It’s a good article, I enjoyed reading it. Thanks.
I think the term ’deterministic’ is one of those badly-defined or maybe just carelessly used words, like ’consciousness’, that sometimes confuses the reader more than helps to clarify something.
A human has 40 trillion self-repairing, self-replicating, live cells working together in a grand orchestra. Even if this orchestra is material-only down to the smallest particle it doesn’t really equate it to being ’deterministic’ in any practical definition of the word.
We would probably agree that the weather is not dualist and doesn’t have a supernatural aspect. Yet the amount of variables and moving particles that make it up is so astoundingly large that we cannot reliably predict weather more than a couple days into the future at any given time. So while we accept weather is material, for all practical purposes weather is still not deterministic. You could have a freak forest fire that started from an unluckily tossed cigarette stump that could affect local weather conditions for a couple days. Things like that. With weather, like with humans, the amount of uncertainty is so ridiculously large that calling it ’deterministic’ is probably not good use of the word.
If we accept this conclusion, there is no need to conclude that materialism needs to lead to unaccountability or black-pilled nihilism.
While dualism is consistent with our lived experience, it’s big problem is that it’s irrational.
Dualism isnt irrational, there are strong magnetic forces that pull on the brain. Stars can pull on other stars via their magnetism 🧲 from very large distances.
Via powerful meditation 🧘♂️ techniques you can tune your brainwaves into strange channels like a radio. It all functions like a radio. Thanks for tagging me ❤️
Original Stoicism too I think was a cope. They viewed Nature as fundamentally rational and good, so even if a bunch of people die of disease, it's a priori a good thing - because it's natural and Nature is by definition good - and therefore feeling upset about it is irrational.
That always struck me as a cope, and modern Stoicism seems to do away with it, but without it, Stoicism becomes an empty psychological toolkit.
Aurelius was likely deeply reassured by his belief in the Logos, similarly to a Christian believing they'll go to Heaven when they die.
Personally I'm not a nihilist, although I don't believe in free will, God or the self. I'm not a nihilist because among other things I do think it genuinely matters how much suffering I happen to cause or alleviate.
I'm also pragmatic. Our beliefs and programming are somewhat malleable, and I don't think the most important task in life is to model reality as accurately as possible, so I allow myself a quite a lot of freedom to believe things convenient to me, and simultaneously hold contradictory beliefs.
For example, even though I don't believe in a self, and therefore think "rational" self-interest is in fact irrational (it's merely charity towards a future self who I am not), it nevertheless gets things done. We're wired to think that way, so I go along with it. It's "useful not true" as Derek Sivers would say.
I disagree with the Stoics: as humans I think we're fundamentally irrational. We hold contradictory beliefs all day long and cherry-pick the most convenient belief freely in any situation rather than aiming for consistency. We're wired for that. But we can use that to our advantage - that is, if we're lucky enough to install that piece of programming.
It’s a good article, I enjoyed reading it. Thanks.
I think the term ’deterministic’ is one of those badly-defined or maybe just carelessly used words, like ’consciousness’, that sometimes confuses the reader more than helps to clarify something.
A human has 40 trillion self-repairing, self-replicating, live cells working together in a grand orchestra. Even if this orchestra is material-only down to the smallest particle it doesn’t really equate it to being ’deterministic’ in any practical definition of the word.
We would probably agree that the weather is not dualist and doesn’t have a supernatural aspect. Yet the amount of variables and moving particles that make it up is so astoundingly large that we cannot reliably predict weather more than a couple days into the future at any given time. So while we accept weather is material, for all practical purposes weather is still not deterministic. You could have a freak forest fire that started from an unluckily tossed cigarette stump that could affect local weather conditions for a couple days. Things like that. With weather, like with humans, the amount of uncertainty is so ridiculously large that calling it ’deterministic’ is probably not good use of the word.
If we accept this conclusion, there is no need to conclude that materialism needs to lead to unaccountability or black-pilled nihilism.
While dualism is consistent with our lived experience, it’s big problem is that it’s irrational.
Dualism isnt irrational, there are strong magnetic forces that pull on the brain. Stars can pull on other stars via their magnetism 🧲 from very large distances.
Via powerful meditation 🧘♂️ techniques you can tune your brainwaves into strange channels like a radio. It all functions like a radio. Thanks for tagging me ❤️
You're a pseudoscientific dualist, I think the best we can do here is agree to disagree.
Your only unscientific until you pay off or beat enough scientists to confirm your version of reality. Its called institutional capture.
And thats a hard materialism. But if im successful than god willed it so whatever
Fantastic read.
Original Stoicism too I think was a cope. They viewed Nature as fundamentally rational and good, so even if a bunch of people die of disease, it's a priori a good thing - because it's natural and Nature is by definition good - and therefore feeling upset about it is irrational.
That always struck me as a cope, and modern Stoicism seems to do away with it, but without it, Stoicism becomes an empty psychological toolkit.
Aurelius was likely deeply reassured by his belief in the Logos, similarly to a Christian believing they'll go to Heaven when they die.
Personally I'm not a nihilist, although I don't believe in free will, God or the self. I'm not a nihilist because among other things I do think it genuinely matters how much suffering I happen to cause or alleviate.
I'm also pragmatic. Our beliefs and programming are somewhat malleable, and I don't think the most important task in life is to model reality as accurately as possible, so I allow myself a quite a lot of freedom to believe things convenient to me, and simultaneously hold contradictory beliefs.
For example, even though I don't believe in a self, and therefore think "rational" self-interest is in fact irrational (it's merely charity towards a future self who I am not), it nevertheless gets things done. We're wired to think that way, so I go along with it. It's "useful not true" as Derek Sivers would say.
I disagree with the Stoics: as humans I think we're fundamentally irrational. We hold contradictory beliefs all day long and cherry-pick the most convenient belief freely in any situation rather than aiming for consistency. We're wired for that. But we can use that to our advantage - that is, if we're lucky enough to install that piece of programming.