Donald is right

You certainly can, but the quality of your work will not come close to the quality of your work should you value what youre working on.

that's hypocritical because internally you obviously do value things.

all you're doing is lying to yourself when you say "nothing is valuable"

Yeah, empiricism requires an a priori of senses being true to the universe. Is there any point in assuming otherwise anyways?

Where i ca find other?

>be me
>be a collection of atoms
>atoms constantly changing
>a couple of years go by
>all atoms in my body are different ones
>be not me?

Also, if you're just chemicals; why don't you just an hero tonight? Go ahead, friend. Anything you bring up as worth living for are just your chemicals talking.
N e c k y o u r s e l f .

>why don't you just an hero tonight?
because that would be the action of those chemicals and physical processes too.

Resistance is futile. It doesn't matter how you resist. You are not in control.

there are more chemicals in my brain that make me not want to do that

Perfect

I saved this

>Also, if you're just chemicals; why don't you just an hero tonight?
Because of survival promoting chemicals obviously. Having strong instinctual reactions against trying to kill yourself isn't evidence you secretly believe life is worth living.
Think before posting next time, thanks.

The scientific explanation for life purpose is g a y.
If you want something more fun go to the humanities board an post this. Dualism in my opinion more rationally explains human life.

How can one speak of value, if it doth not exist?

Don't you realize how crazy this sounds? You think there are chemicals in your head conspiring with each other to pretend to be you? And they've also told you this?

For that to even be remotely possible, the chemicals themselves would have to be conscious.

Just wow, I don't understand what the basis for this conclusion is but it's very clearly wrong, I'd love to help you understand better but I'm not even sure where you've gotten mixed up. Maybe search some YouTube videos on free will and determinism and free will? Try being open while listening to them if you actually care at all and try to make sure your conclusions are logically consistent, I wish you the best of luck, I really do.

How so? Am I not allowed to recognize that nothing has value inherently but still place value on it myself through the systems of morals and values of derived?

Too much smug downs syndrome in this post.

I know these concepts well, they are both infinite regressions and lead nowhere. Infinite circular reasoning.

The same way we talk about the number seven. Seven means just as little as value outside of context.

Assuming you're the same person I was initially responding to, you clearly do not, I'm saying that as someone who isn't trying to be an asshole or troll either, you're pretty clearly having a different conversation than everyone else is the thread, sorry. Again I wish you the best.

Donald is never right. You should already know this.

You wish me the best or your chemicals do?

You must take some comfort in passing all responsibility to chemicals that are supposedly out of your control.

...

Damnn fucking 2012 nostalgia right there. Can't believe that was over half a decade ago.

It's not me who you are arguing with, I'm just trying to promote a better understanding dude. The whole idea of "it's chemicals" is an oversimplification at best.

>free will exists
You have to be literally brainless to believe this.
Pic related, literally every single philosocuck ever

>literally every single philosocuck
>implying philosophy requires free will

Of course...but that's not what you said so why are you saying something completely different to a reply that was replying to what you previously said?

Saying "it's chemicals" doesn't explain anything, but it means you don't have to take responsibility for anything you do any more. But it also means no one can, so if someone deliberately chops your foot off, it's not their fault, it's those chemicals, so why should they be punished?

If we don't have freewill then how do you know what it means?

>means
Spooked to shit. Everything happening itt was preset to happen long ago.

>But it also means no one can, so if someone deliberately chops your foot off, it's not their fault, it's those chemicals, so why should they be punished?
Assuming you're still in school, maybe sign up for a criminology course. "Punishment" isn't the only criminal law paradigm. You can sentence people without needing to assert they personally did something immoral.
Also deterence doesn't depend on any belief in free will. Without free will deterence still could work, it's just a way of influencing behavior.

you don't really believe that nothing is valuable if you value things.

what distinction are you making when you add the proviso of "inherent" ?

See David Deutsch.

We have no explanation of the nature of reality in either what we consider the “physical” or the “mental” sense.

Physics describes a system of what seem to be regular correlations given that we assume that something like an “objective physical world” exists. But then those correlations themselves seem to be so strange that we can barely make sense of them at this point.

We have no explanation for why mental states correlate with physical states “in” human brains (if that’s where mental states “are”), or anywhere else. So we have no explanation for the origin of physical or mental processes, and thus trying to argue that they are “meaningful” or “meaningless” are both irrational. We simply have no system for evaluating these claims at this time.

>But then those correlations themselves seem to be so strange that we can barely make sense of them at this point.
What the fuck are you talking about? You do realize you were only able to communicate that opinion specifically because the physical world makes a shit ton of sense and is highly predictable to the point where an elaborate telecommunications network and automatic computation devices can be put together in the first place, right?
The "weird" stuff gets all the popsci attention because people love obsessing over exceptions, but don't overlook the vast majority of physical world phenomena that work exactly how we expect them to, with such a high degree of fidelity that massive technological infrastructures can be built up around the reliable expectation that physics will continue modeling our world accurate to more than enough detail than we could ever reasonably need.

No I didn't. You're talking to more than one person.

>Saying "it's chemicals" doesn't explain anything, but it means you don't have to take responsibility for anything you do any more. But it also means no one can, so if someone deliberately chops your foot off, it's not their fault, it's those chemicals, so why should they be punished?

I never said "it's chemicals" I specifically said that it was an oversimplification at best to say that. How does it mean you don't have to take responsibility for what you Do? No it doesn't mean it's not their fault. What is wrong with you?

I dont know man, maybe Google that word and you'll find out.