/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17010607]

>tfw fell for the hard determinism meme
>tfw I can't bring myself to leave bed because I thought that I don't have any choice in the matter
>tfw I'm failing all of my classes now because "nothing I do matters it's all chemical reactions lmao"
Books to refute determinism?

[doubtposting !!0CYbMy7gCdH No.17010613]

imagine being so cucked you get depressed by an idea

[Anonymous No.17010618]

>>17010607
>Books to refute determinism?
Common sense.

[Anonymous No.17010619]

read nietzsche

[Anonymous No.17010620]

Just choose not to believe in determinism lmao

[Anonymous No.17010623]

>>17010618
>t. Pleb

[Anonymous No.17010627]

>>17010607
just LARP as if you have free will again like you always did

[Anonymous No.17010629]

>>17010607
you are retarded

[Anonymous No.17010630]

>>17010607
stop using 'philosophy' as an excuse to be a lazy lump or lard

[Anonymous No.17010639]

>>17010607
Lol you're taking Determinsim too literally. Even if your actions are preconceived. It FEELS like you have choice doesnt it? So choose.

[Anonymous No.17011158]

>>17010607
imo hard determinism is likely true, but it's not really useful or provable because no one ACTS like it's true
eventually one comes around and begins to ignore the idea of hard determinism, thus acting as if one is in fact in control of one's own life. and you might as well believe you are indeed in control of yourself, because there is no way to prove or disprove hard determinism, so w/e

>>17010630
also this

[Anonymous No.17011174]

>>17010620
>determined not to believe in determinism
>determined to write this post
>determined to still feel guilt for being a slovenly predetermined NEET

[Anonymous No.17011219]

>>17010613
Reading about buddhism did this to me at first because it didn't validate my ego

[Anonymous No.17011316]

>>17010607
>Books to refute determinism?
You can't, it's the basis of observable reality

[Anonymous No.17011333]

>>17010607
Anon, everything is determined, and that is why this post, yes, this one right here, will influence you to get out of bed earlier, study harder, and succeed. There will be a back and forth in your thoughts as this process works it's way out, but the road is started. You will make it.

[Anonymous No.17011366]

>>17010607
Read Wittgenstein's philosophical investigations, or watch this video. It's only 20 minutes, and it conclusively proves that philosophy is a gay lie, so you can get on with your life you lazy fuck.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTgy3WCT0UU

[Anonymous No.17011377]

>>17010607
By staying in bed all day you're not overcoming determinism.

[Anonymous No.17011387]

>>17011219

[doubtposting !!0CYbMy7gCdH No.17011390]

>>17011219
Many such cases. You'll learn to build your memetic resistance with time

[Anonymous No.17011391]

>>17010607
Viktor Frankl maybe

[Anonymous No.17011401]

>>17011390
What does that mean? The thing is I agree with the doctrine on a deeper level but I'm finding it hard to accept it, paradoxically

[Anonymous No.17011417]

The only conceivable alternative to hard determinism would be randomness which is equally terrifying. So it is best to not be concerned by either. Construct a model of that which you wish to be and work towards it. It is determined that you shall read this post; it is determined that it shall cause you to build an ideal - an aesthetic by which you may define yourself - it is determined that you will strive to reach it, and that in at least some part you shall succeed.

[doubtposting !!0CYbMy7gCdH No.17011488]

>>17011401
In the sense that you'll fall into a metaphysical trope and build a sense of familiarity and certainty with that trope. Sorry if this sounds like gobbledygook but the best way to describe it is that existential uncertainty is a transient phase. If buddhism turns out to be the right thing for you, you'll come to consciously dedicate yourself to it with time.

[Anonymous No.17011507]

>>17011488
You're saying that I'll either move on to something else, or it'll finally click and the initial discomfort will fade? That's good to know

[Anonymous No.17011552]

>>17011366

Ludwig beyong the Tractatus was wrong about nearly everything tho.
And no, you probably don't understand the Tractatus either.

[doubtposting !!0CYbMy7gCdH No.17011553]

>>17011507
That's the gist of it, yes. Don't passively resign and wait for a miracle, though. I say it'll turn out well but that doesn't mean that it's not taking intentional action that precipitates the change. The transformation of existential uncertainty into certainty is something you have to undergo consciously.

[Anonymous No.17011581]

Just read up on quantum uncertainty

[Anonymous No.17011583]

>>17011553
Yes of course
I'm currently trying to understand things more fully and make sense of everything, I'm worried about falling into mental gymnastics that'll make me unconsciously adopt a more comfortable position but staying vigilant should be enough to prevent this from happening (I think...)

[doubtposting !!0CYbMy7gCdH No.17011589]

>>17011583
You're on a good path :) Best of luck

[Anonymous No.17011596]

>>17011589
Thanks friend, you too

[Anonymous No.17011640]

>>17011366
Interesting video, thanks for sharing anon.

[Anonymous No.17011700]

>>17010607

Read up on PPM, the predictive processing model of consciousness. It points out to how the specific structuration of our neural systems neuters concerns about determinism. We are determined, yes, but by a multi-tiered looping cycle of input, outputs, on-the-spot predictions and corrections. The deterministic point becomes entirely theoretical since you could never hope to navigate the cycle that leads to even the simplest of our actions, like absentmindedly picking up a cup and sipping some coffee, and high-level cognitive processes like subvocalization are as much capable of causing actions as the input of your senses.

[Anonymous No.17011738]

>>17010607
>Books to refute determinism?
Books? How about two sentences?
If determinism is true, rational thought is impossible, since it requires evaluation of ideas based on merit instead of based on chemical reactions behaving like they have to behave. Rational conclusion of determinism is therefore self-contradictory. You either concluded a falsehood or your chemicals have let you guess determinism, not conclude it.
Now, what are you? A rational person? Or a person determined by chemicals?

Besides this "I don't have any choice, it's chemicals doing it" is very much like "No officer, I dindu nuffin, I didn't run, my legs did". You are your legs. You are your chemicals. Unless you believe in a soul, your neurology is you and you thereby have the control.

[Anonymous No.17011741]

admit you are just lazy OP, its ok, stop coping with metaphysics

[Anonymous No.17011760]

>>17011738
>the propositions about X are contradictory so X isnt real
this is your brain on Aristotle

[Anonymous No.17011771]

>>17011760
>Conflating epistemology with ontology
this is your brain without Aristotle

[Anonymous No.17011773]

>>17011738
>If determinism is true, rational thought is impossible, since it requires evaluation of ideas based on merit instead of based on chemical reactions behaving like they have to behave.

You have a very unsophisticated notion of rationality, rife with psychologism. Rationality happens within language, and isn't determined by the physical processes enabling subvocalization or other cognitive functions, but by the limits of language and your experiences. Which doesn't mean that the subvocalization mechanics themselves are not determined.

[Anonymous No.17011787]

>>17011771

Lol, the one committing aggravated psychologism calling out on the confusion between epistemology and ontology, fucking priceless.

[Anonymous No.17011789]

>>17010639
>you're taking Determinsim too literally
why aren't you supposed to take things to their logical conclusions, mr nuanced midwit?

[Anonymous No.17011795]

>>17011773
>Rationality happens within language
>and isn't determined by the physical processes
If determinism is true, all your expressions are determined by physical processes. Hence you cannot conclude determinism, because it negates this exact thing you said.

[Anonymous No.17011809]

>>17011787
Cope harder. You conflate epistemology with ontology and even now after being corrected you can't understand two simple sentences.

[Anonymous No.17011811]

>>17011771
>Conflating epistemology with ontology
this is what you did

[Anonymous No.17011820]

>>17011811
Not at all. I am entirely in the realm of epistemology, as my point is literally
>you cannot conclude that

[Anonymous No.17011843]

>>17011820
which is irrelevant in an ontological discussion (determinism)
fuck off

[Anonymous No.17011852]

>>17011843
Dimwit, determinism is a position an issue and I'm showing you how the position is unjustified. How can you struggle this much?

[Anonymous No.17011854]

Nigga stop grossly overestimating yourself.
You are a tiny, irrelevant speck of nothingness in a universe that has existed since unfathomable amounts of time and will keep doing so even after you'll die, a tiny speck of nothingness who lacks the proper biological tools to see more than a couple of colours, and that's just the beginning of a long list of deficiencies to show how utterly unable you are to know even a fraction of what's going on out there.
You ain't gonna know the future, you don't even know what you're gonna fucking eat tomorrow so why get all depressed over something you have no actual control over?
Cut that humongous neckbeard of yours with Occam's trusty razor and stop being a haughty little decadent bitch, you useless piece of shit, go live your life and stop making excuses.

