>free will doesn't exist

>free will doesn't exist
>not only does it not exist but literally none of your decisions are even your own because some deeper part of your brain is actually making the decisions for you
>morally it would also be wrong to punish people for doing bad things because they aren't choosing to do anything, its some deeper part of their brain that's making them do it

I dont understand how society will continue to exist with this kind of philosophy. How does the world not fall into apathy and nihilism when it realizes that nothing they do matters in any sense of the word

Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68

Yakub: World's Greatest Dad Shirt $21.68

Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Just because people don't have free will, doesn't mean we cannot have rules.

    We can acknowledge that a criminal did not consciously decide to commit a crime, while also acknowledging that he is dangerous and must be neutralised somehow

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >did not consciously decide to commit a crime
      You sound fricking moronic. Surely determinism dictates you will now reach for a gun and have a nice day (unconsciously, of course!)

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >You sound fricking moronic
        You sound very stressed
        >Surely determinism dictates you will now reach for a gun and have a nice day
        That doesn't seem to be the case, no

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The deeper part of my brain decided that it doesn't really matter and I shouldn't fall into apathy and nihilism.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Do you think most people can come to the same conclusion?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        All brains are essentially the same and it's not like this information is some end-of-the-world tier, people will just carry on as usual without thinking much about it.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Do you think most people can come to the same conclusion?
        Most people aren't weak like you

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Based. The deeper part of my brain thought so as well!

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    This, this guy needs to shut the frick up about this. This philosophy can only be destructive in its bleakness and nihilism.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Will go from being reactive and applying justice after the fact to identifying problems before they arise. Things like testing for psychopathy early on instead of waiting for them to murder someone's child.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Philosophy-illiterate scientist decides to write on area he has zero expertise in.

    Many such cases. See also: The Moral Landscape.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I wonder if he thinks technology could give us actual free will(whatever that may be).

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      More likely it will help us predict human behaviour.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    That dude is wrong.
    Our interactions, as humans is conditioned by reality itself to assume that we have free will. Thats why we have enemies and friends.
    >that dude is stupid and his choices are dumb
    >fire him
    Its just how it works. I think that dude is aguing semantics.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Have you read the book you are criticizing, or are you just posting emotionally, for no reason, to nobody's benefit?

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The whole free will debate feels kind of stupid since it relies so heavily on how its defined. I imagine most people wouldn't disagree with him saying our environment and upbringing as a kid heavily influences us when were older. But if he's implying that means we dont have free will then I think most people would disagree. My interpretation has always been if IM the one making a choice despite how I feel about it. I used to smoke and despite how bad my mind and body ached to keep smoking I did still quit. I have no doubt that our brain chemistry does a lot to automate a lot of what we do, but I find it silly to suggest choices that take more then a few seconds of deliberation arent our own. Again, we can be influenced, just like my smoking caused my brain chemistry to heavily influence me to keep smoking, but everytime I reached out to grab a cig and stopped, I choose to believe that was "me" making the choice.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >my egoic investment in my will does not allow me to look at this objectively

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        We can objectively demonstrate that factors xyz influence people's decision making. But the idea that we have zero free will at all is not objectively verifiable.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          It is when the factors are so numerous they leave no room for free will.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            How are you defining "no room for free will", objectively, scientifically?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            We are arguing about how much room there is for free will but you've failed to show that an independent will even exists.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Nor do I need to because I'm not even necessarily arguing that free will even exists. You however are suggesting there's objectively zero free will so you have the burden of proof.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            We can objectively demonstrate that factors xyz influence people's decision making. But the idea that we have zero free will at all is not objectively verifiable.

            You literally are. You are claiming cause and effect is objectively real but something opposes it, you don't know what, I'm asking what that something is.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Here are my posts:
            >We can objectively demonstrate that factors xyz influence people's decision making. But the idea that we have zero free will at all is not objectively verifiable.
            >How are you defining "no room for free will", objectively, scientifically?
            >Nor do I need to because I'm not even necessarily arguing that free will even exists. You however are suggesting there's objectively zero free will so you have the burden of proof.
            Literally all I've done is challenge your notion that there is objectively no free will. If you are reading any assertions of my own from this you are wrong.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Literally all I've done is challenge your notion that there is objectively no free will.
            You haven't been able to do that. You're just backpedalling.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Oh god you dumbass, any time you say that x is objectively true you immediately shoulder the burden of proof. Closing the tab now so don't bother replying

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            What a joke. I'm saying cause and effect is real, YOU agree. YOU are saying free will is real, I'm waiting for YOU to prove it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Hi, I’m here to call you a moron so no one else has to.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Why don't you just prove free will instead.

          • 1 month ago
            Dionysus-Priopos

            free will is an action of which we have the capacity. you have the ability to freely accept the reality of existence and its eternal truths or reject them and go psychotic. this is the highest form of free will for a created being.

            on top of that our universe is capable of generating perfect symmetries (quantum probabilities and the symmetries broken at the beginning of time) and our brains seem capable of generating that same determinism breaking symmetry which would be another expression of our free will.

            now you explain to me how your not responsible for the actions you chose to do?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That's just materialistic freewill which makes no sense because freewill is a metaphysical concept.

          • 1 month ago
            Dionysus-Priopos

            eternal truths is a metaphysical concept dummy

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Circle doesn't exist

          • 1 month ago
            Dionysus-Priopos

            0 dimensional points exist mfer i dont care how many triangles you put around it

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            What is the centre of free will, it's location or source, is it independent of cause and effect?

            Occam's razor suggests determinism.

          • 1 month ago
            Dionysus-Priopos

            the centre of free will is in the moment the self conceives the eternal and accepts or rejects it.
            determinism without a multiverse is a dead theory given observational data of super symmetries in quantum effects and even in space time.
            in physical terms the human form is capable of getting you to the perfect symmetry that is the question of the truth of existence and in answering the question you excersizze the highest form of free will a created being could ever have

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            What a jumbled mess of pseudoscientific nonsense, just co-opting complex scientific concepts like quantum indeterminacy and symmetries as meaningless window dressing for pseudo-profound maze of scientific misrepresentations and ungrounded metaphysical assertions.

