Did he ever explain why determinism was wrong?

>we live in matrix
>implying determinism is some kind of holistic principle that aplies to all fields in the same way
>Your unique brain structure, size, shape, genetics, etc, all contribute to your genetic and environmental fate.
>Genetics is determined by genetics

That "argument" is as tautological as an statement can be.
Inside a normal distribution and normal values, genetics and brain structure are absolutely irrelevant.

>Ants have orders of magnitude fewer neurons than your TV's remote control

The ant brain contains about 250,000 neurons. A TV "remote control" contains zero.

You destroy your own credibility when you toss around numbers with no factual basis.

>qualia
>consciousness
As I said, physical processes by the brain. Why would it be any different? What, you think you've got some ghost "soul" in your head?

I never once claimed it didn't, did I? It was a quick post on Veeky Forums. What do you want, an essay?
My point stands regardless, cunt.

Let me explain it to you simply, since you're having trouble understanding plain English:
Every action, or inaction, you ever "decide" to do or not, wasn't your choice. Even the choice of not choosing, wasn't your choice, never has been.
Your brains unique makeup in conjunction with your own unique experiences decide for you on a purely physical level. Even if you decide to not respond to this, YOU didn't decide anything, your brains structure and individual makeup as of the exact moment in time, decided for you.
I am positive that within a few decades they'll be able to determine this, if they're not making significant progress already.
>We live in the Matrix
What? What does this have to do with anything? Oh right, it doesn't.

There are people who experience brain injuries and become entirely different people (different habits, traits, likes, dislikes, etc) when they recover. Your brain is in control, it's quite simple.

>Every action, or inaction, you ever "decide" to do or not, wasn't your choice.
>I am positive that within a few decades they'll be able to determine this
I'm interested how would this change the way we think about decision making? I don't think it would have any effect at all.

>The ant brain contains about 250,000 neurons. A TV "remote control" contains zero.
You underestimate the software complexity of a modern remote control. Nowadays they're putting CPU's inside CPU's that run their own custom virtualized operating systems solely for the purpose of spying on the host CPU. Your $25 Chinese USB hard drive contains a small cluster of specialized microprocessors communicating with each other over a specialized network protocol.

Despite this mind-boggling processing power and computational complexity we *still* haven't managed to create something as smart as a slime mold (number of neurons: zero), much less an ant.

I might slightly agree with the structuralist position, but not on the level of "we're puppets, everything is controlled by some omnipotent external force that we can barely grasp (call it social structure, or even worse, biological contitution)"

I'd better formulate it as: interactions create reality, new and old views on the nature of experience (habits, traits, likes, dislikes, etc) are constructed and reconstructed. There are some that are more rigid than others and they get to act like some kind of "material".
Obviously our brain provides limits on our perception of everything phenomenic or abstract, but that's about it.
If you think you can elucidate or discover the meaning or nature of any concept by looking at the wrinkles in our brains you're fucked.
Your brain is in control, of course, memories store in our brains, if you destroy a part of the brain the contents are lost, so behaviour is changed. But i think you're seeing it from a very narrow neurologic perspective.

The eye that sees lies above the phenomena of this realm.

It doesn't. Well, I suppose it could in some way... similar to if you know the "tells" (body language, etc) of a liar, you may self sabotage even when telling the truth, as some do (though still, not in your control, is it?)

It's all chemical reactions, as they say. Everything you do.

This is "fate". Your fate is sealed, fate must exist in this way, though it's not some stationary path as you might believe, set in stone, yada yada. It is more like an ever evolving complex system involving everything I mentioned previously, but it is "rigid" in the end, nonetheless.

The choice of you responding to this post or not was already made by your brain before you ever began typing, or even "thinking", as in, conscious thought. If it was going to happen, it was always going to happen, and vice versa.

>we're puppets, everything is controlled by some omnipotent external force..
I'm not claiming this at all, you misunderstand me.
See above, also.

I don't believe that, although I do occasionally

I think you're opposing the "chemical and electric reactions that happen at the speed of light and govern our behaviour" to conscious behaviour or free will. If even any post hoc analysis of what just happened follows the same law, that opposition is a rethoric illusion.
Unmediated free will doesn't exist, therefore, wouldn't that entity that you call our brain be the real free will?
Not sure if this shit made sense at all.

Sartre is shit and got REKT by Céline

I think you're stupid

you didn't say anything more than in your previous post lol

>itt: STEMcuck who feels/believes without justification that feelings/beliefs that cannot be justified should not play a role in Serious Philosophy

>genetics and brain structure are absolutely irrelevant.
I don't want to waste too much of my time on retards

That's what happens when you try to follow retarded reasoning.
You're fighting with knowledge acquired in a documentary about the brain and reflexes that resembles too much with cartesian dualism, which, as a documentary enthusiast should know, it's obsolete as fuck, against some kind of soul from which free will emanates.
Almost any sociologic or philosophic read from 19th century to the present would make it easy for you to understand.

>against some kind of soul from which free will emanates.
Retards believe this...

If you're comparing stones or crokoatches with humans, it's relevant.
Remember:
>Obviously our brain provides limits on our perception of everything phenomenic or abstract, but that's about it.

Im not telling its irrelevant in the sense of having no influence on what makes us human. im telling that your brains-structural-determinism is bullshit.

Yeah. thats the reason you're reasoning was retarded from the beginning.

>comparing to humans and cockr...
That wasn't me faggot, that was some other user butting in and fucking up the discussion.

>im telling that your brains-structural-determinism is bullshit.
You are retarded and wrong, but alright

>IT's all in the SOUL BRO! TOTALLY man, like maan, it's just our soul bro! we miraciously developed a soul dude, fuck all other organism on earth, they don't have soulds dueeeeede

Fuck off you stupid motherfucker

>hurr durr I only know about soixante-huitard philosophers

I see you have some trouble understanding the simplest sentence in normal english. read
again and try to spot the irony

Even all that knowledge you acquired in secondary school which makes you intellectually gifted is based on a made up conception of reality; see positivism.

You are arguing with yourself and some other random. None of those are me.

Free will doesn't exist
PROVE ME WRONG

How the fuck do i know who im talking to, anyway,
i tould you i agreed with you when i replied to your first post, i just didn't agree with the way you argumented it, that's all.

He said it was because of 'radical freedom' which we somehow possess that enables us to break contingency of the 'in-itself' from in itself though originating in the for-itself, based on his saying that there is a perpetual link in all potential in-itselfs of the for-itself. i.e. we have a built in ability/opportunity to question our very contingencies, whenever. Or: because "we have and do"'. It's a little wishful imo. Besides why wouldn't our opportunities through this returning spontaneously to the for-itself be themselves based on contingencies and a Factor in the Determined course as a contingency in itself?

im finding it difficult to find any daily life or historical manifestations of the for itself that actually reveal that notion of freedom or intetionality disconnected from the past. Even the for itself seems like a condition acquired trough contingencies.
My english sucks.