Has he effectively put an end to philosophy?

Has he effectively put an end to philosophy?

Other urls found in this thread:

plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-ethics/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

One of the greatest intellectuals of our time

I think you're over-egging it just a bit there.

>predispositions outweighs will
FAGGOT

Eh, getting rid of religion won't make people less shitty. Religion is one of many excuses people use to be shitty without taking responsibility for it.

>hurr you shouldn't burn wood it's bad for the atmosphere
He's an boastful pseud

Burning wood is actually fine, since that carbon's naturally part of the carbon cycle.

The problem with Fossil Carbon is that Carbon hasn't been part of the Carbon Cycle since the Carboniferous Era.

are you trying to tell me you wouldn't want to bring back giant insects and dinos?

Can someone tell me what his argument for predestination is, exactly-as it pertains to men, that is.

I can understand the notion that the fate of the Universe is predestined, but how does that affect whether or not I choose to eat a bagel or a waffle for breakfast?

Think salamanders.

That was before the reptiles. Plus, Dinos are still around

you are a part of the universe user
if you look at yourself as a closed system you have a will, that will is just determined by the universe

>Religion is one of many excuses people use to not be shitty for no good logical reason.
Fixed that for you, buddy.

>there is such a thing in the organic universe as a closed system

ok but no giant insects? i really want to hunt giant roaches and eat for weeks

In addition to a thousand others. Spite is a naturally evolved condition. Religion evolved out of previously existing Human traits, so that shittiness naturally predates it.

It's just another expression of outgroup discrimination, which is evolutionarily advantageous for group fitness.

I know Kin Selection isn't big among the 4 Horsemen, but that doesn't mean it's not real.

Is that seriously his argument, because that is beyond pedantry.

except for man-made quantum environments, no

I am just saying from the perspective of ourselves we have will, even if it is an illusion

Even insects in the Carboniferous didn't get larger than a crow at max.

that's my argument I don't know his, I assume something similar
I specifically do not listen to what anyone of jewish descent has to say

Yeah, we also have the illusion of consciousness. That's not "real" either.

Free Will is as real as any concept you have, so his argument against it is moot.

>It's real, but not really, because ultimately it isn't, despite being as functionally real as anything else in Human existence

I look at the universe as more than just human experience, even if I can't directly see it

Predestination implied that there's a destiny put in place that's currently being fulfilled.

Sam is only a causal determinist. He holds that because things are one way, they couldn't have been another way (starting from the same setup of any situation).

As far as free will goes, it's clear that it doesn't exist, and this has nothing to do with Sam's own research or whatever. He's just a mouthpiece of what's been known for a while now.
The processes that take place in your brain are those that command you to consciously decide any one thing. So, for example, if I put you in a room with a bagel or a waffle, I'm going to know if you choose the bagel or the waffle right before you're consciously aware of it.
In essence, consciousness is just making you aware of your own brain's input and helping you go about achieving those aims.

Now, you might be tempted to say that you can consciously affect your brain and thus make sure that you can decide what it's going to do next. But that's circular, because it's your brain allowing you to have those thoughts in the first place.

Free will, as we might take think of it (that is, making decisions within the realm of consciousness alone between different items) doesn't exist in any form whatever.

On the other hand, some people like hold that the entire of notion of free will barring the existence of determinism is nonsensical, and so the very idea that there is no free will when there's a clear distinction between willed and unwilled actions is is stupid. These people are called compatibilists.

Both have a point. As compatibilists say, there's a clear distinction between wanting to do something and being forced to do it.

But it would also be incredibly disingenuous to imply that when people spoke of free will for the past two thousand years they meant compatibilism. So, the historic, pop culture idea of free will is indeed non-existent.

>t. Daniel Dennett

>Sam is only a causal determinist
Well, that's slightly more sensical

To be fair to him, that's not his main argument in the the whole free will thing. Even if you lived in an incoherent world, he would still say there's no free will so long as your brain functioned the same way (i.e., providing you with the inputs you take to be conscious decisions).

