Skip Navigation

User banner
Posts
31
Comments
265
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • Last two times I've bought a keyboard, I struggled to find one without LCD. Like really. So idk if that's on the demand or the offer.

  • ride wife. life good.

    Jump
  • This comment deserves way more love

  • You could have stopped at (universal) servitude. But yeah, they say it all becomes clear p.72!

  • By pushing the idea that the humain brain is capable of "free" decision making to adapt to its environment without being forced by external factors it seemed to me that it implied an exception, or, otherwise, you'd be forced to extend that hypothesis to all living beings, and causality would surely take offense ?

    I'm answering, but I see what you mean, and I generally agree with it. I just tend to think the idea of free orientation/action is both dangerous and the reason of a lot of human suffering. I'm also a compatabilist, but I another way I suppose.

  • One cauld rightfully argue "determination" and "predetermination" are wildly different concepts. The comic is wrong on this. But let's go page 72 anyway

  • If we're to rely on facts and facts only, I'll argue its internal decision making is itself clearly determined by several factors, most if not all of them being determined causally.

    I'm quite sure this addition erases the mere idea "free(dom)" and "free will", which would somehow escape universal determinism, hence creating a special case in the laws of causality for humanity only.

    Edit : changed phrasing because I answered after reading your first paragraph. Then I read the second one.

  • Thanks for sharing, I like this one!

  • That's very true, yes. And non-inherent hardly means "weak" or "inefficient".

  • Indeed, I do think the same. What I have trouble understanding, and even with close friends, is how "no inherent meaning to existence" seems to quickly become, in some cases, "no meaning to existence". I always tend to think this slide tends to exclude another possibility. A non-inherent meaning.

  • Why not neither?

  • In my country, we simply call them "authoritarian communists" or, still today, "stals", for "stalinists".

  • Indeed!

  • I'm not qualified enough to approve or contest this statement, but I know for a /phisicistsfact that there was a time when great mathematicians were also great philosophers and they couldn't conceive doing one without the other (Leibnitz or Descartes, among many others). Why I changed and exactly how, I don't know, but I find it interesting.

  • Meh. Natural sciences and philosophy/methaphisics are quite closer/more intimately linked than you seem to think.

  • Microbats

    Jump
  • New meme template just dropped

  • Sounds very familiar..

  • That's an optimistic answer. But I'll take it. There's not much optimism around lately.

  • I'm not sure what your argument is. I've been working with pedophiles for 10+ years in the past. I'm curious about how society creates and identifies its "monsters", that's all. Not sure you're on topic.