            The notion that "the center of free will" involves conceiving of and accepting/rejecting "the eternal" is pure vacuous woo. There's no clear definition of what "the eternal" even refers to in this context. Is it some realm of abstract metaphysical truths? God? The fundamental nature of reality? It's just impressively vague phrasing that sounds profound but is ultimately empty.

            The claim that "determinism without a multiverse is a dead theory" given quantum effects grossly misunderstands quantum indeterminacy. Admitting there are probabilistic elements to quantum events doesn't require a multiverse interpretation nor does it violate causality on macroscopic scales. Conflating it with rejecting determinism entirely is sloppy thinking.

            The statement that "the human form is capable of getting you to the perfect symmetry that is the question of the truth of existence" is practically word salad. How does the "human form" enable apprehending some "perfect symmetry" of existential truth through sheer consciousness? There's no grounding for these grandiose metaphysical claims.

            Answering such existential riddles represents "the highest form of free will a created being could ever have" is top-tier deepity nonsense. It blindly asserts human subjective experience as the paramount expression of free will without any justification or rigor.

          • 1 month ago
            Dionysus-Priopos

            were gonna take this point by point because while ive never claimed to be wholly coherent (mostly cause i havent been asked all the questions) nobody has been able to poke any holes and while your poking in the right direction of needing further explanation, i dont think today will be that day.

            have a nice day fedora gay, just because you dont understand something doesnt mean it doesnt have meaning.

            the center of free will meets in a physical and metaphysical way in the moment a self is capable of generating symmetry. i then pointed to the principle symmetry which is our capacity to accept or reject eternal truth that exist outside of us. its a clear argument.

            i think your the one grossly misunderstanding. any system that can generate a perfect symetry (meaning its capable of producing a true 50/50 event and its variants, that has to happen given the axis of time) is inherently indeterministic no matter how deterministic the system was leading up to that. we see via observational data that our universe is capable of generating symmetries so unless all possibilities are being played out, our universe is indeterministic and determinism is a dead theory. its a clear argument. why do you believe in determinism?

            the human brain increasingly seems to be capable of generating macro scale quantum effects which are inherently indeterministic. i explained how we use this biological function in a metaphysical sense in that we use our brains to capacity to generate symmetry to deal with the biggest one for a created being which is the reality of truth. its a coherent argument.

            it knowingly asserts the Selfs experience as aware of eternal truth and points to how the natural world aids the process

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Claiming the "center of free will" involves generating symmetry or grappling with "eternal truth" is still making unsupported metaphysical assertions cloaked in scientific-sounding language. You haven't actually defined what you mean by these vague abstractions.

            Your claim about systems generating "perfect symmetry" and 50/50 events rendering them indeterministic is flawed. Quantum indeterminacy refers to inherent probabilistic uncertainties, not literal 50/50 measurement outcomes. And determinism is simply the idea that events have prior causes, which is still viable at scales above the quantum realm.

            Observing quantum effects does not make "determinism a dead theory" - we simply recognize determinism doesn't apply at the smallest scales. Determinism remains an extremely productive model for most physical systems we study.

            Your claim that "unless all possibilities are being played out, our universe is indeterministic" makes little sense. The multiverse hypothesis is highly speculative, not an established fact that determinism hinges on.

            Saying the "human brain increasingly seems to be capable of generating macro scale quantum effects" is speculative at best. There's no solid evidence our cognitive processes harness quantum indeterminacy in some revolutionary way.

            Your explanation of how we supposedly use this "biological function" to engage with "the reality of truth" remains incredibly vague handwaving about consciousness tackling metaphysical profundities.

            In the end, you're stringing together hypothetical scenarios about human consciousness transcending determinism via quantum effects and symmetries, then asserting it as a coherent argument about free will and the nature of existence. But it's built on shaky pseudoscientific premises and truthy abstract phrasing, not sound reasoning or evidence.

          • 1 month ago
            Dionysus-Priopos

            i MEAN that any SELF capable of conceiving of the IDEA of eternal truth, regardless of the laws of physics or their form, has been granted the highest form of free will for a created being in that it gets to freely accept of reject its reality. in accepting you will eventually freely choose god and all eternal truth you come across or you will reject existence and lose your self to psychosis. this is the gift and curse of free will but i knew you wouldnt take a metaphysical answer so i showed you where that eternal idea manifests in the human experience.

            thats why i said 50/50 and its variants. a layperson understands 50/50 being indeterministic better then a probability field. learn to read and stop pretending you know what your talking about.

            ima say this again ANY SYSTEM CAPABLE OF GENERATING SYMMETRIES IS INHERITLY INDETERMINISTIC our universe can generate symmetries. the onus is on you to describe how existence could be deterministic in the face of its capacity to generate indeterministic events via observational data? you dont know what your talking about

            yea again, you dont know what your talking about. good try but i would sit and think on what we talked about today

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            1) Asserting that the ability to "conceive of the idea of eternal truth" is somehow the "highest form of free will for a created being" is an unfounded metaphysical claim. You have provided no clear definition or justification for what qualifies as "eternal truth" or why conceptualizing it equates to ultimate free will.

            2) The idea that one must either "freely choose god and all eternal truth" or "reject existence and lose your self to psychosis" is just preaching a specific ideological belief.

            3) Equating 50/50 outcomes with indeterminism demonstrates a shallow understanding of probability and quantum physics. True quantum indeterminacy allows for a range of probabilistic outcomes, not binary 50/50 events.

            4) Your claim that "ANY SYSTEM CAPABLE OF GENERATING SYMMETRIES IS INHERENTLY INDETERMINISTIC" is simply wrong. You have not defined what you mean by "generating symmetries" in a cogent way. Symmetry principles in physics do not imply indeterminism.

