Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

MonteChristo0321 OP t1_jbl9oki wrote

Molecules are the small parts of a person. Or cells are, or quarks are, etc. I never said that molecules are not the small parts of a person. I just used molecules one example of a type of small part that gives you a terrible sense of the properties of a whole person.

I won't take the time to wade through the rest of the the reading comprehension issues here.

But your last paragraph isn't based on a simple misreading. It's an interesting question whether your own decisions surprise you. In a sense they do. If you know what your decision will be before you make it, then you've actually already made your decision. But you don't make your decision before you make your decision. I don't see that as a problem, but it's interesting.

−10

madcatte t1_jbmp2t6 wrote

Lmao I wasn't going to comment anything even though I was tempted to make the general comment of "it's hard to make a compelling argument on something you are wrong about" in response to your article. But here I find you in the comments telling people that the problems in your reasoning and argument are actually comprehension issues on the side of the reader. That's the single biggest hallmark of a bad author - blaming the reader for just "not getting it". Don't do that.

12

bassinlimbo t1_jbmg9jv wrote

I feel like some aspect of agency is lost here. When do you know you've made it? Our conscious thought is what gives us the sense of free will, but neuroscientists have proven with a few studies that our brain decides before we do. What is free about that?

As any other animal, we came from survivalist routes. I believe our "consciousness" and social abilities have allowed us to reach how far we've come as a species. But I think we can be studied in predictable ways like any other living thing that exists.

5

chicliac t1_jblx1x2 wrote

The point with the molecules it that after acknowledgeing the whole emerges from parts you casually say the parts are irrelevant. And now you're ignoring what the guy said of it.

4

MonteChristo0321 OP t1_jblyamt wrote

Yes, the whole emerges from the parts AND the parts are irrelevant to certain questions.

It's not obvious that would be the case. That's why I wrote a whole paper about it. I want to do a better job of explaining it, but I already put my best effort into the explanations in the paper.

−3

chicliac t1_jbmgd18 wrote

If you're referring to the apples redness analogy, here's my thoughts on it. There's indeed no redness to be found in constituent parts of the apple, but there's still a relevant causal connection between those parts properties and the emergent quality of the whole, the redness. So you can't just disregard that connection because you found no redness at that level, something other than the macro property on the micro level caused the macro property. The parts are demonstrably relevant here. The same is true for the main problem.

I don't think philosophy can just ignore science anymore.

5