/lit/ - Literature

Seethe, christcuck. Sam Harris has proved that consciousness and free will are just illusions. Read a book.

>>16456266
>Sam Harris
>has proved

>>16456270
cope. Read his books.

>>16456201
Believing in free will is cope.

>>16456266
lol, what if his book is just an illusion

>>16456201
I elected to believe God is not all-knowing, to cope with the concept of free will

>there is free will, I chose to copulate and masturbate and am not impelled by inferior instincts. I am free. I chose to do this.

>>16456321
sorry but I dont have free will so I cant read his books not my fault

>>16456201
Prove it exists, faggot.
Protip: You can't

>>16456201
They've just been programmed by institutions and culture to have a materialist worldview, and they don't spend much time thinking critically about it. In medieval times they would have been Christian NPCs. To them, science is the new infallible Word of God, and scientists are their new prophets, capable of performing miracles, but they don't realize how little scientists currently understand about consciousness and the mind.

>>16456270
Bro, don’t you know he’s a neuroscientist? That means he’s qualified to talk about every subject ever.

>>16456201
>Books to explain the mentality of the NPC?
The World as Will and Representation

>>16457080
ouch, that hurt me

>>16456266
absolute reddit tier yikes

>>16456201
free will is only real if you define it as the illusion of free will which is fine. but consciousness is real.

>>16456201
>Books to explain the mentality of the NPC?
What the Buddha Taught by Walpola Rahula

>>16456266
Illusions cannot experience illusions, as only conscious minds can experience illusions

>>16457880
Do you have a single fact to back that up?

>>16457891
experience and consciousness are sort of synonymous so it's tautological.

>>16457891
can you provide an example of any illusions such as mirages having sentience?

>>16456201
If free will truly existed it would be possible for me to change your mind. As your mind cannot be changed, it follows logically that you were predestined to believe in free will, therefore proving its nonexistence

>implying being a NPC doesn't beat being woke by every possible metric

>>16457080
Schopenhauer literally doesn’t believe in freedom of the will buddy. At least read enough of an author to understand what they’re claiming before shitting him out onto the Internet

>>16457891
The illusionists are the ones making an extraordinary claim. It's in fact the wildest piece of nonsense ever considered scientifical.

>>16457080
>the Absolute

he cannot resist seething about hegel any chance he gets

You have freedom of choice but always within a limited, and definite context. You have access to limited information and choices, and these are means to satisfy as desire that you did not choose to have, such as a desire for sex. So the debate is more about the semantics of "free" choice or will, not about strict ideological determinism vs free will.

>>16458757
>I don’t understand what an intuition pump is and want inherently opaque topics explained to me in a way that coheres to my everyday experience of reality
You got a long way to climb turbonigger

>>16458736
It's precisely because he doesn't believe in that bullshit that he is far freer than you. Absolute freedom is a spook.

>>16458807
I’m a strict determinist, I think you might have me confused with someone else. I only ever skim threads so there’s a chance I misinterpreted you also

>>16456201
how much of a retard do you have to be to believe in free will?

>>16458783
>blue isn't actually blue you're just telling yourself it is

>>16457080
Schopenhauer will be the last philosopher I read because nonsense such as this will only ruin someones intellect.

>>16458878
How does a scientific mindset ruin the intellect?

>>16456266
>>16456321
>>16456337
>>16456415
>>16456446
>>16457431
>>16458716
>>16458736
>>16458807
>>16458819
>>16458846
>Lo cielo i vostri movimenti inizia;
>non dico tutti, ma, posto ch’i’ ‘l dica,
>lume v’è dato a bene e a malizia,

>e libero voler; che, se fatica
>ne le prime battaglie col ciel dura,
>poi vince tutto, se ben si notrica.

>A maggior forza e a miglior natura
>liberi soggiacete; e quella cria
>la mente in voi, che ‘l ciel non ha in sua cura.

>Però, se ’l mondo presente disvia,
>in voi è la cagione, in voi si cheggia;
>e io te ne sarò or vera spia.

>>16458868
If by “telling yourself” you mean that your entire phenomenal experience is a representation of the thing-in-itself then sure. You see blue because subconscious parts of your brain processed a ridiculously complex visual input and then pushed up a blue object into your brain’s representation space, attention schema, whatever you want to call it

>>16458918
>consciousness is only perception
Typical NPC error. Your attempts at emulating us are so poor as to be comical. We can see you from a mile away.

>>16458954
Serious question, do you genuinely think that you and I have different subjective/internal experiences? I’ve always been curious what delusions hardcore idealists put themselves

>“I conclude therefore that, fortune being changeful and mankind steadfast in their ways, so long as the two are in agreement men are successful, but unsuccessful when they fall out. For my part I consider that it is better to be adventurous than cautious, because fortune is a woman, and if you wish to keep her under it is necessary to beat and ill-use her; and it is seen that she allows herself to be mastered by the adventurous rather than by those who go to work more coldly."

>>16458954
>you aren’t a real human unless you experience infinite regress

>>16458974
It's kinda hard to explain your retarded beliefs otherwise chief, what else is there? Some weird neurological defect?

>>16458954
>a real person is an autist who feels detached from his own body
this meme always makes me laugh

Lower orders cannot create higher orders, only the other way around

>>16459004
If you want a rigorous explanation then read Thomas Metzinger’s Being No One, but you never will, instead choosing to blindly appeal to your intuition and cry about how modern day illusionists are charlatans

>>16458990
>>16459005
>Bleep bloop error!!! Error!!!
>>16459044
Lemme guess, he conflates cognitions with consciousness?

>>16459068
Nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger
>>16459068
Nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger
>>16459068
Nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger
kike

There, I almost shit the thread up as much as you just did. Now go write something more articulate or never come back to my board

>>16459044
Metzinger doesn't think consciousness is an illusion if that's what you're implying, he thinks the self is an illusion.

>>16459105
Still btfo’s free will which was the only reason I brought him up in this context

>>16459097
You never provided a scrap of evidence it's all an illusion, though. And I have a feeling your book rec doesn't either, which is why you didn't explain its arguments. It's a gargantuan claim and you freaks seem to think you can just baldly assert it.

>>16459121
my bad then, didn't read the reply chain properly.

>>16459122
Provide any definition of free will and I’ll refute it within 3 hours

>>16456266
>illusion
You can’t even say it without contradicting yourself.

>>16459134
it has remained unrefuted >>16458913

>>16459217
I don’t read subhuman. Translate it or be ignored

>>16459233
>hasn't read Dante
go back to /his/

>>16459248
I read it in English like any common sense member of the 21st century globohomo aristocracy. My favorite part was when the demon plays a trumpet out his ass

>>16456337
If that were the case it would not matter. Cope and no cope would both be effects of the forces in play.

Though determinism is false. Quantum randomness introduced a fatal flaw in it. Then there is the fact that we have access to the platonic ideals of freedom and we interact with them. The world has to be unmanageably bizarre to not have any freedom in it but still work as a lense where such a thing does.

I think it's more likely that the industrial society has an active interest in spreading anti-freedom ideas and software across the people-property.

>>16459269
>quantum randomness introduced a fatal flaw in this
Massive massive cope. We don’t even know enough about QM in 2020 to make a strong metaphysical claim about what collapse is or whether quantum like effects can occur in objects larger than several thousand atoms

>>16459286
Quantum randomness is easily demonstrated and it simply removes your favorite thought experiment from relevant stances. You're doing a lot of cope.

We know plenty about QM.

>>16456201
People that never had trauma great enough to start thinking for themselves. They are happy and content with so they never had to think for themselves and they never needed to. Individualist thinking comes from disillusionment and trauma.

>>16459308
Sometimes. Often it simply makes you a slave. Like is the case with all the baby torture religions.