            5) Stating "our universe can generate symmetries" without specifics about what symmetries you are referring to is meaningless. The universe exhibits many different symmetries that are perfectly compatible with deterministic laws.

            6) Demanding I describe "how existence could be deterministic in the face of its capacity to generate indeterministic events" is a strawman argument. I've already acknowledged quantum indeterminacy while pointing out determinism remains a valid model at higher scales.

            If you want to have a serious discussion grounded in reason and empirical evidence, you need to start with clear definitions, valid premises, and logically rigorous arguments rather than deepities and asserted profundities. Until then, I don't find your claims about the "center of free will" and the implications of symmetry to be at all persuasive. Perhaps reflecting more deeply and precisely on these topics would be wise before making unfounded declarations.

          • 1 month ago
            Dionysus-Priopos

            dude im about to go to the gym, ill be back

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Your argument is an incoherent mess that I thoroughly dismantled. Running away to the gym instead of actually defending your claims with rigor when challenged reveals cowardly intellectual bankruptcy. Don't bother coming back until you put in the work to formulate logically valid, non-pseudoscientific perspectives rather than just lazily asserting deepity-laden obscurantism masquerading as profundity.

          • 1 month ago
            Dionysus-Priopos

            I HAVE RE-EMERGED, here to round house wiener slap yet another fedora gay with the long pp of accountability

            cringe

            1) Asserting that the ability to "conceive of the idea of eternal truth" is somehow the "highest form of free will for a created being" is an unfounded metaphysical claim. You have provided no clear definition or justification for what qualifies as "eternal truth" or why conceptualizing it equates to ultimate free will.

            2) The idea that one must either "freely choose god and all eternal truth" or "reject existence and lose your self to psychosis" is just preaching a specific ideological belief.

            3) Equating 50/50 outcomes with indeterminism demonstrates a shallow understanding of probability and quantum physics. True quantum indeterminacy allows for a range of probabilistic outcomes, not binary 50/50 events.

            4) Your claim that "ANY SYSTEM CAPABLE OF GENERATING SYMMETRIES IS INHERENTLY INDETERMINISTIC" is simply wrong. You have not defined what you mean by "generating symmetries" in a cogent way. Symmetry principles in physics do not imply indeterminism.

            5) Stating "our universe can generate symmetries" without specifics about what symmetries you are referring to is meaningless. The universe exhibits many different symmetries that are perfectly compatible with deterministic laws.

            6) Demanding I describe "how existence could be deterministic in the face of its capacity to generate indeterministic events" is a strawman argument. I've already acknowledged quantum indeterminacy while pointing out determinism remains a valid model at higher scales.

            If you want to have a serious discussion grounded in reason and empirical evidence, you need to start with clear definitions, valid premises, and logically rigorous arguments rather than deepities and asserted profundities. Until then, I don't find your claims about the "center of free will" and the implications of symmetry to be at all persuasive. Perhaps reflecting more deeply and precisely on these topics would be wise before making unfounded declarations.

            1) its super simple dude your just being willfully ignorant. there is eternal truth. the number 1, its better to give than to receive, any set of dimensions with an axis of time require a speed of light etc. no matter what universe you live in those things are true and the universe will conform to the reality of those truths. were trying to define what free will is right? im defining it as the ability to accept the reality of these eternal truths or deny them is the highest form of free will a created being can have. if you disagree explain WHY you fricking idiot. your posturing doesnt hide the fact your arguments have no substance and its a little pitiful

            2) yes the right one dumbass

            3) the fact your still argueing this shows im argueing with an idiot and im starting to regret engaging. i said 50/50 and its varients, your the one with the shallow understanding if you didnt understand that qualifier and your lack of understanding still doesn nothing to challenge my arguement. the universe is indeterministic. this is settled science and you should feel bad not knowing this,

          • 1 month ago
            Dionysus-Priopos

            4-5)okay so your just dumb and to prideful to ask to be informed. you dont even know why symmetries create indeterminism? you dont even know why quantum effects are indeterministic LOLOLOLOL here knucklehead. in the normal world there are no true 50/50 chances, you could calculate how a coin flip will land if you know enough about the initial conditions in other words. this is your traditional deterministic system where everything has a for certain cause and effect. if that system is capable of putting a ball on a hill that has a 50% chance of rolling one way 50% another and has an axis of time necessitating the ball fall then that system is fundamentally indeterministic because you cant know which way the ball will fall until it does. the probabilities can be of any ratio what matters is that its a probabilistic given the "equal" likelihood of each outcome

            6)except no you didn't you pseudo intellectual. ive explained why our universe is indeterministic, explain to me how its deterministic? oh wait you cant because your a pseud

            tbh i didn't even read all that before i left but now that i did im sad i commited to giving you an answer. your entire post was seething gibberish without a single point proving determinism or why my conception of free will is wrong. you should feel bad dude that this was your attempt to challenge me, i expected more given your vocab

          • 1 month ago
            Dionysus-Priopos

            and i mean the concept of truth not any specific truth. as for a definition of the eternal? the things necessary to exist with others forever in growth

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            you don’t understand, it’s not he who is making the statement because some deeper part of his brain has convulsed his fingers to type it. There was no agency in the matter so the burden of proof sits with you. I’m sorry, that’s just how this works.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >my egoic investment in denying my will does not allow me to look at this objectively

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >The Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 3, Verse 27:

          >“प्रकृतेः क्रियमाणानि गुणैः कर्माणि सर्वशः | अहङ्कारविमूढात्मा कर्ताहमिति मन्यते || 27||”

          >All actions, in all situations, are performed by the gunaas of prakriti. He who is completely deluded by the ego thinks “I am the doer”.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            So, we're all meat puppets with some otherworldly butthole's hand up our ass? Frick that shit. I'll remain a free moral agent and do what I want while taking full responsibility for my actions. It takes a mongoloid to sit around whimpering about how nothing is their fault.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Your anger and vulgarity doesn't make you right and it only reveals how flimsy your argument is

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I think they tend to think as in
      >I can't do every thing, therefore, I'm not free
      nonsense

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        No, "you" literally don't do anything. The individual you is an illusion.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Except that's bullshit

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That's not a refutation and you'll be arguing with the Buddha not me.

