>20747253
>If you could see where everything began you could see where everything will go
Determinism is really just belief in God when you really think about it

>> No.20747425

>>20747245
The past changes at every single moment, because there is no single "past", there are only relative memories of things which led to what is known now.
>>20747260
The crucial point is that there can't be a beginning (because otherwise there would be something from nothing, which is equivalent to the opposite of determinism), therefore determinism cannot be true without its opposite also being true.

>> No.20747965

>>20747425
Just because a past is not remembered does not mean it has no bearing on the future.

>> No.20747981

>>20747965
It's more than not being remembered, the past does not exist as a single thing which is capable of being determinate. The illusion of immediate determinacy is created by memory is the point.

>> No.20747998

>>20747981
The past always exists as being encoded into the present and future.

>> No.20748009

>>20747998
Exactly, the past is a mutable and often forgotten thing.

>> No.20748011

>>20748009
Being encoded does not mean mutable. If something breaks and you fix it, it does not change that it was broken.

>> No.20748012

>>20748011
What does that have to do with time? Stupid ass bitch.

>> No.20748016

>>20748012
There's nothing you can do change the past. It's immutable.

>> No.20748017

Fine

>> No.20748026

>>20748017
I accept your concession.

>> No.20748035

>>20742343
harris is based
cope and seethe

>> No.20748059
File: 2.45 MB, 3872x2592, PHD in Neuroscience.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20748059

>>20748035

>> No.20748113

>>20747998
Neither the future nor present are encoded, so there is nothing encoded into it.

>> No.20748128

Reality and its sequence of events is the result of data running through code. Data being the output of many different codes. Like recirculated air.