 |
Duration: 11:37 minutes Upload Time: 2007-11-10 04:07:46 User: inmendham :::: Favorites :::: Top Videos of Day |
|
Tags:
Description: moron determinism response to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Af23xFmLpvE and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pq8XKmd7pII http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWDOCX6v7kU |
|
Comments | |
| Entropy56 ::: Favorites 2007-12-21 02:11:16 Hehehehehehehhh hhhahahahhaaaa. I laughed all the way through. I watched a number of videos in this chain and couldn't finish most of them because they were boring. Everyone sitting there like dead beats putting on airs of intellectualism. I watched your video all the way through -- full-screen no less. Passion, animation and down to earth real!!!! __________________________________________________ | |
| 7leemah ::: Favorites 2007-12-14 05:49:12 Alas, philosophy- the love of wisdom [not necessarily mere knowledge]. Don't respond to these pseudo-intellectual trolls; let them continue to frustrate themselves on the hallucination that there exists some universal set of ethics that must be obeyed. Those assholes keep slipping up on the most basic mistakes of equating logic with being ethical. They don't deserve the esteem of your brutal honesty. __________________________________________________ | |
| Mysticum81 ::: Favorites 2007-12-08 19:05:41 I just stumbled upon this little YouTube society of which you're part. You seem to be the only thinker among them, and I suggest you escape before they drive you insane with their recycled pop-philosophy ("Hey, let's pretend the thinkers of the past never existed, and start from scratch!") I should add, I think, that this message isn't a result of my agreeing with your point of view more than anyone else's. It is simply an observation. __________________________________________________ | |
| sharpie443 ::: Favorites 2007-11-25 16:48:42 As an economist I must disagree. Were not there yet but were getting close to quantifying how people make choices. We can do it pretty good when were talking about the masses but individuals are a little more difficult. __________________________________________________ | |
| jahjahjag ::: Favorites 2007-11-13 10:22:49 You look like the heavy metal version of Willem Defoe haha __________________________________________________ | |
| bitbutter ::: Favorites 2007-11-12 14:27:24 I'm also suspicious when ppl complain against the hypothesis that what we see happening in the rest of the universe (cause-effect) probably shapes our consciousness too. It smacks of special pleading. __________________________________________________ | |
| 0neironaut ::: Favorites 2007-11-11 20:49:27 the point is that this 'causal' interaction that we witness is a concept that we have created... we have defined it based on its reliability. But there is no reason to suppose that causality is truly in nature. In Truth, shed of these anthropomorphisms, the universe is probably working as a continuum. __________________________________________________ | |
| FunkyJogaBonito ::: Favorites 2007-11-10 19:37:01 Why didn't anyone tell me about these videos, earlier? inmendham, I like the cut of your jib! Very interesting, indeed. __________________________________________________ | |
| danielnz1 ::: Favorites 2007-11-10 18:01:25 Cheers! Synthetic realities and clear awareness are incompatible. __________________________________________________ | |
| ReductioAdAbsurdum ::: Favorites 2007-11-10 17:54:05 "Einstein proved. energy cant disappear [..] what happens with energy of our bodies when it dies?." You're confusing a metaphor ('life energy') with a scientific term (energy/matter). You are a machine. When the machine breaks (for instance: heart stops, blood is no longer oxygenated, cell chemistry can fails, machine stops running) you're dead. All the energy (i.e. your matter) is still there, but the "energy" (i.e. chemical interactions within that matter that we call 'life') has stopped. __________________________________________________ | |
| SuperiorMind ::: Favorites 2007-11-10 17:01:03 Complexity. Overwhelming quantity. It seems to me that ppl are using the stance that we could never actually do it as a way of saying that no true deterministic nature exists. My thoughts are that on the lowest level anything can demonstratably be broken down into predictable elements - though it might not actually be possible to accomplish - hypotheoretically - progressively higher levels of interdependancies could be calculated(ie using some advanced software). __________________________________________________ | |
| SuperiorMind ::: Favorites 2007-11-10 16:50:39 Well, illusion yes though my impression is that TextBot is saying that we should still be able to apply the label "free will" on the basis that we can organize and react to our environment in a calculated manner which we call "choice". (thumbed up both your comments) __________________________________________________ | |
| inmendham ::: Favorites 2007-11-10 15:39:26 """Maybe I misunderstood him""" frankly, I seldom find any other option...but he talks pretty. __________________________________________________ | |
| Barklord ::: Favorites 2007-11-10 15:18:12 My understanding of Az's video was that our qualitative perception is limited (not completely unreliable or inaccurate) and infinitely complex. Our behaviours may be determined just like billiard balls interacting but we can't sum up the totality because we can always find new variables in the qualities of experience. Experience seems to be infinitely divisible and so, no such thing as Total Knowledge. Maybe I misunderstood him. __________________________________________________ | |
| Huesos138 ::: Favorites 2007-11-10 13:30:08 Oh, and btw. I am not a determinist, yet, I do not believe in free will. I support the Humean standpoint on causality. __________________________________________________ | |
No comments:
Post a Comment