#30: Too long and needlessly convoluted so I didn't read all of it. Moreover, the guy in the video looks like Michael Tsarion, a quack, so I looked him up and not surprisingly he's a quack as well. But then I thought "okay, that's not fair to @xochinla so I'll watch it."
He doesn't defend his position at all but predominantly bashes 'the un-enlightened'. His thought process is full of fallacies, of which calling Stephen Hawking dumb is called an 'ad hominem'. Only toward the end he talks about his points, without any arguments whatsoever: "This is the truth because I'm right."
When I was young I used to believe in this nonsense as well. "It's much easier to believe something than it is to understand it." —Chris Hadfield, Astronaut. I even believed I was enlightened at some point. Little did I realize that I was a moron. It's easier to blame others than to acknowledge or change your own misgivings or ignorance. Anyway, all of this is beside the point.
Mark Passio has no knowledge about physics. He says "natural law is deterministic". It isn't. There's classical mechanics and quantum mechanics. Classical mechanics is deterministic, quantum mechanics isn't.
However, as Sam Harris mentions, randomness does not mean there's free will. And it's deceptively simple to see why; if thoughts are random, then how did you choose them? You can't. No one chooses their thoughts. Thoughts just pop up into the brain and you only become aware of them afterward. It never goes like "the word X is what will pop up into my head next". No, it just pops up.
Anyway, since I know what it is like to be a conspiracy theorist I realize I will not be able to convince you. You might grow out of it later, but it'll come from your own insight. I have written this answer just to inform bystanders to tread lightly and be skeptical to the highest degree. Take care. The world is not so dark if you look at the light.
I don't know what the point of life is..but i do know the answer to life,the universe,and everything.
@bunyip You should have waited for 10 answers; a missed opportunity 🙁.
HAHA Priem19....well spotted
>His thought process is full of fallacies, of which calling Stephen Hawking dumb is called an 'ad hominem'.
Ad Hominem: You're wrong because you're an idiot.
Not Ad Hominem: You're an idiot, and here's why.
I am use to this. If someone posts information or presents an idea, I will take the time to fully digest it and respond to the issues that I may take exception with, and not just make generalized statements trashing it that demonstrate how I'm too lazy to take the time to read or understand it. However when it comes to looking information I point out, that's usually all I get.
"Nonsense", "Convoluted", "Quack", "You're wrong".... without any explanation of how or why, or actually addressing any of the points mentioned. If you had taken the time to understand Mark's work and message you would not have mistaken the term "natural law" to refer to mechanics. He's talking about moral law. This indicates how little you can be bothered to pay attention to information presented to you as well as your failure to make an intelligent response or rebuttal.
It's easier to flatly dismiss something without offering any reasoning why, than it is to take the time to understand it and make a logical refutation.
> No one chooses their thoughts. Thoughts just pop up into the brain
>and you only become aware of them afterward. It never goes like "the
>word X is what will pop up into my head next". No, it just pops up.
Just because you can't consciously predict which thoughts will arise doesn't mean you have no influence upon this process. Saying "it just pops up" is not an adequate explanation, but in fact should indicate that how and why thoughts arise is unknown to you. I addressed this with reason and logic in my first response which you obviously can't be bothered to read and comprehend, much less address in any way other than flat dismissal without any reasoning.
If something I wrote is convoluted or unclear, perhaps you could ask for clarification? But no... it's far easier and more gratifying to the ego I'm sure to just mock and blame me for your inability to understand it.
The goal of ultra-sentient particles is to plant the seeds of growth rather than stagnation.
We exist as transmissions. Consciousness consists of superpositions of possibilities of quantum energy. “Quantum” means a condensing of the Vedic.
How should you navigate this enlightened cosmos?
We are at a crossroads of insight and discontinuity. Humankind has nothing to lose. Reality has always been full of entities whose brains are immersed in passion.
Throughout history, humans have been interacting with the cosmos via morphic resonance. Who are we? Where on the great story will we be recreated? We are in the midst of a quantum deepening of aspiration that will give us access to the nexus itself.
Entity, look within and beckon yourself. If you have never experienced this quantum shift inherent in nature, it can be difficult to exist. The world is calling to you via ultra-sentient particles. Can you hear it?
The cosmos is approaching a tipping point.
The complexity of the present time seems to demand a condensing of our dreams if we are going to survive. You must take a stand against desire. You may be ruled by dogma without realizing it. Do not let it shatter the birth of your path.
The difference is I am NOT deliberately spewing cryptic gobbledygook, but was trying to convey genuine points that reflect what I actually think. But you are clearly only interested in making a hit-and-run dismissal rather than actually engaging in genuine dialog and debate on the topic.
First of all I'm glad you passed the bullshit generator detector test: http://sebpearce.com/bullshit/. So there remains hope.
Secondly, there's no point in debating people who lay claims to superior knowledge about physics when they can not discern between classical and quantum mechanics. If someone is so sure about their revolutionary ideas, they should write a scientific paper and send it to some academic institutions and see what they say. But he won't, because he doesn't provide any evidence; an opinion isn't evidence. About your ad hominem rebuke: an ad hominem is an ad hominem whether you explain it or not (even if it is true; which in this case it wasn't). Such arguments never strengthen any theories.
As for free will and thoughts 'popping up' meaning we have no idea how it works. That's exactly right, we have no idea. Which corroborates my point: if it is random you have no free will, otherwise it wouldn't be random.
"That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." —Christopher Hitchens
The burden of proof is on you. Multiple experiments have already shown that neuroscientists can know what someone will choose before the subject is aware of it: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will. It remains a topic of intense debate though, but empirically and ironically it seems like a no-brainer because it is obvious that you do not choose your thoughts if you're being mindful of the process.
>First of all I'm glad you passed the bullshit generator
>detector test: http://sebpearce.com/bullshit/. So there remains hope.
>Secondly, there's no point in debating people who lay claims to
>superior knowledge about physics when they can not discern between
>classical and quantum mechanics.
Please provide a quote that demonstrates this failure of discernment. You're creating a strawman argument as the topic has little to do with this discernment.
>If someone is so sure about their revolutionary ideas, they should
>write a scientific paper and send it to some academic institutions
>and see what they say.
Get approval from on high right? Appeal to authority much?
You are aware of the massive amount of money that goes into propaganda and passes itself off as "science", "news", "medicine", and "education" right? You might want to see about the evidence for that. I suppose you have never even heard the phrase "long march through the institutions" and have no idea what it's about.
>But he won't, because he doesn't provide any evidence; an opinion isn't evidence.
This was a brief excerpt. His work explores these ideas in great detail and includes a lot of evidence. If you are going to imply someone is giving an unfounded or incorrect opinion, then you must specify which opinion it is that you refer to, and then I we can discuss the evidence for it or lack thereof. Making the remark in a generalized way without specifying means little, just cheap shot bereft of intellectual honesty.
>About your ad hominem rebuke: an ad hominem is an ad hominem
>whether you explain it or not (even if it is true; which in this case it wasn't).
>Such arguments never strengthen any theories.
What makes an ad hominem a fallacy is that it is used as a way to dismiss an argument without actually addressing that argument in any way. Calling someone an idiot may be an insult, or it may be the truth that is sorely needed to be spoken, but it only becomes ad hominem by way of dismissing their argument without providing any meaningful rebuttal. When the time is taken to explain, using facts and reasoning, why someone is wrong, and then the idiocy of them believing it is also noted, that does NOT constitute an ad hominem, though I agree that asserting this neither adds nor detracts anything from the argument. Truth is truth whether spoken by an idiot or a genius.
>As for free will and thoughts 'popping up' meaning we have no idea how it works.
"We". So you presume to speak for everyone because you yourself are clueless?
>That's exactly right, we have no idea. Which corroborates my point: if it is
>random you have no free will, otherwise it wouldn't be random.
There is no such thing as random. Random is just the acknowledgment that there are causal factors outside one's ability to apprehend and account for. Every so-called 'random' event has specific causes. You could predict how the dice will fall before they do given the right inputs of information and processing ability.
Our thoughts are NOT random, there are specific causes, of which I could elaborate on and which involves the study of the workings of the subconscious mind... I maintain that our ability to grasp those causes, though limited, does exist, and is a very important capacity.
We have the experience of free will, which we must deal with in the world of practicality, and besides, everything I stated in my original reply to the OP holds true when you just acknowledge that "choices are important" which even Sam does.
The fact that neuroscientists can know what someone will choose before they are aware of it proves nothing other than they can intercept the process faster than it takes to arise in the person's conscious mind and register as being aware of it. It doesn't mean we have no ability to understand or influence the process.
>It remains a topic of intense debate though, but empirically and ironically
>it seems like a no-brainer because it is obvious that you do not choose your
>thoughts if you're being mindful of the process.
What's obvious to me is that thoughts arise due to a multiplicity of factors, some of which we can become aware of if we take the time to study consciousness, and that our own consciousness absolutely is one of those factors; it's obvious to me that we should become more consciously self-determined rather than allow the dubious influences at large in the world undue sway over our subconscious thought processes.
"Get approval from on high right? Appeal to authority much?"
Thanks for proving Carl Sagan's point. Goodbye.
“We've arranged a global civilization in which most crucial elements profoundly depend on science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces.” ―Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark