Books to help me start believing in free will again? It's starting to wreak havoc on my brain that everything is determined from the big bang.
 |
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
|
Books to help me start believing in free will again?
Books to help me start believing in free will again? It's starting to wreak havoc on my brain that everything is determined from the big bang.
|
UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
|
If you don't have free will then it's not up to you, but it's possible you have free will and you should act like you have, otherwise you will be fricked by being fatalism in vain. In short, stop thinking about it.
fpbp
>but oh no, I was predetermined to make this post...
Came to that conclusion as well but until we can measure it we don't know for sure.
Frick me I meant to put an image does that count as free will atleast the freedom to make mistakes.
>Books to help me start believing in free will again?
>everything is determined from the big bang
Quantum mechanics proves this is false though. We can't determine subatomic phenomena, it's only probabilistic.
what you said is exactly the reason not to believe in free will. What exactly in a probabilistic outcome belongs to you , gives you "free will". What of this free will is yours . Its just an electron that while it had the energy to pass a potential , it didnt .
I remember being 19.
took my first X in solitude and contemplated determinism while sitting in utter dark for a couple of hours.
Unironically, drugs ruined my life, after that trip I got into philosophy.
Also I haven't yet found a better answer than
>Because you choose(to/believe)
It's also a highly anthropocentric question , I think the cause/effect perspective might be a limitation of the human mind rather than inherent in this "reality".
>Unironically, drugs ruined my life, after that trip I got into philosophy.
You should read more Hegel.
>I think the cause/effect perspective might be a limitation of the human mind rather than inherent in this "reality".
You should read Hegel then Kierkegaard.
Whether or not an atom will split at any given moment is essentially random, so determinism is false.
Imagine being a materialistic bug that bases their worldview on some light that a scientist saw through a telescope and inferred the big bang from that
How does any of this change your day to day life? It doesn't. You'll still have to live assuming you and everyone else have free will.
What's free will even supposed to mean?
it's special pleading, involving an undefined "non-physical" soul manipulating the physical material of the human mind in ways that indicate the soul's possession of a will separate from the rest of the body
It means you are an agent capable of making decisions, not merely being a product of mechanical forces. OP basically got tricked into thinking he's just a meatbag full of chemicals that only reacts according to how it's sloshed around.
you wouldn't have had this thought without a corresponding neural configuration that follows laws of physics and behaves deterministically
I don't speak with Chinese rooms, those words lack the backing of rational minds
Try again in English, please
Your words are merely the result of chemical reactions in your brain, which is a natural process are no more rational than the digestive acid in my stomach. As a result I cannot converse with you on any other level than what I would with chatgpt, which is merely a Chinese room outputting words without rationality.
>Your words are merely the result of chemical reactions in your brain
Thanks, you too.
>no more rational than the digestive acid in my stomach
Your stomach acid can't predict outcomes of complex situations
>merely a Chinese room outputitng
Thanks, you too.
>Why does it matter whether it's a physical process or a non-physical process, when we experience it the same way regardless?
I don't think it matters, but i think people who believe in freewill generally attribute it to magical or non-physical phenomena
>ad-hom
>appeal to the authority of "rational minds", whoever they might be
religious minded people are just Beta release humans, with minds that haven't yet reached the next level of development
>https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/301117
>Disabling certain areas of the brain with transcranial magnetic stimulation can reduce a person’s belief in God
It seems even your faith in God is determined by mechanical forces and only reacts according to how it's sloshed around
>you are an agent capable of making decisions
>merely being a product of mechanical forces
These can both be the case at the same time
Why does it matter whether it's a physical process or a non-physical process, when we experience it the same way regardless?
>you are an agent capable of making decisions
>merely being a product of mechanical forces
>These can both be the case at the same time
Compatibilism is a useful fiction needed to run society, taking it anything beyond that is cope.
>a useful fiction needed to run society
Like religion or the concept of freewill?
It's not a fantasy. An "an agent capable of making decisions" is nothing incredible or specific. The decision making process is incredibly slow and flawed, but that's exactly why we experience it the way we do.
Under determinism, a rapist didn't actually choose to rape someone, they just happened to do it as a result of molecules bouncing around. Without compatibilism, you couldn't morally hold someone like that accountable. It simply says "OK everything is mechanistically determined and everyone technically isn't responsible for their actions, but we will pretend they are for the sake of morality"
It doesn't matter. It's necessary to protect society.
And what's the other alternative to determinism? Chance. If it's determined by chance, it's not a "actual choice" either.
>It doesn't matter. It's necessary to protect society.
As I said, that's why it's a useful fiction.
>And what's the other alternative to determinism? Chance. If it's determined by chance, it's not a "actual choice" either.
You accept a mechanism that allows for humans to be free agents capable of freely making decisions out of a variety of options.
For example https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrated_objective_reduction
>slippery slope fallacy
Not at all
>Describing the consequences of a fact doesn't disprove it.
Duh that's why I said it's a useful fiction.
