Thread replies: 8
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2
File: 1415332302255.png (757KB, 1272x574px) Image search:
[Google]
757KB, 1272x574px
There is no choice.
Choice is an illusion.
The illusion of choice derives from the brain of an individual.
The individual, when faced with a particular situation (for instance, having to take either a red or blue pill), believes his counsciousness is making the "choice", but in fact, the "choice' is only the consequence of which the individual has no power on.
What truly happens on the backstage is a chain of chemical reactions caused by molecules and subparticles that results in what we call "choice". Such chain of reactions can be traced back to the very origins of the Universe, in such a way that the "choice" was already predetermined from the very start
.
This, of course, also means that the concepts of "faith" and "destiny" are true.
Much like choice, every other human perception - emotions, feelings, logic, reason; what we see, smell, taste, hear, touch - are nothing but illusions, as they are caused by mere inanimate chemicals which our counsciousness has no power on, no control of. If anything, our counsciousness is the very byproduct of such chemical precursos.
And if the paragraph before this one is true, then that also means that this entire text is possbily false, as we would not be able to rely on our own rules of logic to come up with definitions that accurately depict reality, as they don't necessarily do.
There is also a possibility that the chemicals are not exactly inanimate. Perhaps they are made by the very essence of our lives or perhaps they were made by a god, but, if this entire rationale is precise, then we would still be mere victims to causality, like leaves being taken by the flow of a river.
Please refute me.
>>
>>2441794
You can choose not to be a huge faggot virgin but you do it anyway.
>>
>>2441794
Your philosophy is self-defeating as you admit that your text is possibly false.
>>
>>2441794
ok.
>>
>>2441821
It admits that any philosophy is possibly false.
The conclusion - the philosophy itself - is derived from what is considered as fact by anyone with access to highschool level scientific data and abides to the basic rules of what is regarded as human logic.
It can be said that if you can observe "reality", then you'll naturally conclude that "reality" cannot be observed.
Even if I had not taken the time to hence that everything, even logic itself, is logically untrue, that would not change the fact that there is no thing such as choice and faith is an inevitability.
>>
How does atoms and neurochemical/electric reactions give rise to conscious experience? Do you have any idea how this could possibly be so? Can you prove it?
If you have no idea how this happens, how can you even be so sure that it's the case?
We exist always already as a human consciousness existing within a social world, with language, perception experience etc. we live our lives always under the feeling that we control a lot of our actions
I think it's kind if silly to just take atom theory that you I assume learned in high school, assume it's totally like predetermined much like billiard balls or something, and then assume that these atoms function in this predetermined way in our brains, and that these atoms give rise to the illusion if conscious agency.
It's like too many assumptions and theories, it's not enough to deny a fundamental feature of human experience
And look at it this way, iff agency is an illusion, then why would it be selected for evolutionarily speaking? Consciousness at this point would merely e an epiphenomemon. Why would evolution select for this, when it's basically just wasted calories?
Basically what you're saying is humans are just robots or somehing, who suffer from the illusion that they're choosing they're actions. But if this is the case then couldn't the universe have the very same actions, humans would all be doing the exact same things (because it's all predetermined) if our conscious experiences didn't exist at all. So if evolution is a sound theory, you need to account for why conscious experience was selected fr, when it seems to me that it's entirely unneeded, when humans would all be behaving in the vey same way if they were p zombies.
And also it strikes me as silly that if your theory is true, then you aren't even choosing to argue and present our theory, and I'm not even responding, we're just like wind up mechanisms with no control over our actions, so this isn't really a proper conversation
>>
File: IMG_8699.jpg (25KB, 413x395px) Image search:
[Google]
25KB, 413x395px
my fedora went full circle
>>
>>2442128
jij
Thread posts: 8
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2