this post was submitted on 25 May 2025
447 points (94.6% liked)

memes

16574 readers
2453 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 39 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Fight what exactly? Determinism either is or isnt how the universe works, it isnt like some sort of external force of finite capacity that can be resisted by some application of effort. If it is true, then you have no choice but to act the way something like you would act, and the way humans are wired to think is in terms of choices and the possible outcomes of those choices, even if the choice you make and the thinking that leads you to it is inevitable. If it is not true, then the possibility of making different choices exists, but it doesnt look any different to you because you only get to perceive the result of following one set of them.

The thing about determinism is that while it may be an interesting philosophical exercise, beyond being difficult to maybe impossible to prove or disprove, it isnt really relevant to much. A deterministic universe looks, feels, and acts to us exactly like a nondeterministic one would.

[–] Paradachshund@lemmy.today 15 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I took it to mean fighting against a descent into nihilism.

[–] Signtist@lemm.ee 29 points 2 months ago (5 children)

I never understood the fight against nihilism, as if it's inherently bleak. I came to the conclusion that nothing truly matters a long time ago, but that doesn't keep me from feeling like stuff matters, and doing what matters to me. Subjective meaning can still drive you to pursue and live a good life even while you're aware that objective meaning doesn't exit. Happiness feels good, which is enough for me.

[–] idunnololz@lemmy.world 20 points 2 months ago (2 children)
[–] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 6 points 2 months ago

If nothing matters, then it doesnt matter that nothing matters, so while I technically am a nihilist, since I dont see a plausible mechanism for how some kind of objective purpose/meaning could exist, I dont really think much of it. If nothing matters there is no reason for me not to care about whatever I arbitrarily happen to value anyway. Expecting the universe to find those things important too just feels kind of self-centered somehow.

[–] DarkDarkHouse@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 2 months ago

Also: everything matters ☹️ everything matters 🙂

That would make it existentialism

[–] Vespair@lemm.ee 2 points 2 months ago

Either existence is a empty nothingness devoid of meaning, or existence is a empty blank canvas upon which we can imbue our own meaning.

[–] LwL@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

I love nihilism because accepting that nothing inherently matters allows me to focus on the things that I decide matter to me. It also makes it easier for me to accept those things I dislike but am truly powerless to change.

I think I'd be so much unhappier if I was in some constant pursuit of a universal meaning of life, or felt like I had to fulfill some inherent purpose.

[–] JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago

Nothing matters, but knowing nothing matters,

It's just life, so keep dancing through

[–] nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 months ago

The truth of determinism is relevant to the most popular conception of free will. That's why this comes up repeatedly. People seem to want themselves to be free from causality itself, because being bound by it makes you not "free", and just going through the motions.

The problem here is the definition of free will itself . Rather than demanding from the universe that your mind be inexplicably free form causality, why not just accept a more useful definition of free will? Such as the ability to make decisions without undue coercion. Vague as that is, it's at least a workable definition.

[–] i_love_FFT@jlai.lu 2 points 2 months ago

What if some parts of the universe are deterministic, and some others aren't? Or that is is deterministic sometimes, but sometimes it is not?

Then, would it mean that initiating a chain of deterministic events that eventually causes suffering makes me responsible for this suffering?

What if i choose to cut taxes because i think I'll have more money, but it causes a series of events that end up increasing organised crimes? What if it was always the deterministic result of that choice, but the choice itself was not deterministic and I could have chosen not to do it?

[–] Dagnet@lemmy.world 25 points 2 months ago

Holy shit Mickey, what did you do to Pluto!?

[–] Kowowow@lemmy.ca 11 points 2 months ago (3 children)

This reminds me of that stupid thing in fallout 4 about possibly being a robot essentially and how it was supposed to be some big deal but I never understood what difference it made

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] last_philosopher@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

There's a lot of assumptions in saying it's just meaningless chemicals

  • That chemicals are meaningless and lacking intriniic value. Seen from the outside they may appear that way, but evidently from the inside it seems quite different.
  • "We" are not some other unseen brain behavior (not a crazy idea since we've never seen consciousness working in the brain)
  • We are within the brain
  • The brain exists at all
  • Any knowledge exists at all (dubious as Mickey points out)
[–] pcalau12i@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago

The decision that your brain's decisions are due to chemical reactions, which itself would be due to chemicals reactions, is self-referential but not circular reasoning.

[–] Deme@sopuli.xyz 8 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Occam's razor defeats Plato's cave. There's no reason to think that the world we experience would be just metaphysical shadows on the wall. The burden of proof is on Mickey's shoulders.

Oh yeah and Cogito Ergo Sum. So there is one bit of definitely provable knowledge.

[–] agent_nycto@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Occam's razor is a rule of thumb not an absolute rule of the universe.

If you go with Cogito Ergo Sum, I think that's the stance Mickey is taking. You only know for sure of your own consciousness, everything else could be a delusion of the senses. You know, like shadows on a cave wall or whatever.

[–] Deme@sopuli.xyz 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yes, and my response to what Mickey said was that why would we think that we're in the cave looking at shadows? Why should I complicate my view of the world with the added baggage of metaphysical idealism when materialism works just fine to explain everything I see? Sure our perception of the world is limited to our senses and measurement techniques, but the scientific framework we've built onto that base appears very consistent and functional with its predictive power. It's definitely not omniscience, but it works.

I only brought up the Cogito argument to point out that Mickey is incorrect in saying that no certain knowledge exists.

[–] agent_nycto@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I think one of the points Mickey would make is you can't entirely trust the scientific framework because it's still coming from our flawed senses. Even if everything adds up, it could still be a lie. Solipsism and all that.

I don't think anyone is talking about metaphysical idealism, but conceptual things shouldn't be written off because they are inconvenient. Numbers aren't physical, but I doubt you'd say they don't exist and therefore should be ignored, unless you're the most extreme materialist.

[–] Deme@sopuli.xyz 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Eliminative materialism isn't my thing no. Emergent materialism is what I roll with. So the human mind and culture and numbers are things that exist as emergent properties of other things.

Sure it could all be a lie with us living in the matrix or so on, and it's fun to entertain such thoughts every now and then. But I won't accept it as truth without a better reason than "but technically it's possible".

[–] agent_nycto@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Now I'm not sure you get what the allegory of the cave is about. It's literally trying to explain that our perception can't be 100% trusted.

[–] Deme@sopuli.xyz 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

I know. The matrix (or any other metaphysical idealism for that matter) is an example of a situation where we cannot trust our perception for knowledge about the true nature of the universe (much like the allegory of the cave), although taken to the extreme. The epistemological and metaphysical aspects of Plato's cave are very much intertwined.

[–] agent_nycto@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

But you're assuming, from what I'm reading through your comments, that these shadows are cast by metaphysical forces, and I'm interpreting the allegory as how our senses are ultimately something we can't trust completely.

As accurate as science may seem, it is ultimately based on these senses. It's the best way we can understand the physical world, but science, wisely, always has a caveat at the end of every law and discovery: "... As far as we know."

This is a good thing, it means that nothing is held sacred and everything can be tested and questioned again.

[–] Deme@sopuli.xyz 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Our senses and measurements (or are those the same thing, with one merely augmenting the other?) tell us that we live in a purely material universe. I'm not claiming that our senses are perfect or that science is over with every secret revealed, but questioning the validity of our observations on such a foundational level invokes questioning the validity of the worldview (metaphysical materialism) built on top of them. That's what I interpreted Mickey was on about in the meme.

Donald is despairing about the inherent meaninglessness of a purely material universe, so I assume that Mickey, with his radical rejection of all that Donald says, represents at least some sort of metaphysical dualism or idealism which would allow for inherent cosmic meaning.

[–] agent_nycto@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (8 children)

And I'm saying that not questioning your senses is unscientific. Questioning our observations, and retesting them, is the very foundation of scientific thinking.

As for living in a purely material universe, how exactly would you test for something immaterial using material means? Would it look like weird unknown forces we can't explain or the results of tests looking different depending on if it's being observed or not?

And also are we going to throw out human experience? Are we not part of the universe? So would not the immaterial things we imagine into existence also exist?

Numbers aren't material but we treat them as real, and use them to study material things to understand them.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Pudutr0n@feddit.cl 3 points 2 months ago

There is no burden of proof. There is only the experience of the here and the now. Everything else is stories.

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Brains are electro-chemical btw, not just chemical

[–] DarkDarkHouse@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 2 months ago

And what organ told you that, hmm?

[–] The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago

Those old cartoons really didn't hold back, huh?

[–] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 months ago

Or, as I love to say: you feel what you feel, it's what you do with it that matters

[–] DarkDarkHouse@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 2 months ago

No, Mickey--I will perish like a duck.

[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 3 points 2 months ago
[–] Venus_Ziegenfalle@feddit.org 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The universe could just as well be made of only one type of matter. The fact that certain particles attract each other is miraculous in and of itself. It's what facilitates complex matter and ultimately life. It's also a funamental law upon which brains have evolved. It's everything but absurd.

[–] Deme@sopuli.xyz 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I think the usage of the word absurd in this context entails the third definition of the word here: A search engine word definition for the word "absurd". The third entry relates to existential philosophy and the notion that human life and the universe lacks inherent order or meaning.

[–] Supervisor194@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

Obviously, Donald will do whatever the chemicals make him do.

[–] Zenith@lemm.ee 2 points 2 months ago

I think a critical part of being a human is the ability for those chemicals to induce such feelings, the ability to wonder and see beauty is something special

[–] Katana314@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

I still think Death said it better in Hogfather.

load more comments
view more: next ›