Mikey Refutes Determinism -upbeat version

[MSlapik]

That doesn't make any sense. The human mind is still rational, it can still have insight into the nature of existence, even if its actions a determined by the environment. If all you can say about his theory is that according to it, Skinner was determined to come up with it, it still holds. That says nothing about how logical the theory is, just about how it came to be. It is the theory that should be critiqued, not the way that it came to be. The theory holds.

[dawgie102]

In Skinner there is no such thing as the human mind.

Weare a biological robots.

Conscious thought cannot be explained by matter.Thinking must be from a differnt type of being,although extrinsicly dependent on matter in humans.Experience of your mind is the most direct truth u know. Determ.only posits matter which contradicts this:THAT we ARE aware.We reason.

The lower (matter) cannot give rise to the higher (thought. THE END

[MSlapik]

Well, first of all, even if it is separate from matter, every single input is physical, which would end out not only influencing, but knowing every input, one can know the output. But then again it is irresponsible to create some elaborate reasoning for something unknown if there is a simple explanation.

[MSlapik]

I could give you plenty of examples. If thought and conscious were a phenomenon resulting from the nature of the brain, (far more reasonable than coming up with all this stuff about a spirit and soul with no evidence supporting it.) If matter exists in the way that science supports, determinism is correct. But even if it doesn't, freewill still most likely does not exist.

[MSlapik]

All the imputes are still physical, still known. Even if their not all physical, they still exist, actions are still determined. There is no evidence to support the allegation that the human mind is exempt in some way from the laws of physics. (What your saying is that it chooses actions, there is not a action- reaction, but rather the action is determined. The atoms of the human are no different than the actions of a table.

[MSlapik]

Besides, even if thought were on a higher plane, every input is still "lower" matter, and thus every thought is not only influenced, but with every input, determined by the "lower matter." However, I still don't agree with the statement thought is "higher" than matter. read my other comments for why.

[enclave2k1]

First, stating we are a product of environment and heredity does not mean that there is no such thing as objective examination of evidence. This is the claim you made and it is fallacious. This would be a false dilemma/ false dichotomy. One can be a product of environment and heredity and still use evidence to come to a conclusion. Evidence is a product of ones environment and therefor no contradiction is made.

[enclave2k1]

The rest of your argument assumes that he is claiming we can not use objective evidence and therefore the rest of your argument is null as it is based on a false premise.

[enclave2k1]

Towards the end you say because Skinner's idea is a product of his heredity and environment and 'not about that which IS'. You are implying that because Skinner makes a claim based on his environment and heredity it can hold no truth value. You are making the same contradiction you falsely accused Skinner of making previously. Your thoughts are just that, your own; and they makes no case as to what actually IS. So your own argument is null if your premise is true.

[enclave2k1]

That is to say, because your argument is yours and 'not about that which IS', it can hold no truth value.

[dawgie102]

NEITHER CAN SKINNERS... As I said above. His whole nonsensical philosophy renders human thought meaningless.

[enclave2k1]

As I said in my first reply, you assume skinner is claiming 'being a product of environment and heredity' and 'objective examination of evidence' are mutually exclusive. They are not. They can not be since when we take into account evidence we are effected by our environment. If anything being a product of ones environment encourages objective study of evidence (as objective as one can be). Thusly, his claim stands.

[dawgie102]

THAT'S it! Using Skinner's ideas, both of our ideas are valueless.. INTELLECTUAL NIHILISM..

Let start somewhere else...

[enclave2k1]

By the way, thank you for responding. And because I am only going on what you said in the video I make no claims as to what skinner or you say aside from what was said in the video. Like I mention before you claim skinners idea meaningless because you misrepresented his argument. You base his argument on a false dichotomy.

[dawgie102]

I am showing his absurdity!

[enclave2k1]

If the only reason why you make the final statement was to put an ironic twist to your argument then I misunderstood. Seeing as how your initial representation of skinners argument is fallacious I just assumed that you made the same mistake yourself. But, if it was meant to be a clever twist.. then its anecdotal at best, because of the false dilemma you create from his argument.

[dawgie102]

We can say h. and e. influences us, however that is different than determining us.. Determining renders human thought and action absurd, as some modern philos. claim anyway

[enclave2k1]

I agree somewhat. Determinism was proven incorrect in the 1920s-1930s by the Bose-Einstein equations. They proved that there is background fluctuations within our universe (on the order of 1/2ħv or 1/2 * plank length * frequency).  This accounts for randomness we see on an atomic level when observing particle decay (see Schroedinger's cat experiment) and the probabilistic nature of electrons (see dual slit experiment)

[enclave2k1]

So while the universe is not deterministic in the strictest sense, we really don't know how much these effect the human mind. Regardless this quantum randomness is just that, random.  So at worst Skinners idea would be corrected to heredity, environment, and some randomness. While this couldn't be duplicated by a machine (see Laplace's demon) we in no way can attribute thought to 'free will'. This is my argument.

[MSlapik]

It does NOT make human action absurd, just determined. That is all it is, determined. Human thought can still be logical, insightful, for the human mind is insightful, that fact that the universe is deterministic is irrelevant.

[MSlapik]

The fact that we can discern certain parts of our deterministic universe shows that human thought does have insight into truth. If the chain reactions of atoms can be predicted if one knows every variable, as in simple chemical reactions, why not the whole universe.

[worldlystone]

....................What?

[dawgie102]

Thank you for your "What?"... Well this argument is tricky, so you've got to hear it until you get it.

Actually Mikey is trying to show that Determinism logically is intellectual nihilism.. We can know nothing, because the universe tells us what to think, and we all contradict each other.