[Anonymous No.17011863]

>>17011795

Your argument is about as profound as "Determinism isn't the case because the rules of Chess are real".
The evaluation of ideas is done within language, according to rules that were produced by deterministic individuals experiencing the world and communicating about it. Nothing requires that thoughts have to be evaluated at a chemical level for them to be evaluated at all.

[Anonymous No.17011877]

>>17011820

Then why did you bring up chemicals?
Or are you too goddamn dumb to understand that ideas might ge determined by something else than just basic chemical reactions?

[Anonymous No.17011886]

>>17011863
>>17011877
bros I think he is probably baiting

[Anonymous No.17011901]

>>17011863
>>17011877
>ideas might ge determined by something else than just basic chemical reactions
>Nothing requires that thoughts have to be evaluated at a chemical level for them to be evaluated at all.
Except... you know ... the brain? I don't know what neoplatonic BS you're trying to pull here, but if a system is determined by random events, then emergent properties of the system are also determined by those same events.

To dumb it down for you: unless you're about to feed me some theory of souls, your thinking still happens in your brain, and if that brain is controlled by something, so is thought.

[Anonymous No.17011910]

Aren’t most philosophers compatibilits?

[Anonymous No.17011927]

>>17011910
Some time ago the majority was definitely compatibilist, not sure about now. Today the discussion of free will devolved into this weird "Presuming all things are just physics, is human mind also just physics?"

[Anonymous No.17011935]

This entire concept is a total waste of time;
I'm gonna work hard, therefore I'm pre-determined to work hard.
I'm gonna be a.lazy cunt, therefore I'm pre-determined to be a lazy cunt.

Simply work hard and you can pre-determin yourself into being hard working.
Well done, you are now a master of time, destiny, evolution etc.

[Anonymous No.17011938]

>>17011901

Your thinking happens within language.
Your capacity for subvocalization, imagination and other functions happens in the brain.
Ever heard of a computer running a virtual computer on it? Think along those lines. There is no substantial gap, one still happens inbeded within the other, but they do not coincide fully.

[Anonymous No.17011951]

>>17011854
>about Fight Club level

[Anonymous No.17011969]

>>17011938
Brain generates said language. What controls your brain controls your language, just like the one controlling the hardware of a computer is well in charge of the virtual computer inside.
You're just repeating again and again that language somehow itself does it, completely ignoring the fact that brains even exist.

[Anonymous No.17011975]

>>17011935
>im going to become a giant banana and fly around the world at the speed of light
something didnt work here

[Anonymous No.17012008]

>>17011975
Put up a decent argument or I am pre-determined to tell you to fuck off brainlet....though if you come up with a good counter argument my pre-determined response will change.

[Anonymous No.17012066]

>>17011969

Look dummy, your the one implying that to be a determinist, you have to accept that somehow, the reason why you can't think of a round square is chemical in nature. That is crass psychologism. Go back to Frege and Husserl ffs.

[Anonymous No.17012075]

>>17012066
>your
>>17011969
See what you've made me do? Just talking to you lowers my IQ.

[Anonymous No.17012078]

>>17012066
>> You do know language comes from somewhere, right...?
> D-dummy!!! Stop!!
Okay, keep ignoring the facts some people happen to have brains.

[Anonymous No.17012085]

>>17012075
Yes, to dangerous levels.
It's a shame because the pitchfork we split over are actually two ways in which determinism is set off:
If thought is neural in nature, you're unjustified in concluding determinism.
If thought is in some language realm that supposedly isn't entirely predicated on material, then determinism is flat-out false.

Oh well.

[Anonymous No.17012120]

>>17012078

> NOOOOO not the little FACTERINOS!!!
Goddamn it all to hell.

[Anonymous No.17012126]

>>17012120

[Anonymous No.17012214]

broke: My actions are subservient to fate, might as well lay in bed
Woke: I am fate

[Anonymous No.17012288]

>>17010613
all depression stems from ideas

[Anonymous No.17012338]

>>17012085

Once more into the breach.

My 'general thought patterns' are determined by the sum of my experiences, both current and past.
The cognitive functions of my brain are determined by their structuration and specific physical processes and their relation to my experiences.
My capacity for language are determined by my physical make-up. The abstract product of language that we call rationality is the result of the application of rules inherent to language having been dug up, and as such we could say that it was predetermined by those rules. If you want to found those rules on something else to say they were determined, there is little else to refer to then the specifics modalities of our reality.
You can have an entirely deterministic ontology and still be able to say that the reason why we can't conceive of a round square is a lack of the right chemical, or whatever.