          • 1 month ago
            Dionysus-Priopos

            https://i.imgur.com/gSsJaMx.png

            But yet all enlightened sages come to the same conclusion through direct perception once the ego dissolves.

            you believe in a higher power but you think he just hides from himself in us? you think your god? you believe in a higher power but dont think he would want to have children and bring them into eternal existence alongside him? first level low iq thinking tbh

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          homie, I'm budda plow yo momma but it ain't me, it's da pimp in me thoughever

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >free will doesn't exist
    >not only does it not exist but literally none of your decisions are even your own because some deeper part of your brain is actually making the decisions for you
    True

    >morally it would also be wrong to punish people for doing bad things
    False

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >not only does it not exist but literally none of your decisions are even your own because some deeper part of your brain is actually making the decisions for you

    Wait im confused. What part of my brain ISNT me?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You consciousness and internal monologue/equivalent is a farce over top of more primitive decision making processes.

      • 1 month ago
        Dionysus-Priopos

        laughable. do you have anything to back up that statement?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          https://i.imgur.com/wZYUjDR.gif

          That's sounds fricking moronic.

          https://i.imgur.com/sNzBh6y.png

          >There's something that's actually making all the decisions for youn deep within in your mind
          >It likes everything you like
          >It thinks like you
          >It knows your past
          >It makes the decisions you would make
          >But its not you though
          >Also it's a part of your brain
          >Still not you

          I've never seen mental gymnastics like this before. This sounds like something I would have came up after smoking too many blunts. Even if it were true, how is it any different then "you"?

          It is too clear and so it is hard to see.
          A dunce once searched for a fire with a lighted lantern.
          Had he known what fire was,
          He could have cooked his rice much sooner.
          —Mumon

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >https://personal.utdallas.edu/~otoole/CGS2301_S09/7_split_brain.pdf
          When people have brain injuries, especially in the form of the corpus collosum being severed resulted in a divided right and left half, obviously incorrect cognitive decisions are made on account of poor information exchange between the halves. And the conscious part of the human brain fabricated justifications on top of the primitive decision making structures' misfire.
          As well, cognitive testing has generally found that people make choices before they actually think they have done so.

          https://i.imgur.com/sNzBh6y.png

          >There's something that's actually making all the decisions for youn deep within in your mind
          >It likes everything you like
          >It thinks like you
          >It knows your past
          >It makes the decisions you would make
          >But its not you though
          >Also it's a part of your brain
          >Still not you

          I've never seen mental gymnastics like this before. This sounds like something I would have came up after smoking too many blunts. Even if it were true, how is it any different then "you"?

          Because it isn't you.
          Not you in the form of your consciousness and your rational internal decision making and sense of self.
          That is all just a floating haze above the actual decision making process that lacks any anthropomorphization.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >When people have brain injuries, especially in the form of the corpus collosum being severed resulted in a divided right and left half, obviously incorrect cognitive decisions are made on account of poor information exchange between the halves. And the conscious part of the human brain fabricated justifications on top of the primitive decision making structures' misfire.

            Yes anon, generally people who have brain damage like having your brain cut in half are probably not going to do well after the fact.
            >As well, cognitive testing has generally found that people make choices before they actually think they have done so.

            Those tests only showed that the brain lights up before the subject makes a decision. It's dishonest to just assume what that could entail. We can see shit all the time happening in the brain but nobody makes the assumption of what it means because its impossible to tell It could just as easily indicate that they had made up their minds(thus the lighting up of the brain), THEN decided to make the choice physically. It doesn't indicate that Plankton is inside my head controlling me with levers.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The problem is that generally, those people could function mostly fine, even with the misfires between the hemispheres and themselves didn't appear to be aware of the disconnect.
            Their consciousness was mostly unaffected by the procedure, even if their actual decision making centers were messed up and causing them to make irrational choices that they only felt free to make.
            The split brain tests demonstrate clearly the disconnect between your feeling of making a choice or applying rationality to decisions and actions made, and the reality of you actually just creating justifications for mechanical processes that your primitive brain makes on its own.

            I don't believe it is dishonest to assume that brain activity and brain action are connected like I imply.
            I think assuming or allowing for the potential that said activity is just fluff or unimportant, is more of a jump.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >emonstrate clearly the disconnect between your feeling of making a choice or applying rationality to decisions and actions made, and the reality of you actually just creating justifications for mechanical processes that your primitive brain makes on its own.

            Yeah, I agree. Maybe the reason why they are making irrational decisions and not realizing it is because their brains were literally split into two. Brain damage tends to mess up our interpretation of ourselves and the world.

            It doesn't tell me our actions aren't our own, it tells me these people had a very serious surgery with life altering consequences.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            But yet all enlightened sages come to the same conclusion through direct perception once the ego dissolves.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I don't even know if ego death is even possible without becoming a vegetable. I've witnessed people suffer from advanced alzheimers who actually don't know who they are anymore and all they do is stare into the void

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Not only is it possible, it will be total awareness and consciousness. Living with the ego is dead, repetitive and unconscious.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            IT sounds like suicide but with extra steps

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It's rebirth. You can only live totally if you're willing to die totally.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            What do you think it means to "be alive"?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Enlightenment.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            What does enlightenment promise you?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Nothing and everything.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That's pretty cryptic for the small price of everything that defines you.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Punishment and reward is for animals.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I thought Enlightenment was your "reward". Sounds very egotistical of you

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Who remains to receive it?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Since I'm not entirely sure if dissolving the ego without effectively becoming a vegetable is even possible, I'd say you.

          • 1 month ago
            Dionysus-Priopos

            the buddha and jesus goal was the same. for you to have the strength to retain your being in the face of omnipotence through submission to truth. you misunderstand your own philosophy but your getting there

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >for you to have the strength to retain your being in the face of omnipotence through submission to truth

            So you give up "the ego" and if youre strong enough, you get it back but with the knowledge of what it was like without it, thus Enlightenment? Am I getting that right? That sounds kind of cool actually

          • 1 month ago
            Dionysus-Priopos

            pretty much! another way of putting it is is you giving back your "self" to god so that it may be broken and remade in a better way

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Any recommended reading?

          • 1 month ago
            Dionysus-Priopos

            http://www.gnosis.org/library/7Sermons.htm
            *obligatory gnostics are gays so ignore the prologue and just read the sermons. it will sound completely opposite of what we talked about until the end but its not long and i think you will like it

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Thank you anon

          • 1 month ago
            Dionysus-Priopos

            thank you for the stimulating conversation brother!

          • 1 month ago
            Dionysus-Priopos

            this means acceptence of truth beyond your understanding when your not larping as the buddha

            unless hes a turbo gay who thinks its union with all knowledge followed by levitation

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The brain damage here demonstrates the common condition.
            You rationalize choices and connections that you, yourself, are not making consciously.

            okay fair but this is a misconception on reacting to stimuli because of biological systems in place and actual will. we are second order thinking animals which means we are not just perceptions. you are not a homosexual just because your body notices something gay was sexual and asks you how you feel about it. you are not evil for noticing you could steal a wallet left behind. even if your hand reaches for it and even if you get a hard on. you are what acknowledges those perceptions and biological functions by training your answers and reactions. your body is a gift from god which allows those perceptions and higher order functions and when that body is damaged by innate limitations (our fallen state) such as deformity or damage, those functions can be damaged or lost. i must say tho as an epileptic that whenever my body was moving and speaking on its own in between seizures, it followed the rythm and ryhme of the person i had tried to mold myself to be. regardless, yes people can be knocked out and lose conciousness and all the gradients leading up to that but it doesnt change the human cpacity for generating a self with free will. these kinda capacities are why we have human rights tbh

            How is your refusal to steal a wallet any different from a Dog not stealing a sandwich from a plate?
            You don't steal the wallet because you instinctually believe that the cost, whether moral or material, is not worth the price. Just as the dog doesn't steal a sandwich to avoid punishment.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >How is your refusal to steal a wallet any different from a Dog not stealing a sandwich from a plate?
            dogs have free will as well. theyre just stupider than humans.
            nonargument.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            So dogs go to hell?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            no. they dont comprehend good or evil. they do not feel empathy.
            you seem to think free will is only possible if youre omniscient.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No, the criteria is very simple, shows us the centre of free will and how it is independent of everything else.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >shows us the centre of free will and how it is independent of everything else.
            youre choosing to post on this board.
            you have to prove that the act of choice is an illusion.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not asserting anything other than scientifically observable cause and effect, you are. You are the one trying to assert the existence of something not visible or observable anywhere, an independent centre free from cause and effect.

          • 1 month ago
            Dionysus-Priopos

            we can observe the universe is indeterministic given its capacity to generate symmetries whether they be in quantum effects or space time. there is constant new evidence for macro scale quantum effects and increasingly our brain seems to generate enough coherence (via its consistant transitory sate of "matter") to generate the effects as well.

            the science is on the side of free will. explain why your not responsible for your actions fedora gay?

          • 1 month ago
            Dionysus-Priopos

            the perception of the eternal emanates down to the perception of existence. the dog knows existence is and responds accordingly, you can even see a dog get depressed and lose its will to live

          • 1 month ago
            Dionysus-Priopos

            based

            The brain damage here demonstrates the common condition.
            You rationalize choices and connections that you, yourself, are not making consciously.
            [...]
            How is your refusal to steal a wallet any different from a Dog not stealing a sandwich from a plate?
            You don't steal the wallet because you instinctually believe that the cost, whether moral or material, is not worth the price. Just as the dog doesn't steal a sandwich to avoid punishment.

            game theory would dictate the wallet would be worth it if this is the only game, when you apply eternal games the mat changes. it has nothing to do with whether ill get caught and id go read a few post up where i explain how the perception of the eternal is necessary for the highest form of free will

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            If it was only a game, sure.
            But that is no different than a dog knowing it's okay to eat the sandwich because you placed it in its food bowl.

          • 1 month ago
            Dionysus-Priopos

            everything is a game if you define goals. in life you defined them as self interest and i explained how that would work.

            lets say i knew i wouldn't get caught. just because my initial instinct is to take it doesnt mean im evil. when i contemplate this action in reference to the eternal is when i exercise the will (as opposed to exercising it by being willfully ignorant to eternal truth such as it is wrong to steal). we can lose that ability from damage or deformity but it doesnt change the human capacity to generate that ability

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Dogs don't have enough intelligence to have a theory of mind or a full consciousness.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Dogs don't have enough intelligence to have a theory of mind or a full consciousness.
            true. note that you cannot honestly assert that
            >dogs dont have consciousness
            because they do.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >The brain damage here demonstrates the common condition.

            You haven't demonstrated anything. You used brain damage to explain that the person no longer has free will. Sure, I can agree to that. But how can compare someone with serious brain damage to someone who doesn't have that problem?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Not you in the form of your consciousness and your rational internal decision making and sense of self.
            >That is all just a floating haze above the actual decision making process that lacks any anthropomorphization.

            So there's a part of me that's also separate from me that's convincing me to do the things I want to do but it's not me. How is it just not me?