>And, in this case, the consequences you describe aren't even accurate. Punishment and reward have the power of cause and effect on behavior. Punishing a dog for pissing on the rug deters him from doing it again, same as a rapist.
Yes I'm talking about morality in society
>There's no need to appeal to supernatural forced to justify the effects of punishment on the behavior of animals or people (also animals).
I agree, that's what compatibilism does.
>As I said, that's why it's a useful fiction.
No, compatibilism is never used as an argument. Regular people are angry at the rapist and empathetic toward the victim, and want society to be safe. They don't think about determinism or compatibilism at all.
>You accept a mechanism that allows for humans to be free agents capable of freely making decisions out of a variety of options.
I assume all/most of these come down to chance. So what difference does that make? And what if chance is also deterministic on a meta-level?
Also, let's say the rapist's thoughts are a magical spirit instead of a regular brain. Why would that be an argument for holding him morally accountable?
>As I said, that's why it's a useful fiction.
>No, compatibilism is never used as an argument. Regular people are angry at the rapist and empathetic toward the victim, and want society to be safe. They don't think about determinism or compatibilism at all.
So? Most people don't care about philosophy at all, it doesn't mean anything. People act out the philosophies of their culture while unaware of it.
>You accept a mechanism that allows for humans to be free agents capable of freely making decisions out of a variety of options.
>I assume all/most of these come down to chance. So what difference does that make? And what if chance is also deterministic on a meta-level?
That'd be a separate line of argumentation, and I don't know anyone who argues for that.
>Also, let's say the rapist's thoughts are a magical spirit instead of a regular brain. Why would that be an argument for holding him morally accountable?
Minus your appeal to mockery, free will means you alone are responsible for your actions, not natural processes forcing you to act something out. It's not complicated.
>slippery slope fallacy
Describing the consequences of a fact doesn't disprove it. And, in this case, the consequences you describe aren't even accurate. Punishment and reward have the power of cause and effect on behavior. Punishing a dog for pissing on the rug deters him from doing it again, same as a rapist. There's no need to appeal to supernatural forced to justify the effects of punishment on the behavior of animals or people (also animals).
Under determinism, the rapist would be nevertheless be held accountable if caught, since that's how it ought to be in the current times as it has been formed.
YWAH PEDO GOD OF VENGEANCE mentality.
have a nice day
What? Just as there isn't any accountability to judge rapist, there isn't any accountability for the judge to judge seemingly erroneously. It just happens because of prior events in both cases.
>Under determinism, a rapist didn't actually choose to rape someone
It's a pre-determined choice but a choice nonetheless. If you have multiple options in your head and pick one, that's a choice.
Study quantum mechanics obviously
i somehow reconciled free will with determinism but i'm not sure how i did it and think i'm just wrong but it feels nice so i'm ok with it
it just makes sense to me
you use free will to make decisions but they are always the decisions you make when you look at it from outside the perspective of time because it's already happened
just look at the past, it's all random shit that's happened. but now it has, you can see why it did. you can figure out why anyone did whatever thing with enough data
but that person still made a decision, it's just once it's been made that's the decision they made, and that's the reality we live in
still no actual books. sad.
I got your back, Opie.
>Looked at this way, Gödel's proof suggests – though by no means does it prove! – that there could be some high-level way of viewing the mind/brain, involving concepts which do not appear on lower levels, and that this level might have explanatory power that does not exist – not even in principle – on lower levels. It would mean that some facts could be explained on the high level quite easily, but not on lower levels at all. No matter how long and cumbersome a low-level statement were made, it would not explain the phenomena in question. It is analogous to the fact that, if you make derivation after derivation in Peano arithmetic, no matter how long and cumbersome you make them, you will never come up with one for G – despite the fact that on a higher level, you can see that the Gödel sentence is true. What might such high-level concepts be? It has been proposed for eons, by various holistically or "soulistically" inclined scientists and humanists that consciousness is a phenomenon that escapes explanation in terms of brain components; so here is a candidate at least. There is also the ever-puzzling notion of free will. So perhaps these qualities could be "emergent" in the sense of requiring explanations which cannot be furnished by the physiology alone (Gödel, Escher, Bach, p. 708)
you need a book to explain to you why you have will?
are you moronic?
bro if time is relative then doesnt that mean that there is some kinda god or force that lives outside time.
Its about not caring. You can have pride without believing in free will. You can have religion and believe in an afterlife and enjoy love and laughter and everything else about life that is good. “But when I fricked this b***h with big breasts is wasnt really my choice!” Boo fricking hoo dude at the end of the day her breasts are still big and she loves you, even if it isnt by her own will.
how many women have you been around. Are you a real ladies man. How blinded are you by the serpents propaganda
Ive been with 7. A few long term. Most of my adult life lived with one. I love them even though they can be evil. I like it. I dont care. The women Ive been with have been for the most part gorgeous. Married now but thinking of pursuing something new. Depressed.
David goggins
prove to yourself that you have free will
slap your mother’s ass