So while he IS a causal determinist, that's not the crux of the free will argument. It has more to do with how the brain works.

>dude, X is a delusion/illusion! lmao

Do lower organisms have free will, or are they just slaves to chemotaxis at that point?

I still honestly think he's arguing against the current with that, though. It sounds like he's arguing against a very philosophical notion of Free Will rather than a popular one

>Do lower organisms have free will, or are they just slaves to chemotaxis at that point?

He would say there is no difference between the two. The only difference is that you consciously perceive the actions to be yours in the case of being human and/or understand they're commanded by your hardware's wiring.

And, well, I personally don't agree much with Sam. It's kind of amusing how he's obsessed with consciousness and this sort of stuff considering that the's such a staunch rational materialist. At times he sounds positively Cartesian, particularly when he talks about free will and so on.

I see no problem with admitting that your brain reasons out the right course of action before you're consciously aware of it. Because consciousness itself is an emerging property of your brain. Expecting that, on one hand, consciousness is kept up by your brain's processes, but on the other, that choice's should be done within the realm of consciousness alone is... silly.

Unless you're a dualist, I don't see how this would endanger your concept of free will. Though, there's probably some truth to what Harris says too, and there should be more of a stressed distinction between free will and freedom.

Well, undoubtedly he's right about the nature of the brain. That's just a fact.

My issue is yours, that it doesn't really affect what I'd recognize as free will.

I also don't know how much I agree with the notion that something happening doesn't mean that it couldn't not have. I think that's a bit spurious, but maybe I'm not getting at the whole assertion.

I find the notion that consciousness only acts as a mediator between the deep brain processes, which decide if I want to write this message or not, and my awareness pretty weird. Where is the room for consciousness if I automatically decided to write this post and am only aware of the choice I've made after it has been made?

>I also don't know how much I agree with the notion that something happening doesn't mean that it couldn't not have.

He just means that you can only get one causal relationship to any prior state. I don't think he means that in an all-encompassing kind of way that denies the existence of parallel universes and whatnot.

It's more to do with the quantum mechanics memeing. That, you know, "IT'S ALL RANDOM AND IT'S JUST CHANCE AND THIS ONE TINY THING COULD'VE HAD A BUTTERFLY EFFECT!"

So whereas one of these idiots might say that a "quantum change" (whatever the fuck these pseudo-scientists mean by that) could change of course of history, Harris would deny that completely.

So they might say that JFK didn't have to die, and that the perceived randomness of quantum mechanics could have it so the assassin missed the shot. Though, they also use this sort of babble to account for Cartesian dualism being true, so that should give you an idea.

Harris would say that within this universe, with history and everything else being as it is, regardless of the workings of quantum mechanics, things would invariably always turn out the same.

If you took those few seconds during which JFK gets shot and looped them on forever without making any other change, he would get assassinated every single time.

Well, yeah, anyone denying that is nonsensical.

If all the variables are exactly the same, then the same thing will happen. That's just common sense taken to the most basal level.

If anyone, including him, is making more of that than there is, then that's just asinine.

Again, that doesn't affect my, or the public at large's, definition or understanding of free will.

It sounds like he's just counter memeing a bunch of Philosophy students

Well, your consciousness isn't a mediator because your awareness is your consciousness... What else would consciousness be if not your awareness? Even if you practice mindful meditation, it's not like you truly lose awareness and remain only with consciousness. At least, that's not how I look at it.

>Where is the room for consciousness if I automatically decided to write this post and am only aware of the choice I've made after it has been made?

I don't think any person has any sure-fire theories about how this works, but the idea is that consciousness (or awareness, if you prefer to call it that) would help in giving feedback to your brain about how you want to go about achieving that goal.

So, a part of your brain puts in a command. These other parts of the brain that in effect bring about consciousness are figuring out how to go about achieving that end. And then, once a decision is made, you're going about it, and consciousness helps you make course-corrections.

Also, there's an easy way to tell that your brain makes decisions way before you do. Even leaving aside those experiments that monitor the decision making as it takes place, just look at physiological workings and reactions. You do't control your heart or your liver. You aren't consciously deciding to jump away when you think you see a predator. These things just happen. They're involuntary reactions that predate conscious awareness. In this case, it's not that your brain gives you an input and you go about solving it. The input is given and acted out long before it enters your consciousness.

...

>or the public at large's

Really? What do you think of when you say "public at large," though? Because if you're just saying people on the street, you're very wrong. I can assure you that if you go up to a random person that doesn't have an interest in science or philosophy, they absolutely do believe in a dualist free will and quantum-babble non-deterministic universes.

Just look at the media. Look at how people perceive time travel stories to work, or how they think decisions are made purely on a conscious level.

So, no, I don't think this has anything to do with philosophy students. I'm pretty sure most philosophy students think the same as we do (and Sam does). After all, the only difference between a determinist and a compatibilist is semantics, more or less.

Sam strives to educate the public on these issues and that's his goal. The point of the free will book was to show people that they're not special snowflakes, and they should be more charitable to others. That if they were replaced atom for atom with a serial killers, they would be serial killers too.

Don't tell me this is common nonsensical and commonly-held by normies, because it's really, really not. They all think they could've "done it different" under the same circumstances.

That's great.

>Religion is one of many excuses people use to be shitty without taking responsibility for it.

...which is what will lead to less shitty people. Hence why secular societies are the most peaceful

>"Has Zoolander effectively put an end to philosophy?"

This is almost as stupid as the "why didn't the Green Goblin join Hitler?" thread.

Almost.

Is there any famous or somewhat famous writer/philosopher who claimed that man is governed by natural Iaw and his instincts? I can't find any.

Jean-Paul Hegel

plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-ethics/

You'll find the article peppered with names.

>So whereas one of these idiots might say that a "quantum change" (whatever the fuck these pseudo-scientists mean by that) could change of course of history, Harris would deny that completely.
Why does this even matter in this argument. Those "quantum changes" would be out of your control anyway. How is that in any way a free will?

>If you took those few seconds during which JFK gets shot and looped them on forever without making any other change, he would get assassinated every single time.
Not verifiable, so it's basically >opinions

Because according to people that don't know science quantum mechanics are just magic that they can insert to account for any nonsensical idea they want being true.

>Not verifiable, so it's basically >opinions

Of course it isn't. There's a reason theories are verifiable in science, and this is no different. Whether you're looking at the causal web of the whole universe, or a single event you're experimenting with in the lab, given the variables being precisely the same each and every time, the outcome will be the same every time as well. The only difference is scale. This holds true if tested logically as well.

I don't see what possible argument you could have against this that isn't relying on some sort of fuckery. Saying this isn't true because it isn't verifiable is like saying that you don't know the properties of water because you haven't examined every single molecule of water in the universe.

>inb4 quantum mechanics and muh parallel universes

What i meant was, if someone believes "quantum changes" could alter the outcome of an event if you somehow could repeat it, your counter argument to that is literally nuh-uh. You can't actually test it therefore >opinions

>a single event you're experimenting with in the lab, given the variables being precisely the same each and every time
Nope. There is a reason statistical analysis is used.

Quantum changes aren't bullshit that change variables in the equation. If all the variables are exactly the same in every single case, the outcome should be the same in all cases. There's not going to be a universe where Lee Harvey Oswald fires his rifle in the middle of a yawn and misses or a universe where Hitler was killed in World War 1 because there is no chance in the universe and it's all pre-determined. Anything else is wistful thinking of idiots who write shitty fiction and want to imagine that there's a universe where they're not actually failures in the eyes of society. Spoiler alert, that is impossible.

He said our time, so not really.

Philosophy was always the imaginations of silly naked apes pretending they are of any worth in the universe.

I read his free will book it was an absolute joke

The presence of 'giant' insects has more to do with the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere, not solar heat. Protip: the amount of atmospheric oxygen has been declining since, like, forever.