          • 1 month ago
            Dionysus-Priopos

            okay fair but this is a misconception on reacting to stimuli because of biological systems in place and actual will. we are second order thinking animals which means we are not just perceptions. you are not a homosexual just because your body notices something gay was sexual and asks you how you feel about it. you are not evil for noticing you could steal a wallet left behind. even if your hand reaches for it and even if you get a hard on. you are what acknowledges those perceptions and biological functions by training your answers and reactions. your body is a gift from god which allows those perceptions and higher order functions and when that body is damaged by innate limitations (our fallen state) such as deformity or damage, those functions can be damaged or lost. i must say tho as an epileptic that whenever my body was moving and speaking on its own in between seizures, it followed the rythm and ryhme of the person i had tried to mold myself to be. regardless, yes people can be knocked out and lose conciousness and all the gradients leading up to that but it doesnt change the human cpacity for generating a self with free will. these kinda capacities are why we have human rights tbh

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        That's sounds fricking moronic.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >There's something that's actually making all the decisions for youn deep within in your mind
        >It likes everything you like
        >It thinks like you
        >It knows your past
        >It makes the decisions you would make
        >But its not you though
        >Also it's a part of your brain
        >Still not you

        I've never seen mental gymnastics like this before. This sounds like something I would have came up after smoking too many blunts. Even if it were true, how is it any different then "you"?

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >none of your decisions are even your own because some deeper part of your brain is actually making the decisions for you
    Do you realize how talmudic and full of deceit such a concept is? "It's not you it's just x fragment of you" well that's still you in both a functional and literal sense so I'd have to say neuroscience is a baby's first nihilistic crisis phase fricking MEME. Read Nietzsche and get over yourself, then get a real fricking job nerd.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    He looks like the type who will foist blame for his shitty decisions off onto something else. How is this view any different than blaming everything on skydaddy?

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >morally it would also be wrong to punish people for doing bad things because they aren't choosing to do anything, its some deeper part of their brain that's making them do it
    How does this follow from the first two things? Morally you don't have a choice to do anything but punish them.

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    As an Efilist. Any idea that undermines the value of human life or life in general is a positive.
    A C C E L E R A T E

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Does he hoard skellies in his closet or something? I think this guy belongs on a list.

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    it would also be wrong to punish people for doing bad things because they aren't choosing to do anything, its some deeper part of their brain that's making them do it

    it's not about morals it's about clustering people together based on their predetermined traits. If you're okay with raping and murdering, that's ok, we're just going to put you in a building with a bunch of other rapists and murderers.

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Is this not just a somehow more contrived twist on Freud's take on the unconscious mind?
    The real implication of any of this is that the brain is programmable, which we already knew in regard to conditioning.
    Otherwise it's a meaningless point for stoners to get into "woah, but then" infinite regressions about every action not being done willfully.

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    > All of the arguments set forth by gadflies like Robert Sapolsky and Samuel Harris are refuted by the simple fact of the unearned prestige based on an ethnic israeli tradition. Since the days of Spinoza, israelites have had a innate contempt for metaphysical libertarianism they happily. and with impunity enjoy foisting on a helpless Gentile population through passive aggressive nepotism, and a immense collective effort to rid the whole world of Christian influences. which is not too dissimilar similar to atheistic (as opposed to theistic) natural scientists and pagans and revolves around a worship of nature, in that there is not an intermediary between God's existence and the material world (also not too dissimilar to the biblical trope of worshipping a golden calf) Therefore they see no contradiction between the natural world and its material worth in the temporal world, instead of something that is immaterial and enduring. and not only that, in tandem with Judaism’s relationship with Gentiles, committed determinists display a constantly depressed woe-is-me attitude and are really committed to the idea that they bear no witness to agency nor are responsible for any of their actions and exhibit an extremely selfish attitude similar to solipsism; an equally self-refuting philosophy, only that solipsism has at least a sense of self at the very fundamental level, which already puts it leagues ahead of determinism’s lack of personal agency.

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Free will might be possible if consciousness causes the wavefunction to collapse.

    • 1 month ago
      Dionysus-Priopos

      not for certain given an eternal multiverse playing out all possibilities of the collapse is essentially determinism. our free will is found in our capacity to generate the symmetry needed for the collapse to happen

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >morally it would also be wrong to punish people for doing bad things because they aren't choosing to do anything, its some deeper part of their brain that's making them do it
    up to this point you did very well, but this is moronic bullshit. we punish wrongdoers to alter the context other potential wrongdoers have to consider before deciding to harm others.

  21. 1 month ago
    Schizoidberg

    >semantics
    >pragmatics

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Am I moronic? I don't understand how if our actions are predetermined we could then CHOOSE to alter our behaviour in response to this? Wouldn't that also be predetermined as well?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It's all an intellectual circle jerk with the goal of excusing their shitty behavior due a supposed lack of free will.

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I have never seen someone satisfactorily explain what they mean by "free will"

    We are organisms which operate according to the dictates of our nature and nurture. Even if you want to bring a soul into it, that soul was presumably created by some other being or process, and then conditioned (nurture) by its environment. Where does free will come into it? And what does that term even mean?

    • 1 month ago
      Dionysus-Priopos

      go read my post

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >How does the world not fall into apathy and nihilism when it realizes that nothing they do matters in any sense of the word
    by realizing such statement is absolute bullshit
    also free will exists and i know because i exercise it daily

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >some deeper part of your brain is actually making the decisions
    so me

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >free will doesn't exist
    >not only does it not exist but literally none of your decisions are even your own

    Isn't that already implicit in "free will doesn't exist"? Like how could you have a world where free will doesn't exist but you make your own decisions or vice versa?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The way some people define free will makes it sound unless you have omnipotence and aren't bound by any law or restriction you don't have free will

      • 1 month ago
        Dionysus-Priopos

        thats what they mean if you press them hard enough. they're like all fedora gays, mad they are not god

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Isn't that already implicit in "free will doesn't exist"?
      There is a God of the gaps situation in philosophy regarding free will. There's even a serious unironic movement to say free will only exists in the past, not in present. So you didn't decide to read my comment as you read it, but having read it, you had decided to read it. People with honorifics in front of their names write books about this, on taxpayer dollar.

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >I dont understand how society will continue to exist with this kind of philosophy. How does the world not fall into apathy and nihilism when it realizes that nothing they do matters in any sense of the word

    Punishing people is bad, because its not their fault they are as they are.
    Quarantining people to avoid their inevitable behavior is okay.

    Literally just switch from "criminals are evil" to "criminals are dangerous" and continue as usual. Much of Europe already does that, and morons mock them for having nice rooms in prisons, as if prisoners suffering is a requirement for a good justice system.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Punishing people is bad, because its not their fault they are as they are.
      Okay
      >Quarantining people to avoid their inevitable behavior is okay
      Do you think there is a difference between pinishing someone by sending them to a generic prison versus quarantining someone against there will even if you give them a TV?

      American prison isn't bad because you might get raped in the showers, its bad because you're locked in a room for an extended period of time and you can't leave. That's the punishment.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        How do we look at crazy people at the mental asylum?
        >Oh, that's so sad.
        >Its not their fault, they are just born that way.
        >So sorry for that man, it could be my father or even me like that.
        >Its unfortunate some of us are predisposed to such behavior genetically, I should get screened.
        >I hope they treat him well in there, maybe I'll donate.
        And yet its a prison. Its people being kept in there, against their will, to avoid the behavior they'd be enacting if they were free. However the attitude, from normal people, to the guards, to the inmates themselves, is completely different. That's how it would be for criminals as well in a "no free will" society.
        Criminal behavior, if you have good laws, is basically just mental illness anyways. No sane person murders others to take $200 off them, for example.

        Criminals as victims of mental illness, jails as asylum, prisoners as patients. Society looking up the gifted people to promote their gifts, without feeling guilt that underachievers are left behind. Its not "unfair", that's just the material reality. Selection, eugeincs, pursuit of exellence, quarantining decadence. And humanity progresses.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >And yet its a prison. Its people being kept in there, against their will, to avoid the behavior they'd be enacting if they were free.

          Good thing I don't believe in locking up the mentally ill

          >However the attitude, from normal people, to the guards, to the inmates themselves, is completely different.

          That might be the attitude where your from, but here in the states that's not it. The US dismantled their insane asylums because we didn't like the idea of locking people up against their will just because they have mental illness.

          >No sane person murders others to take $200 off them, for example

          I agree, if I'm assuming they're like me where I have everything to lose and almost nothing to gain for killing someone for a measly $200. People who kill usually get overwhelmed with their emotions or think the risk of taking a life is worth a reward probably much greater then $200.

          >Its not "unfair", that's just the material reality. Selection, eugeincs, pursuit of exellence, quarantining decadence. And humanity progresses.

          Jesus christ this is actually dystopian. If this is what determinism leads to then I want nothing to do with it

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Good thing I don't believe in locking up the mentally ill
            You do lock up the mentally ill, you just wait for them to murder someone before you lock them up. Is that really better? I don't think so.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >You do lock up the mentally ill, you just wait for them to murder someone before you lock them up. Is that really better?
            Yes becuase the latter is locking up people who haven't done anything meaning youre creating a dystopian society that can silence anyone they dont like. There's a reason Innocent Until Proven Guilty is a corner stone of almost every society. The amount suffering you can cause if you remove that is far FAR greater then anything that someone who "might" do something.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >There's a reason Innocent Until Proven Guilty is a corner stone of almost every society.
            Yes, and that reason is a lack of knowledge or capacity to act. Same reason why almost every society had a Sun god of some sort, yet we don't have it now. Now we know the Sun is a star, and not a person.

            >The amount suffering you can cause if you remove that is far FAR greater then anything that someone who "might" do something.
            Is it?
            If someone is observed acting a certain way, and when examined has a certian brain structure, they can be kept (including against their wishes) locked in an asylum.
            Alternatively, that person will, with great certainty, continue to act in that disruptive way, causing harm to others, until they cause such a great harm, that it will be criminal and they will be arrested and sent to jail. The victims will be harmed, where as they didn't have to be. The person will now be branded guilty, at fault, evil, where as previously they could just be a patient and not be harmed by such descriptors. The staff responsible will now be prison guards and policement, instead of psychiatrists and nurses, and I speculate the former instutitions bring more societal harm than the later.
            And if you compare the percentage of violent criminals who have observable brain damage, to the percentage of sentanced people who are later found to have been innocent, you will be shocked to find out the "innocent until proven guilty" system isn't even much better, if at all, than the examination for mental illness system at correctly diagnosing.

            As the image

            https://i.imgur.com/d0pfNzp.jpeg

            >Good thing I don't believe in locking up the mentally ill
            You do lock up the mentally ill, you just wait for them to murder someone before you lock them up. Is that really better? I don't think so.

            hints, its even the same people in both system. One system just wants for cruelty to be performed, so that revenge cruelty can be later performed in retribution; whereas the other would prevent the initial cruelty altogether, and offer a more dignified exile to the would-be-criminal.

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Realise that universals are a human construction
    >Realise the objects of our perception are only constructions from stimuli
    >Realise that there are no foundations to our knowledge
    >Realise we can never truly know if other people have a mental life like our own
    "Wow, those are interesting thought experiments with ramifications in epistemology and ontology but they won't affect the way I live my life"
    >Realise your decisions are determined by factors outside your control
    "Well I guess I am just going to have to sit in my room and do nothing besides raping and murdering now"

  29. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Wrong dichotomy created by wrong axiom

  30. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I'd be funny if he committed some heinous crime.

  31. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    he's a israelite. literally all the needs to be said.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Free will was literally created by israelites.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        you seem israeli as well.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous
  32. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >the deeper part of your brain is not you because... BECAUSE IT JUST ISN'T OKAY??!