[Anonymous No.17012356]

>>17012338
>still be able to say that the reason why we can't conceive of a round square is a lack of the right chemical, or whatever.

*Isn't the lack of
Fuck sakes I should not be on /lit/ while at work.

[Anonymous No.17012447]

>>17011333
trips of truth have spoken

[Anonymous No.17012499]

>>17010620
hhhhhhah

[Anonymous No.17012873]

>>17011789
but what OP is describing clearly isnt the logical conclusion to hard determinism

[Anonymous No.17012933]

>>17011854
big cringe

[Anonymous No.17012961]

>>17011158
But EVERYONE acts like it's true. This is how people act when it's true.

[Anonymous No.17013007]

>>17011789
I'm not referring to "things" I'm referring to Determinism which is by its very nature way more nuanced than "lack of choice" Mr. Absolutist twerp.

[Anonymous No.17013083]

>>17010607
Anon, your reality has not fundamentally changed since you have discovered what you conceive to be truth. Everything you've ever done, accomplished, and conceived was pre-determined for you to do. Yet you were absolutely okay with this as long as you had the illusion that these accomplishments were a product of your will.
Your depression isn't born from the truth of hard determinism- as this anon >>17012873 says, yours is not a logical conclusion to draw if hard determinism is real. Your depression is born from the knowledge of an idea that you are unable to reason yourself out of. Your reason has found a truth that you were never prepared to accept, yet is too cogent for you to deny it.
It's not entirely applicable to your situation, but I recommend St. Augustine's Confessions as a portrait of the development of the rational mind. The ideal philosophy should be something that leads to happiness and knowledge of the good. If you continue to believe in the pre-determination of causes, then you need to believe it in a way that allows you to understand what it is to flourish and what it is to be good according to the ontological truths you have accepted.

[Anonymous No.17013208]

>>17013083
this

[Anonymous No.17013354]

>>17010607
Determinism doesn't mean your choices don't affect the world. That is retardism. It means the choices you make are the only ones you could make.

[Anonymous No.17013383]

>>17013354
It means there are not choices, because choice implies viable alternatives, which, when everything is determined from the get-go, dont exist.

[Anonymous No.17013422]

>>17010607
Studies have shown that it does seem that the universe is rooted in randomness, in the actions of the waves and particles that make up the 'quantum world'.
This existence of microrandomness means that above it, the influenced macroparticles have randomness involved in their impulses.
So as far as that goes determinism isn't something to bet on. And beyond that, the only proof of determinism is the idea that somehow humans have no ability to choose things.
Which is countered by our understanding of psychology and the ability for personal choice and novel development.

[Anonymous No.17013436]

>>17013422
>Studies have shown that it does seem that the universe is rooted in randomness, in the actions of the waves and particles that make up the 'quantum world'.
There actually is not a scientific consensus on this point, just various hypotheses. I would bet that what seems random to us now is simply processes that we have incomplete knowledge of, since that would fit the pattern of our species in, for example, ascribing weather patterns to gods or luck or whatever bogeyman.

[Anonymous No.17013476]

>>17013436
Articles like this (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120516093015.htm)) explain the general understanding.
That indeed these things do happen without any external stimuli at complete random. Also seen are particles appearing and vanishing on their own in vacuum settings, indicating that there is randomness at the lowest levels of the universe.

While this doesn't prove free choice, thats easier found in psychological analysis, this does indicate we live in a non-deterministic universe, most likely.

[Anonymous No.17013507]

Become a Calvinist, it's the only hope for someone who has realized determinism.

[Anonymous No.17013516]

Determinism doesn't mean anything itself, genetic atheist determinism is the kill yourself tier ideology.

[Anonymous No.17013525]

>>17013476
At the risk of just repeating myself, there are many proposed interpretations of quantum mechanics, and none are certainly true.

[Anonymous No.17013543]

>>17013525
There are, but few of them find any explanation for things appearing random that are held to reality over those that just accept that such things are random.
Unlike the weather that was called unpredictable for its complexity, this is unpredictable for the lack of it, I'd say.

[Anonymous No.17014367]

>>17013476
Attributing lack of means to identify causes does not prove lack of causality. But really that isn’t the issue when you are talking about free will. When it comes down to it, introducing an element of randomness to our decision making process doesn’t imbibe us with agency, and would be a more nihilistic take than to say we act deterministically. If you identify with who you are, your nature, why should it make a difference that your nature transcends time? If you introduce a random element to this, it doesn’t make it so that the randomness is some divine property that you have. And even if there were randomness, it would just prove the multiverse theory true and make it so that any action you could have taken has been taken and results in an equally deterministic version of yourself. Anyway, this stuff doesn’t matter is what should be taken away from it. Why would it?

