Comments by "Dayannah Kali" (@dayannahkali) on "Light Watkins" channel.

This man is a bliss. Determinism is my main subject of meditation and conversation since my apostasy, and Dr Sapolsky certainly added a lot to my database over the years. Thks for this interview.
31
@dieselphiend I think he means that there is no freedom whatsoever because there is no individual in the machine to exerce freedom in the first place.
4
@He.knows.nothing Now that is pertinent, as an allergy to common effect of adopting determinism is to drown in a spiral of nihilism, but the specific awareness you mention is maybe the foundation of the the rise of compassion. Idk Vaervake, I will investigate, thanks!
3
@dieselphiend Having a perception of the self and a memory of chronological events does not imply free will. Humans are idealistic creatures, they do "as if" the phenomenons and their representation coincide.
2
@sechernbiw3321 You just exposed the self as a construct. A construct is not free by any means. I feel like you are trying to prove that a thing and its opposite are true at the same time, and that usually only leads to word salad.
1
@dieselphiend Ontologically, no. A simulation has no substance. By definition. I'll stop arguing because you're trolling at this point. Materialism is not for the faint of heart.
1
@bryanutility9609 Are you lost here? Of course behaviorism is not compatible with bigotry...
1
@dieselphiend And now applying a low Dunning-Kruger of quantum physics to philosophy. Bravo !
1
@YassenChapkanov Dualism is bigoted imo...
1
@YassenChapkanov Lack of evidence maybe...
1
@YassenChapkanov Nah, the internal influence that makes choices, of your saying, is entirely constructed itself by biological disposition and world experiences, and that can hardly make any subject, as in "independent being". All there is is only consequential. This is the monist’s approach at least, one that do not invoque any unnecessary unprovable hypothesis.
1
@YassenChapkanov That is why I called your approach "dualistic". Plus, I’d say I would consider a flow in reasoning to say, as you do, that the consequence influences the cause. We are just using words here, but to understand the absence of free will, we must declare the self as inexistant. There are organisms, they express behaviors, that is all...
1
@YassenChapkanov I am East-leaning on this aspect of philosophy, so maybe a little biased towards anatmanism, which is to say that there is no being per se, only layers of illusion. As Y.Harari puts it, the self would be a brain algorithm, and as complex it may be, it would only be mechanical, entirely determined. So, basically not a "self" capable of "freedom" as we intuitively understand those terms. Language is the web of illusions, as medieval nominalists could have said. So, also there are reasons in favor of the idealist approach, there are obvious ones too for the deterministic viewpoint. Even in various theology you can find both types of texts, and usually those claiming positive theology would be more secular (take responsability, honor society, etc) an those insisting on negative theology more mystical. (Pardon my English, it's not my native.)
1
@YassenChapkanov An so IA will be as legitimate as a self agent with freedom. I definitely think its will be the case. Equivalency. Or freedom is as much a pure fantasy as God, angels, afterlife etc, whatever intuition and the US constitution may say about it? Neither of us will make the other part change its mind, especially under a Sapolsky video you already don't agree with and I do... also I regret that you don't see how materialism involves pure causality and exclude absolutely any kind of free agent.
1