The idea of Free Will is both incompatible with the laws of nature and entirely meaningless.
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
The idea of Free Will is both incompatible with the laws of nature and entirely meaningless.
Free will itself is fundamental to nature and is perfectly compatible with all other laws. Midwits will never understand.
I've been saying this for years. Determinists are brain damaged.
Yes, because free will is orthogonal to science. It's a philosophical concept, not a physical concept.
nah, free will is perfectly compatible with the laws of nature
discussing it is however meaningless, you're right about that
It just means you personally don't know with certainty what you'll do next. Simple as
Wrong.
I disagree
it's not even that
the moron who wants to disprove the existence of free will has to first ignore the existence of the person and assume that there is no border between the person and the rest of the universe
which is dumb, we can easily define what a person is, and therefore whatever decision making process such a person has is by definition free will
The problem is the decision making process of a person can also be explained as a series of genetically favorable traits fit for survival passed to them for the past 200,000 years. Moving on auto-pilot doesn't require a free will.
i don't see that as a problem because it seems like a purely semantic argument to me, you just move the goalposts of what free will means until it seems like there is none
Well, no. You can step outside of the auto-pilot by stepping outside of ego. So, it's not just a semantic argument. It's a legitimate argument. If you're an aggregation of survival mechanisms your ancestors have passed onto you at what point are you making a decision that's free?
sorry, that's just my general response to that sort of general argument
yes, there is a distinction between unconscious and deliberate decision making
yes, exactly
however, there's a reason the greatest scientists were also philosophers, doing science requires thinking as precisely and correctly as one can, not just understanding their field
>the greatest scientists were also philosophers
This is also just semantics depending on your definition of philosophy
you know what i mean you rascal
Why would people kill themselves or get abortions then. This seems incompatible with the idea that people are compelled to do things solely based on what is evolutionarily advantageous. Also, if you are an event causal determinist, as most free will deniers are, then 'evolution' happened as it did because of a causal chain going back to the initial conditions of the universe. It was preordained. There would only be one possible outcome of how things turned out. There would be no actual choices because this implies that there were multiple possible outcomes. Things would be determined by fate.
I believe in free will. I was making an argument to drill down to this.
>yes, there is a distinction between unconscious and deliberate decision making
>Why would people kill themselves or get abortions then.
Irrational actors exist. If you're perceiving pain and misery and see no way out the only rational thing to do is to end it. Also, selfish people exist so that should cover the abortion part, no?
>There would be no actual choices because this implies that there were multiple possible outcomes
An ego is always going to make the choice that it perceives is good for it. That' might as well be fate.
I see. I do believe that free will is constrained by things like genetics by the way. Also, someone can use free will to constrain their own free will, strangely enough. Such as that people can choose to engage in a drug addiction. The drug addiction then distorts their free will by weight the decisions towards doing things that keep the addiction going to avoid possible mental or physical discomfort. The decision space gets narrower.
True, I used to escape into weed and I still frick around with once in a while, but the realization was it's like looking through a fogged window. I much prefer sharp clarity. So we are in agreement there.
Ultimately it's just semantics depending on how you define free will. It's not a question of any real scientific importance.
If you can step outside of ego you can carve out a path forward. That's free will, that's it.
Whatever you say npc
>The idea of Free Will
You meant to say:
>My idea of Free Will
And that's your problem.
There's essentially no science at all concerning consciousness. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest there's layers of reality that we don't understand how to measure.
more like the scientific method is unsuited to measuring them, which is unfortunate
I think we just don't know how to measure what allows the interaction between conciousness and physical reality yet.
Eliminativist npcs will be seething over this post.
>incompatible with the laws of nature and entirely meaningless
oxymoron
Free will is just a natural consequence of random fluctuations in the action of nature over its components. In that sense, we don't control free will, but it does actually exist, the only difference is that nature is the one with free will, not humans.
no, you don't need any randomness to have free will
I feel inherently that we don't get to make our own decisions
our decisions are made for us by bio mechanic processes, which we don't have any control over
the only thing I grapple with is how does this explain...us?
if consciousness were fully automatic, then why does it require this felt presence of immediate experience that I feel right now?
but anon, we are those biomechanic processes
Agree in part.
1) Free will as an agent driven causality-free decision maker is dumb. However there are workarounds. 2) Agentless malleable causality based intentionally driven will.
1a) Agents itself is an issue. Little man driving the mind/ghost/soul/alien body snatcher/etc makes no sense.
1b) Causality free action generator makes no sense.
2a) Malleable causality means the importance of causality isn't placed so much on the beginning of time, but rather its placed in the context of "now" moment. If we imagine time not as a permanent fixture for which objects move through, but rather time as temporary and which while there is influence of the past, because the past ceases to be, the more important factor is "now" time which can change the direction of causality a bit.
2b) While the timeline flexibility allows for some change, its the consciousness that does the changing. Consciousness is the sea in our mind in which we live our active life. In the conscious awareness, the function which allows us to change the course, nudge the course of causality is the moment of perception. Our awareness of the world allows us to direct our thoughts/actions towards a different future than would be otherwise for an inanimate object. The difference is that conscious beings have an internal self generating system in addition to the raw footage we get from external world. The boundaries between the internal self generation system and the external inputs is our body/senses/etc.
"Is dumb" and "makes no sense" are not arguments. Your inability to understand a concept doesn't invalidate the concept.
Free will is incompatible with the injunction choice.
Does consent exist?
Yes, obviously. Even within the context of being cucked in perpetual determinism there is still an idea of self everyone agrees with. If anything lack of free will is an argument for more steps to establish consent to really drill it down for the morons.
Whatever, I don't even care.
homie needs to learn to speak in e-prime before fronting with this bullshit semantics loaded language