>>16459286
>We don’t even know enough about QM to make a strong metaphysical claim
>We don't even know enough about causation to make a strong metaphysical claim
okay retard

>>16459305
The randomness only occurs at subatomic levels and often enough that it may as well not even be random on a macro scale

>>16458954
kek

>>16459329
Cope more.
>1. The Universe doesn't start and stop with atoms. The physical framework we do know of includes non-determination as a real causal factor.
>2. The atom does consist of smaller particles such as electrons and as such they do a whole lot of interactive functions all the time. Due to QM.
>3. There are even many animals that utilize QM and as such they break your odd taboo line
>4. Humans use QM and interact with the reaults. Knowledge of the Quantum Randomness and our reactions to it and our continued stances regarding it are in fact affected.

>>16456416
based

>>16459359
Why do people think randomness = freedom when it's just slavery to caprice?

>>16459375
Randomness is simply a fundamental proof against determinism you copefag. Freedom is quite something else, not just a phenomenon.

There is only the physical, and there is only freedom in the immediate, existing as a consequence to relative interactions. Every other conception is a cope.

>>16459399
Randomness doesnt exist if it can be predicted.

>>16459402
In your framework you've defined cope as magic, likely to give yourself a victim status and to feed your ego.
Cope exists and reality includes it. There is no physical ranking between cope and not cope. You're broken fundamentally.

>>16459415
Cope is the survival mechanism of weaker physical natures. The weak need to cope and need to construct bullshit ideas in order to manipulate others and survive. I never excluded it from the world.

>>16459404
1 in 3 chance you haven't even done the high school math course on probability math.

>>16459399
What's the point of appealing to quantum indeterminism if it doesn't actually grant free will?

>>16459429
In all fairness to him even simple probability is retardedly complex. Arguably more difficult than analysis

>>16459430
>weaker
How physical is your ranking system for the universe? How do you compare it to other models? If other models win then software is greater than hardware. Hardware is low quality.

>>16459429
http://www.rhine.org/images/jp/v76Fall2012/gJPF2012Kolodziejzyk.pdf

>>16459445
It breaks determinism and I'm fine with that in this thread. People are still pretending determinism stands a chance against free will when free will needs a true alternative instead of cope programming.

>>16459454
>How physical is your ranking system for the universe?
Completely. Even intelligence, even thought is purely physical. All comparisons, because all analyses, are physical. Lies are a physical phenomenon, too, as the survival strategy of the weak.

>>16456201
It's called not having schizophrenia, nutjob.

>>16459467
It breaks determinism and replaces it with 'determinism apart from sometimes when random shit happens'. How does this help anything

>>16459466
>>>/x/

>>16459481
They think if they live like the Dice Man but with a quantum die then they're free.

>>16458990
>>being the sentient witness of perceptions who is different from those perceptions results in an infinite regress

This argument was retroactively refuted by the legendary Adi Śaṅkarācārya in section 4.3.7. of his Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣadbhāṣya

I quote the relevant sections hereafter, he uses 'intelligence' to refer to the Self, or sentience, and uses 'consciousness' to refer to sensory-perceptions etc

Śaṅkarācārya: Now to those who believe in an objective world we reply: Objects such as a jar are not self-luminous; a jar in darkness never reveals itself, but is noticed as being regularly revealed by coming in contact with the light of a lamp etc. Then we say that the jar is in contact with light. Even though the jar and the light are in contact, they are distinct from each other, for we see their difference, as between a rope and a jar, when they repeatedly come in contact and are disjoined. This distinction means that the jar is revealed by something else; it certainly does not reveal itself.

Objection: But do we not see that a lamp reveals itself? People do not use another light to see a lamp, as they do in the case of a jar etc. Therefore a lamp reveals itself.

Reply: No, for there is no difference as regards its being revealed by something else. Although a lamp, being luminous, reveals other things, yet it is, just like a jar etc., invariably revealed by an intelligence other than itself. Since this is so, the lamp cannot but be revealed by something other than itself.

Objection: But there is a difference. A jar, even though revealed by an intelligence, requires a light different from itself (to manifest it), while the lamp does not require another lamp. Therefore the lamp, although revealed by something else, reveals itself as well as the jar.

Reply: Not so, for there is no difference, directly or indirectly (between a jar and a lamp). As the jar is revealed by an intelligence, so is equally the lamp. Your statement that the lamp reveals both itself and the jar is wrong. Why? Because what can its condition be when it does not reveal itself? As a matter of fact, we notice no difference in it, either directly or indirectly. A thing is said to be revealed only when we notice some difference in it through the presence or absence of the revealing agent. But there can be no question of a lamp being present before or absent from itself; and when no difference is caused by the presence or absence, it is idle to say that the lamp reveals itself.

>>16459571

But as regards being revealed by an intelligence the lamp is on a par with the jar etc. Therefore the lamp is not an illustration in point to show that consciousness (of sensory perceptions etc) reveals itself; it is revealed by an intelligence just as much as the external objects are. Now, if consciousness is revealed by an intelligence, which consciousness is it?—the one that is revealed (the consciousness of the perception), or the one that reveals (i.e. the consciousness of the self)? Since there is a doubt on the point, we should infer on the analogy of observed facts, not contrary to them. Such being the case, just as we see that external objects such as a lamp are revealed by something different from them (the self), so also should consciousness— although it reveals other things like a lamp—be inferred, on the ground of its being revealed by an intelligence, to be revealed not by itself, but by an intelligence different from it. And that other entity which reveals consciousness (of perceptions) is the self—the intelligence which is different from that consciousness.

Objection: But that would lead to a regressus in infinitum.

Reply: No; it has only been stated on logical grounds that because consciousness is an object revealed by something, the latter must be distinct from that consciousness. Obviously there cannot be any infallible ground for inferring that the self literally reveals the consciousness in question, or that, as the witness, it requires another agency to reveal it. Therefore there is no question of a regressus in infinitum.

Objection: If consciousness is revealed by something else, some means of revelation is required, and this would again lead to a regressus in infinitum.

Reply: No, for there is no such restriction; it is not a universal rule. We cannot lay down an absolute condition that whenever something is revealed by another, there must be some means of revelation besides the two—that which reveals and that which is revealed, for we observe diversity of conditions. For instance, a jar is perceived by something different from itself, viz. the self; here light such as that of a lamp, which is other than the perceiving subject and the perceived object, is a means. The light of the lamp etc. is neither a part of the jar nor of the eye, But though the lamp, like the jar, is perceived by the eye, the latter does not require any external means corresponding to the light, over and above the lamp (which is the object). Hence we can never lay down the rule that wherever a thing is perceived by something else, there must be some means besides the two. Therefore, if consciousness is admitted to be revealed by a subject different from it, the charge of a regressus in infinitum, either through the means or through the perceiving subject (the self), is altogether untenable. Hence it is proved that there is another light, viz. the light of the self, which is different from consciousness.

>>16459506
Even if that was how the universe works they wouldn’t be free

>>16459571
>>16459577
Shankara was a fucking retard, this entire point is like two lines of an Upanishad

>>16458974
Why do you even talk if we’re all just meat puppets? If you’re correct concepts like I or you are meaningless.

>>16459700
Same reason you talk

>>16459700
>Why do you even talk if we’re all just meat puppets
precisely because he is a meat puppet programmed to talk

>>16459819
>thank god we believe in mystical autism and aren’t meat puppets anon!
Idealists really are the true believers of the 21st century

>>16459669
>this entire point is like two lines of an Upanishad
Yes, and at his discussion of that Upanishad passage it become relevant to have a discussion about the nature of consciousness, and in the course of doing so he took it as an opportunity to refute some of the fallacious theories about consciousness being propagated by some of the Buddhist schools in India at the time, and thereby indirectly confirmed that Buddhism is an NPC religion, because of how first millennium Buddhist theorists and materialist NPC modern philosophers all try to explain away the reality of consciousness in the same sophistic and easily refutable ways.

>>16456337
Not really. It's just the natural assumption when you examine how consciousness works. A purely deterministic brain would work a lot differently

>>16459899
Good posts. I’ll begrudgingly read some more Shankara later today

>>16459841
Got to scoff at this coming from a mindraped dogmatist who thinks you can tinker with pic related and ever squeeze a single experience out of it.

The logical and philosophical arguments against the idea of free will never really convinced me. Ironically what tipped the scales for me in the end though was reading Robert Sapolsky’s books which is mainly about biology and human behavior.