I'm pretty irreligious, and follow no religion, but jeez that guy is irritating. He has a voice and way of arguing that makes you just want to punch him. Even if I 75% agree with him.

...

That comic can't prove Harris and company wrong. All it is is making them ridiculous strawmen and advancing a outdated understanding of the way of things

>Nope. There is a reason statistical analysis is used.

Lol, really now? Do tell me more. You seem to very knowledgeable on the topic of science, so educate me.

>What i meant was, if someone believes "quantum changes" could alter the outcome of an event if you somehow could repeat it, your counter argument to that is literally nuh-uh.

If a guy believes a crazy idea that's his problem. If you believe that Jesus walked on water and healed the sick with the touch of his fingertips, that's also your problem. They're stupid and unreasonable claims. As is the claim that the universe is going to be different because quantum mechanics are somehow magic.

>You can't actually test it therefore

Are you stupid? Honestly. Do you realize how many things we can't test but arrive to as being true by drawing conclusions from other places?

You sound like a person that knows absolutely nothing about science or the scientific method, that you just heard some things on YouTube or in a book, and you're parroting them without having any idea what they mean.

>he thinks he can empirically derive an ought from an is

>Empiricism

I would hate you but I know that determinism determined you to have a tiny brain incapable of understanding it and as such you have no control over your actions. Nor does anything in the universe.

...

...

>I'm immune to logic and reason, checkmate

Well, I guess that sure showed him.

These are great

Not at all, empty rhetoric did its job.

...

>He has a voice and way of arguing
a punchable face too

>Sam is only a causal determinist.
no, he's an impossibilist
he thinks determinism/indeterminism makes no difference because free will is incompatible with the essential nature of consciousness

basically his whole argument can be summarized as
1. if there is no self as a part of consciousness, then conscious states (thoughts, choices, desires, etc.) simply arise, unauthored by consciousness, with consciousness as their passive recipient or medium ("Conscious Passivism")
2. the self would have to be the agent or author behind thoughts, choices, desires, etc. in a way that would paradoxically require them to be present in consciousness before they became present in consciousness
3. the paradox is real--this is an absurd requirement
4. so (by 2 & 3) the self is logically impossible
5. so (by 1 & 4) Conscious Passivism is true by logical necessity
6. if Conscious Passivism is true then there is no free will
7. so (by 5 & 6) free will is logically impossible

all the inferences are valid so the issue is whether premises 1-3 and 6 are justified

also he often just uses the "determined or random" dilemma, but the argument above is really what backs it up for him
his point is that determinism/indeterminism can't change the facts about passivism or the self (though he happens to believe determinism is the proven scientific truth)

(cont.)
he also has some other secondary arguments, like an introspective argument against the self (which is more cautious than 2-4 since it doesn't conclude the self is impossible, just unreal), and this one:

i. free will implies deep moral responsibility
ii. deep moral responsibility implies that it makes moral sense to punish people for non-consequentialistic reasons (e.g. desert-based ones)
iii. the concept of morality is hedonic-consequentialistic (moral terms are about consequences for the well-being of conscious creatures)
iv. if morality is conceptually consequentialistic, consequentialism is true by logical/conceptual necessity
v. so (by iii & iv) consequentialism is true by logical/conceptual necessity
vi. so (by ii & v) deep moral responsibility is logically/conceptually impossible
vii. so (by i & vi) free will is logically/conceptually impossible

to democracy, not philosophy

>i. free will implies deep moral responsibility

How?

as i understand him, that's part of how he defines the sort of free will he is attacking (he accepts the existence of something called "free will" in some weaker senses)
he says he's specifically targeting the sort of free will that involves responsibility and desert "in a deep sense"
says it throughout his book on free will

Hm. Free Will in its purest and truest form would be divorced from moral responsibility. The only responsibility it would need is the responsibility of the continuation of the vessel it inhabits and even then it can say fuck that and drink bleach and die.

>believes in universal basic income
>still has credibility somehow

>Pretends to be a champion of reason and enlightenment
>Gets verbally raped by a senile commie linguistics teacher