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      "You" is emergent from your material body. "Your behavior" is also emergent from your material body reacting to material stimuli in the environment. You observe your behavior, and rationalize it as your own, rather than producing it through "will".

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Its not you
        >But its a part of you
        >But its not you
        >It controls you and does what you would do
        >But its not you

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Are (You) pretending to be moronic, or do (You) not know what "free will" entails?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I think it depends on how (you) define free will

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Behavior emergent from some "will", itself not emergent from the body, which acts deterministically based on physics, chemistry, etc.
            Free will is a supernatural concept, it requires some (You) that isn't of the body.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        allegedly

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          It is the null hypothesis, the opposite is being alleged, without proof, since israelites invented their theology.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >b-because I said so and I hereby reference this subjective context to back it up

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You already assume material reality in your day to day life. You already assume the physics and chemistry of your body, and how its relation to the enviorment causes behavior. That is why you eat when you are hungry, and you turn off the lights when its time to sleep. These already assumed factors are sufficient to explain how and why you act. This is your null hypothesis.
            Then, into this complete and sufficient system, you add a supernatural "free will". You assume this extra thing, for no reason, and without proof. This is an alternative hypothesis. Prove it, or discard it.

          • 1 month ago
            Dionysus-Priopos

            again dude, free will is a capacity the human mind is capable of generating (as any self capable of conceptualizing the eternal would) and our universe is undetermined. you keep acting like your speaking from some authority but your spouting pseudo science

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Your actions are downstream from your bodily function and environmental stimuli. Meat and temperature and blood sugar cause you to act a given way, not "will".
            You are accusing Mr of doing exactly what you do, speak authoritatively about things you don't comprehend. If you need an authority daddy to tell you the same, read the book we are discussing ITT. Clearly you haven't.

          • 1 month ago
            Dionysus-Priopos

            see this is why we didn't let people read bibles or books of importance back in the day. they think they have something to say from an authority they dont understand and probably hates them.

            your body is a machine capable of producing a self. think of it as the hardware needed to upload and apply software. the self is capable of overcoming the limitations of pure biology/animalist instinct and in doing so PUSHES what the biology is. you have like a 15 iq view of the self and form

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You are talking about magic. You aren't a wizard. You are meat. Unintelligent meat, too.
            Read the book you are talking about, before talking about it, Gandalf.

          • 1 month ago
            Dionysus-Priopos

            im talking about nothing but observable phenomena. your referencing a book you dont understand enough to explain or defend against the counter point. please go 0/1 irl fedora gay.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >free will is observable phenomena
            >head trauma changing behavior isn't
            >btw i am discussing a book i haven't read
            Tip yourself off a cliff.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Tip yourself off a cliff.
            Anon, you already know its been predetermined that he wont 🙁

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I do not assume material reality, I assume perception of it. The reason I eat when I am hungry is because of perception of hunger, not some knowledge about chemical processes and hormones. You are already losing when you admit to me assuming, which happens in the cinema of my mind, where everything happens, from that point I also deal with these concepts like physics, chemistry, free will or even lack there-of. You assume the outside material objective world is exactly the same or even similar to the compilation of your experiences, which is an extra thing. for no reason. without proof. That is an alternative hypothesis. Prove it or discard it. Also consult Kant on metaphysics before blabbering

  33. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    the third statement does not follow from the previous two.

  34. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >blocks your path and uses free will to slap your girlfriend's ass

  35. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >I dont understand how society will continue to exist with this kind of philosophy
    That's the fun part, it does not allow a society to continue IMHO. It takes centuries of inertia to fully kick in, but when it does it is over.

    Either the society abandons idea, like Switzerland, or it destroys itself, like Germany did, like Israel is doing now, and how the US will do

  36. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    send criminals to a desert island

  37. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >The decisions I make exist independent of causality, antecedence, brain chemistry, neural states, and determinism because they just do okay? Something something quantum mechanics qualia Heisenberg uncertainty principle Gödel's incompleteness theorem emergent properties. I am very smart.

    • 1 month ago
      Dionysus-Priopos

      the actions you take are usually a result of the form reacting appropriately to the shapes around it. one of those ways is by creating a self which has the capacity of using the symmetries of nature to produce the will which is fundamentally indeterministic when you introduce the perception of the eternal. like a cloud of dust producing light if they are close enough. everybody knows what point your trying to make, the problem is its been getting refuted for thousands of years and no one has been able to explain how a human is not responsible for his actions outside of damage to hardware (your brain and body) that limits that capacity? explain how we are determined in a fundamentally indeterministic universe?

      I do not assume material reality, I assume perception of it. The reason I eat when I am hungry is because of perception of hunger, not some knowledge about chemical processes and hormones. You are already losing when you admit to me assuming, which happens in the cinema of my mind, where everything happens, from that point I also deal with these concepts like physics, chemistry, free will or even lack there-of. You assume the outside material objective world is exactly the same or even similar to the compilation of your experiences, which is an extra thing. for no reason. without proof. That is an alternative hypothesis. Prove it or discard it. Also consult Kant on metaphysics before blabbering

      who told you free will in independant from the body? it is a consequence of it which is why the body is held as sacred. it sounds like you created a strawman to hide from accountability anon

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Someone has to be "free will morally responsible" for a crime for a society to imprison them or execute them.

        Weird. We don't talk this way when a bear or lion attacks people. "Did the lion do this out of his free will guilt?!?!"

        • 1 month ago
          Dionysus-Priopos

          ive already explained how free will is an emergent property of a system capable of contemplating itself, the other and the eternal. we dont think the lion is capable of that so its not fruitful conversation.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >the will which is fundamentally indeterministic
        How so?
        I've understood that would be the case of freewill. Will on the other hand is not.
        >fundamentally indeterministic universe
        Not the same person, but I'd say it's because we are subject to the indeterministic universe that we are determined.
        The indeterministic universe is the basis for our detereminism.
        We are indeterministically determined.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *