Fight what exactly? Determinism either is or isnt how the universe works, it isnt like some sort of external force of finite capacity that can be resisted by some application of effort. If it is true, then you have no choice but to act the way something like you would act, and the way humans are wired to think is in terms of choices and the possible outcomes of those choices, even if the choice you make and the thinking that leads you to it is inevitable. If it is not true, then the possibility of making different choices exists, but it doesnt look any different to you because you only get to perceive the result of following one set of them.
The thing about determinism is that while it may be an interesting philosophical exercise, beyond being difficult to maybe impossible to prove or disprove, it isnt really relevant to much. A deterministic universe looks, feels, and acts to us exactly like a nondeterministic one would.
I took it to mean fighting against a descent into nihilism.
I never understood the fight against nihilism, as if it's inherently bleak. I came to the conclusion that nothing truly matters a long time ago, but that doesn't keep me from feeling like stuff matters, and doing what matters to me. Subjective meaning can still drive you to pursue and live a good life even while you're aware that objective meaning doesn't exit. Happiness feels good, which is enough for me.
The truth of determinism is relevant to the most popular conception of free will. That's why this comes up repeatedly. People seem to want themselves to be free from causality itself, because being bound by it makes you not "free", and just going through the motions.
The problem here is the definition of free will itself . Rather than demanding from the universe that your mind be inexplicably free form causality, why not just accept a more useful definition of free will? Such as the ability to make decisions without undue coercion. Vague as that is, it's at least a workable definition.
This meme template usually ends with the like a dog bit, I wouldn't look into it
What if some parts of the universe are deterministic, and some others aren't? Or that is is deterministic sometimes, but sometimes it is not?
Then, would it mean that initiating a chain of deterministic events that eventually causes suffering makes me responsible for this suffering?
What if i choose to cut taxes because i think I'll have more money, but it causes a series of events that end up increasing organised crimes? What if it was always the deterministic result of that choice, but the choice itself was not deterministic and I could have chosen not to do it?
Holy shit Mickey, what did you do to Pluto!?
There's a lot of assumptions in saying it's just meaningless chemicals
- That chemicals are meaningless and lacking intriniic value. Seen from the outside they may appear that way, but evidently from the inside it seems quite different.
- "We" are not some other unseen brain behavior (not a crazy idea since we've never seen consciousness working in the brain)
- We are within the brain
- The brain exists at all
- Any knowledge exists at all (dubious as Mickey points out)
Perish like a dog it is then. There is no tearing down reality without you inside of it.
Have fun
Occam's razor defeats Plato's cave. There's no reason to think that the world we experience would be just metaphysical shadows on the wall. The burden of proof is on Mickey's shoulders.
Oh yeah and Cogito Ergo Sum. So there is one bit of definitely provable knowledge.
Occam's razor is a rule of thumb not an absolute rule of the universe.
If you go with Cogito Ergo Sum, I think that's the stance Mickey is taking. You only know for sure of your own consciousness, everything else could be a delusion of the senses. You know, like shadows on a cave wall or whatever.
Yes, and my response to what Mickey said was that why would we think that we're in the cave looking at shadows? Why should I complicate my view of the world with the added baggage of metaphysical idealism when materialism works just fine to explain everything I see? Sure our perception of the world is limited to our senses and measurement techniques, but the scientific framework we've built onto that base appears very consistent and functional with its predictive power. It's definitely not omniscience, but it works.
I only brought up the Cogito argument to point out that Mickey is incorrect in saying that no certain knowledge exists.
There is no burden of proof. There is only the experience of the here and the now. Everything else is stories.
The decision that your brain's decisions are due to chemical reactions, which itself would be due to chemicals reactions, is self-referential but not circular reasoning.
Those old cartoons really didn't hold back, huh?
Or, as I love to say: you feel what you feel, it's what you do with it that matters
No, Mickey--I will perish like a duck.
The universe could just as well be made of only one type of matter. The fact that certain particles attract each other is miraculous in and of itself. It's what facilitates complex matter and ultimately life. It's also a funamental law upon which brains have evolved. It's everything but absurd.
I think the usage of the word absurd in this context entails the third definition of the word here:
I still think Death said it better in Hogfather.
I think a critical part of being a human is the ability for those chemicals to induce such feelings, the ability to wonder and see beauty is something special
Obviously, Donald will do whatever the chemicals make him do.
