• fishos@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    6 months ago

    You assume intention. Fallacy of free will. Whoever wrote it, you would claim had “intention”. But given enough humans just faffing about randomly, one will eventually think up and write down “Hamlet”. It’s the same, you just want to ascribe higher meaning to it because it’s human.

    • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      You’re just describing the mechanics of a coincidence, which is exactly the entire point.

      I don’t assume intention with Hamlet. There WAS intent there. The entire fucking point of the expression is people add intention when there IS NOT any. By using a situation that DID have intent, it is quite literally missing the entire point.

      It is utterly stupid to try and twist a reality in to a different, incompatible hypothetical. Especially when reality is antithetical to the entire point.

      • fishos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        6 months ago

        If no free will, no intention. It’s that simple. In strict determinism, every action, thought, feeling, whatever, was predetermined at the moment of the big bang by the starting state and physics.

        I’m absolutely saying that all of humanities creations are “coincidence”. Just because you don’t like what I have to say doesn’t make me stupid. I know what I was describing.

        • JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          6 months ago

          Why does intention have to be a nondeterministic thing? Can’t people indent to do something, even if they were determined to intend to choose it?

        • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          You’re reading the expression totally backwards. It says absolutely nothing about choice, but the illusion of coincidence. If anything, the point backs up a lack of choice and reinforces the point that humans are full of themselves…

        • Ech@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          But given enough humans just faffing about randomly, one will eventually think up and write down “Hamlet”.

          In strict determinism, every action, thought, feeling, whatever, was predetermined at the moment of the big bang by the starting state and physics.

          Determinism and randomness cannot coexist.

    • StrongHorseWeakNeigh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      6 months ago

      The thing with humans as opposed to simpler primates randomly mashing keyboards for eternity is that we’re able to synthesize complex ideas related to our own experiences. That’s what the difference is. Hamlet is the culmination of and synthesization of the many experiences of humans and Shakespeare.

      • fishos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        6 months ago

        We think we are able to. Prove we aren’t just fancy biological computers. No one has proven what consciousness really even is yet.

        If the quote was “a million microbes”, maybe you’d have a point. But it’s monkeys. Our closest ancestors. What we are one step removed from. And y’all trying to act like monkeys are robots and were transcendent beings made of energy or some shit. We’re animals, just like them. Slightly smarter, but animals. We are the monkeys.