[Anonymous No.17014508]

>>17010607
Determinism is literally a form of anxiety and nothing more.

[Anonymous No.17014604]

>>17010607
Irrefutable.
Try reading Being No One by Metzinger.

[Anonymous No.17015925]

>>17010618
BASED
>>17010623
t. Absolute joke of a pseud

[Anonymous No.17015991]

>>17011854
Best answer.

[Anonymous No.17015994]

>>17010607
Was this part of Ben Stiller's (PBUH) plan?

[Anonymous No.17016011]

>>17010607
If it makes you feel any better it's not like it could have been any different, since no free will and all that.

[Anonymous No.17016057]

>>17012338
>My capacity for language are determined by my physical make-up.
Thank you. Therefore what controls your physical brain, controls your thought and language.
>The abstract product of language
Is still the abstract product of your physical make-up
Even if I gave you the largest benefit of the doubt possible and granted you that your brain actually allows you to peek into some alternative neoplatonic nonphysical and self-sufficiently rational realm... control over your brain still results in control over your access thereto.
You simply cannot argue your way out of your brain, my man.

It is therefore still the case that if your brain (and therefore your thought) are determined by physical events alone, you don't actually rationally evaluate things, but you are simply holding positions that your chemicals force you to.
To rationally conclude determinism is therefore a contradiction. You at best conclude it irrationally by virtue of your chemicals. Therefore, determinism as a position cannot be rationally held.

[Anonymous No.17016083]

cont >>17016057
>8 instances of the word "therefore" in the thread
>5 of those in my last comment alone
Fuck I need some meth.

[Anonymous No.17016105]

>>17015994
always has been

[Anonymous No.17016154]

>>17010607
You refute it with the other side of the brain. You're stuck in calculator mode because you believe it. Experience anything else - and it fails to root you in place. Likewise, walk besides a tortoise to find out the mystery.

It's a mechanical contraption you're in, it's not all there is.

[Anonymous No.17016163]

>>17016057
>Thank you. Therefore what controls your physical brain, controls your thought and language.
Back in the day we used clubs to showcase how effective this is. Eventually more advanced models such as fear generators and examples were made.

But here's the problem. There is an inner user. If you're not stuck in a box, you're free.

[Anonymous No.17016198]

>>17016163
>There is an inner user.
There absolutely is, but what is it a problem to? The inner user, this awareness that is you - it doesn't produce rationality. It merely witnesses it like it witnesses the chair under your bottom.

[Anonymous No.17016255]

>>17010607
You can't refute it because it is literally true and makes perfect logical sense. All compatibalist arguments are basically, "But it FEELS like we have free will, right? So we should just act like we do!" Like that thought came into creation totally by their own agency and not because of the million different things that have happened to them that lead up to that thought.

[Anonymous No.17016288]

I haven't read any philosophy, but: did any philosophers argue that because the soul is immaterial and free from bodily passions, we only exercise free will when we ignore our passions and act in accordance with our souls? I feel like I've heard that Descartes said something similar.

[Anonymous No.17016294]

>>17010607
>Books to refute determinism?
All of them

[Anonymous No.17016314]

>>17016288
There must be, since the idea of souls is so various that every thinker could pretty much put his own twist on it.
But some of them have side-stepped this "problem" even better - by claiming that it's not matter producing mind, but (god's) mind producing matter. This way the regularities, or 'laws', of physics aren't in charge of the mind, but are an expression of it. Laws aren't in charge of anything anyway, they're patterns we happen to have observed, but still... theologians generally avoid this useless deterministic clusterfuck pretty neatly.

[Anonymous No.17016348]

>>17010607
Already refuted by quantum physics and to lesser extent chaos theory. If you put these two back together you don't have hard determinism but a soft one which i would say is what most people are comfortable with.

>but random isn't free will
How else do you want to define free will then casualty (from non quantum physics) mixed with non determinism (quantum physics)? Yeah, you are part of physical processes but that means since they aren't indeterminate so are you. The free will to the point of choosing what you desire is just a paradox if you think about it for few seconds. Isn't history that follows casuality with a bit of non determinism how we think about our choices?

[Anonymous No.17016417]

>>17016198
>There absolutely is, but what is it a problem to?
All external users who want to box it but prove incapable of doing so.

[Anonymous No.17016422]

>>17016417
Also, if they do succeed, one becomes the Schrödinger's cat. Potential awakening and life may yet emerge from the matrix we live in.
Just open the box from within, and you for sure are alive.

[Anonymous No.17016501]

>>17016417
>>17016422
I'm boxing the user's tool - rationality. It is done.

[Anonymous No.17017146]

>>17016255
This.

[Anonymous No.17017238]

>>17010607
Just read Bergson, Time and Free Will. This will probably "prove" free will to you, its really worth a try

[Anonymous No.17017960]

>>17016501
Shame I have more than just reason.

[Anonymous No.17018294]

>>17011158
>no one ACTS like it's true
>implying choice in the act

[Anonymous No.17018302]

>>17018294
Choice is not implied in action. The future is uncertain for us because we have incomplete information, that's all it means to say we 'act' like we have choice in things.

[Anonymous No.17018342]

>>17017960
It is no shame, it's just not something I'm going to address in an argument that explicitly focuses on reason.

[Anonymous No.17018387]

hard determinism is real
the rest is semantics
it's really not that big of a deal

[Anonymous No.17018413]

>>17011366
You can't avoid ethics. Life demands it where ever you turn

[Anonymous No.17018418]

I feel like it's important to note that most religious concepts of free will aren't actually affected by determinism. The opposition is free will vs will controlled by someone else, not brain's quest to escape observed physical regularities.

[Anonymous No.17018537]

>>17010607
The universe being deterministic doesn't mean you don't have to get out of bed or make decisions. The realisation doesn't change the fact that you have to behave as though you are making decisions. You just wanted an excuse to stay in bed.

[Anonymous No.17018573]

>>17010607
ANON, do not be fooled. Science agrees that there is something called randomness, ergo things are not set in stone. Consider your consciousness as the tool which settles randomness into fixed moments which are existing in spacetime eternally. YOU ARE THE FORCE DOING THE DETERMINING GODDAMIT. Snap out of it and get to it.

[Anonymous No.17018580]

>>17018418
There are no possible ethical postulates in a world without choices, and it seems like every religion has ethical postulates.

[Anonymous No.17018601]

>>17011219
after 25 you should quit reading if you do it to find confirmation. You are wasting time

[Anonymous No.17018615]

>>17018601
what confirmation? what are you referring to? confirmation of what?

[Anonymous No.17018629]

>>17010607
If everything is chemicals then the idea that you're just chemicals is chemicals in your brain telling you that, so that doesn't matter. Your actual crisis is that your worldview is probably built on indoctrinated ideas moral imperative and without those concepts you're unable to motivate yourself.

[Anonymous No.17018646]

>>17018580
You do make choices. Determinism only tells you they can be traced back to various factors, like your DNA. Which ... is still you. You are your DNA.

[Anonymous No.17018665]

>>17018646
It's not a choice without an indeterminate aspect that resolves to a determined one. Under determinism everything is already determined and there are no choices, only mechanical linear processes.

[Anonymous No.17018676]

>>17010607
kek, my flatmate is like this. It's actually frustrating to have any kind of discussion past 'when does the milk go off?' because it always seems to fall down to this embarrassing shit 'oh woe is me life is hard and I'm a half-baked materialist who watches a couple of youtube videos and all that's left to do is sit and mope"

[Anonymous No.17018684]

>>17018601
Validation is inherent to learning. People are incapable of taking in new information if it doesn't validate their previous idea in some way, even by addressing and refuting it.

[Anonymous No.17018689]

>>17018665
>It's not a choice without an indeterminate aspect
It is indeterminate to you.
>Under determinism everything is already determined
To an outside observer, sure. Even in some Hebrew theology at some point it's said God knows the choices you're going to make. Again, how it appears to an omniscient agent has no impact on the religious framework.

[Anonymous No.17018704]

>>17018676
It's better than theological dogma. He sits and mopes, those people want to destroy or enslave you.

[Anonymous No.17018712]

>>17018689
Nobody denies that humans have incomplete knowledge and so the future appears to be indeterminate. When we talk about determinism we are hypothesizing about the reality, not about our perception of it. There may be no choices at all and we could still perceive 'ourselves' as making choices—just the choices would be an illusion, as would our selves.

[Anonymous No.17018723]

>>17018601
I'm 22. I want to acquire a solid basis of theoretical knowledge in order to make the most educated choice as to what path I want to choose. You're right that this step shouldn't take too long, but I don't think it will. Despite my original resistance towards Buddhism, I'm finding it more compelling after studying it more deeply, so I think the 'validation' stage is over.

[Anonymous No.17018724]

>>17018704
Bit of a broad brush with which to paint theology. Many religious people and sects are quite pacifist and live and let live.

[Anonymous No.17018755]

>>17018704
>NOOOO YOU CAN'T RAGE AGAINST THE DYING OF THE LIGHT YOU HAVE TO DO NOTHING WITH YOUR LIFEEEEEE

[Anonymous No.17018794]

>>17018712
But as I've just said, many literally Abrahamic theologies themselves would hypothesize that reality is deterministic and still call what we do choices, so obviously the contradiction you see in the word 'choice' only pertains to your take on the word.

[Anonymous No.17018824]

>>17018794
You are free to do as you wish, yet God has knowledge of everything. Spiritual teachings tend to have hardcoded paradoxes which can't be accepted through logic. You can surmount them only through surrender and faith.

[Anonymous No.17018854]

>>17010607
I gave up on coping, "you" and "I" don't exist. There is no immaterial world. When you die you fade to the infinite nothing. Wvery second that passes you are dying over and over again since there is no soul holding you together. There is no escape, this is your life and it's ending one minute at a time.

[Anonymous No.17018895]

>>17016057
>Even if I gave you the largest benefit of the doubt possible and granted you that your brain actually allows you to peek into some alternative neoplatonic nonphysical and self-sufficiently rational realm..

Jesus fuck, this is the problem here, isn't it.
One does not fucking imply the other.
The result of deductions is the result of a physical system treating information. It is as dependent on the information itself as it is on the physical processes. And in the case of language, the relevant information (the logical deductive steps to be followed) are contained within language, and it is their proper application that warrants saying that the deductions are valid, not the proper physical processes.
Once again, read up on the critique of psychologism by Frege and Husserl (who weren't necessarily determinists at all, mind you) and apply it here.

[Anonymous No.17018903]

>>17018724
Pacifism can be destructive too. Tell your enemy to be peaceful while you yourself are not.

[Anonymous No.17019028]

>>17018895
>Yes, I WILL just repeat that it's from language without addressing where language is from. You were correct.
Suit yourself. As long as the physical system is controlled (which it is), the treatment of information is too, making my argument valid.
You're skipping over so many issues from neurology to actual intelligibility when you just try to play it off with "language is language, read up a dude", it just doesn't work. Even if you had the literal name of god as an information and threw it into a system that evaluates veracity based on character amount, it wouldn't do you any good. It's up to the system. The brain.
Repeat for the 8th time that language is language and call it a day, dude.

[Anonymous No.17019029]

>>17016057

Take a computer that's running a Chess program. You are playing against it. At some point, because of some defect in the processor's make, the Chess program start moving its pawns as if they were queens. You think to yourself, wtf? , but the computer keeps playing and beating the shit out of you.
The physical processes caused the error to happen, yes, but what made the error an error wasn't the computer's programming, but the rules of Chess themselves.

[Anonymous No.17019054]

>>17019029
>what made the error an error wasn't the computer's programming
This has no implications to my argument, my dude.

[Anonymous No.17019159]

>>17019054

Yes it does. Jesus fuck how can you be this dense not on purpose.
You argue that a syllogism leading to a deterministic conclusion is false in principle because determinism implies the impossibility of rationality.
You argue as such that the only position left for a determinist is to think rationality is entirely bound to physical processes, the pure result of chemical interactions.
I've just shown you that you can 100% have a deterministic ontology that allows for rationality to be seen as the proper application of rules discovered throughout experience.
Weither your belief in determinism or against it is true isn't based on the relevant physical processes than led you to formulate those beliefs were proper, even for a determinist (well, unless he is completely retarded), despite that their actual function is based on those physical processes. It's based on the coincidence between your belief and weither the world is or isn't determined.

[Anonymous No.17019186]

>>17010607
That’s called apathy not determinism

[Anonymous No.17019201]

>>17011854
Hate this generic faggy Reddit atheist type answer they always spout

[Anonymous No.17019242]

>>17019159
>determinism implies the impossibility of rationality
Basically, yes.
>the only position left for a determinist is to think rationality is entirely bound to physical processes
That's not exclusive to determinists. Every sane person will probably agree that thinking happens in the brain, meaning that rational conclusions are completely dependent on its chemical processes. Like a chess program is dependent on PC mechanics.
>you can 100% have a deterministic ontology that allows for rationality to be seen as the proper application of rules discovered throughout experience
You can propose that there exist rationality, you just can't ever conclude that that's what's happening in your brain. Because to you internally, your applications are proper, like to a faulty computer the chess moves are proper. They're really not. It's not chess. It's not rationality. But you'd never know looking from inside out.
>Weither your belief in determinism or against it is true isn't based on the relevant physical processes
Your belief in determinism may be true, in my original post (ages ago, it seems) I said that you can't RATIONALLY CONCLUDE determinism. But you can believe it. You can claim you 'guessed' it. The belief may be true. It's just that there's no RATIONAL path to it that prevents the conclusion.

[Anonymous No.17019287]

>>17018684
No, it's not. Learning is the process of passing from ignorance to knowledge. The only "validation" you need, in order to start learning, is to acknowledge that you don't know something. That's when you are ready to start learning. If you validate an idea you already have, you are not learning anything. You can learn only if you don't know something, and you know that you don't know it.

[Anonymous No.17019377]

>>17010607
Determinism is real but that doesn’t mean that you aren’t responsible for your actions just because you were always going to make them.!

[Anonymous No.17019392]

>>17019377
responsibility in the absence of agency has no moral or ethical component. you are "responsible" for actions only in the amoral sense that gravity is responsible for pulling you to the earth.

[Anonymous No.17019732]

>>17019392
I feel like claims like these rely on a vague aetherical definiton of 'you'. As in when things are deterministic, "you" don't have part in them, on the other hand when they're random, how could "you" have any part in them?

[Anonymous No.17019778]

>>17010620
patricians answer

[Anonymous No.17019782]

>>17010607
Sounds like you’re proving the problem with determinism. You were happy and successful only before you believed in that shit-tier philosophy.

[Anonymous No.17019814]

>>17019732
Under determinism the "you" of reflective consciousness is an illusion, some kind of warped branch of evolution likely to stomp itself out eventually. If there is a random aspect to the universe, then possibly the "you" is still an illusion that associates "itself" with random outcomes; or possibly the "you" is indeed an agent and can affect some particular determinations.

[Anonymous No.17019860]

>>17019814
See, it's vague enough so you can write it off in both cases, or you kinda don't have to... Let's say there's a deterministic universe where I drive a car into an old lady. How am I not responsible? I did it. I'm obviously an organism whose behavioral inventory in a society like this, includes dangerous driving. I'm going to jail.

[Anonymous No.17019948]

Determinism is real due to the physical nature of our world, but that still doesn't mean that you are.
When you choose to do something, we could have predicted that with the chemicals, nevertheless it was your choice, as you always make the same decisions when given the same chemicals under the same conditions.
Therefore "you" are the system (consciousness) which interprets the chemicals, and not subject to the determinism.
Since your body exists in a deterministic world, your interaction with anything in it will be deterministic, but the concept of "you" is not.

[Anonymous No.17020076]

>>17019860
I dont think youre comprehending the difference between material responsibility and ethical responsibility that both go under the polymorphic name of responsibility. There is simply no ethical responsibility for anything in a fully determined world.

[Anonymous No.17020124]

>>17020076
In a deterministic world they merge into one. Back in >>17019814 when I was complaining about how aetheric and undefined "you" is, I almost included "ethic" into the mix, and now I see I should have. Ethics are just ways of behaving that conform to values, it's a practical issue.

[Anonymous No.17021310]

>>17019287
Process, meaning there are things that need to happen, and part of that process is validation. People inherently believe they're valid; even an attempt to claim oneself as invalid must be either a lie or believed to be valid. In other words, something being invalidating is synonymous with it not being understood, let alone believed and learned from. Therefore a person cannot learn from something that is wholly invalidating toward them, as it would be merely perceived implausible to the same degree as a mathematically false equation.

People don't learn because they're wrong, they learn because something proves their belief that they can learn more right.

[Anonymous No.17021348]

>>17021310
>even an attempt to claim oneself as invalid must be either a lie or believed to be valid
Correction, an attempt to claim oneself as invalid is downright paradoxical. IE "This statement is false", or "Everything I believe is a lie". Humans are literally incapable of expressing present-wrongness, at least in english.

[Anonymous No.17021743]

>>17010607
I don't understand why it should have that effect on you.