Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About empleat

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I read either same topic, or something similar: https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/time-travel-paradox?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1 However by this account, it means: that you can't change anything. You can travel back (paradox-free) but you can't change anything significantly! So depressing... So that kinda defeats point of time-travel, unless you could change something minuscule and chain of events would change something significantly. But according to this universe is self-correcting. Who knows: what else would happen (unintended/adverse events)...
  2. https://covid.postera.ai/covid is non-profit organization, their research is free of intellectual property - they share it with scientific community and everyone with scientific knowledge can design a molecule! It is being crowdsourced to public, using shared computing FAH@Home. So you can crunch on your PC! I am sick of pharma corporations and their patents, Biden said he will do something - perphaps... They get funding mainly from philanthropy and bootstrap grants. Public can donate, but they got only 46k out of 2M so far News is there are ready to test most 500 promising compounds on animals - can't find where i read it... But they don't have as high funding, probably won't be sooner, than other vaccines. But still if some vaccine wouldn't be good, or country would decide not to share it... That's what has been happening in Russia e.g. which was not tested well and crap probably anyways so They have powerful installation using X-Rays to study biology of the virus at microscopic level: https://test.foldingathome.org/2020/05/28/the-covid-moonshot/
  3. Sorry about that, i don't speak anywhere, so i am terrible at speaking I wish i could rewrite this, no edit I usually made core version and than improve it hundred times, but i can't put my thoughts into words, there are millions of permutations, even in short text like this, i don't understand how anyone can write without using tautology and expressing everything perfectly! Even if i double check it and i make huge effort, it still doesn't cut it I literally learn something in 2 hours and than write it almost whole day LOL, maybe less depends, how bad i am at expressing myself!!! Morals: mean values learned by experiences in life and established opinions about what is right, or wrong. These differs per individual and don't have to be abode by everyone in a society on daily basis. Ethics: Meta-ethics: "concerning the theoretical meaning and reference of moral propositions, and how their truth values (if any) can be determined" Normative ethics: "concerning the practical means of determining a moral course of action" Applied ethics: these need to be abode by a society on a daily basis: permits what an individual can/cannot do! However i would argue, emotions lead to both: morals and ethics. As science says: we decide at the end based on emotions. As example: person got rod stuck in his brain, which severed his brain area processing emotions from other parts, then he was unable to perform almost any decisions at all!!! https://theconversation.com/feelings-whats-the-point-of-rational-thought-if-emotions-always-take-over-128592 https://bigthink.com/experts-corner/decisions-are-emotional-not-logical-the-neuroscience-behind-decision-making Moreover: moral emotions (when thinking about how our actions would affect other people, because of empathy) we get these strong moral emotions, which make us to change our behavior, about which we deliberated! Citation from the following article: "It is now generally accepted that both emotional and rational processes contribute to moral decision-making". Furthermore, i cite as this is complicated: "Research suggests, however, that emotional deficits in ASD are due to co-occurring alexithymia, meaning atypical moral judgments in ASD may be due to alexithymia also. Individuals with and without ASD (matched for alexithymia) judged the moral acceptability of emotion-evoking statements and identified the emotion evoked. Moral acceptability judgments were predicted by alexithymia. Crucially, however, this relationship held only for individuals without ASD. While ASD diagnostic status did not directly predict either judgment, those with ASD did not base their moral acceptability judgments on emotional information. Findings are consistent with evidence demonstrating that decision-making is less subject to emotional biases in those with ASD." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4532317/ Moreover: Alexythimia (unable to identify feelings in themselves, but still have them subconsciously) increases moral acceptability of accidental harms. Which indeed shows, emotions are involved in judging what is morally acceptable and what not!!! Than ethics are emergent from individual interpersonal communication and enforcement of moral standards between each other, ultimately some sort of natural selection. Which will survive and anchors in a society. However ultimate morals are stemming from emotions and are not purely rational! https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/20445911.2014.929137
  4. Btw just so you know: i mentioned the second guy, these libertarian camps. Because i think he engages in QM and he said casually that: QM allows us hope for free will. But not that i would be particularly leaning to any of camps of free will. Wait what? We don't know the same thing in case of determinism, if everything was pre-determined by origin of the universe. Than we could not have done otherwise, unless we determined that origin as well (by our free will) and that's the origination problem! How is compatibilism empirical, while libertarianism is not? If it was, science could prove free will exists, but it currently cannot! All of these philosophies are ideological, logical and what not... I don't think any philosophical camp of free will, has very close to version of free will worth having. E.g. PBS says he has - 3 possible requirements for free will (while he is physicist and materialist): 1. Choices are non-deterministic, creating brand new quantum information (which opposes to law of Conservation of Quantum Information) 2. Choices may be deterministic, but they are fundamentally unpredictable 3. Future not predefined and not singular 4. Choices independent of any underlying, non-free willed, mechanistic process - he says: if this is true, than free will is dead! Full video from 20. October 2020: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RY7hjt5Gi-E While some of these requirements can be even from libertarian camp. This is as close to empirical as it's gonna get. If compatibilistic account on free will (that i could do otherwise) would be empirical. Than we would have to: be able to prove it by observation, or an experiment. But we don't even know if determinism, or indeterminism is true... I agree, that's why i am depressed. I don't think any camp of free will comes close to defining, that "free will worth of having". Yeah this is another limitation of free will. We empirically know, that someone can take free will from us - e.g. slavery in middle ages. But "free will worth of having" could still probably allow that, most important is: that you can choose by your own free will - in the first place! So if you had pre-determined character, but you are free to make any decision based on that. Would that be free will? You just following programming! So lets say: we want to defend compatibilism: and "we are determined". There is still the origination problem. I would have to be responsible for that origin as well, to be ultimate responsible for my actions! But it cannot be currently solved Or how else would you prove, or other way determine that: this is not required for us to have "free will worth of having"? Yes we can empirically observe this, we can also observe, we didn't choose our emotions. But at the end we decide by them - science says and even from our experience (but we don't really know, as higher level of brain activity are hidden to us). Still there is empirical evidence for this: https://bigthink.com/experts-corner/decisions-are-emotional-not-logical-the-neuroscience-behind-decision-making Even elon musk said: neocortex (abstract thinking part) is trying to satisfy a limbic system (emotion processing part) most of the time! But limbic system isn't able to understand complex abstract phenomena! https://theconversation.com/feelings-whats-the-point-of-rational-thought-if-emotions-always-take-over-128592 E.g. one person during car accident, or something had pipe going through his brain. Severed connection between area, which processes emotions and other parts of his brain. Then he had problems to do almost any decision at all! If pipe didn't cause this, it would be huge coincidence! Also i linked, that escape of 2 convicts from a court. They couldn't say why they did that and i linked neuroscience page of free will on wikipedia for that matter. They found: sometimes people make impulsive decisions, even when trying to make them deliberately. If i could guess, if mortal danger is imminent: than perhaps reptilian part of a brain kicks in and performs an instinct. As funny example: i always asked my mother - why she stopped on the yellow traffic light, when it just flashed on and there was yet time to go. She could never answer me, why she did that! In case of 2 convicts wouldn't you say, that they should know at least why they did that to have free will? It will add them years upon their sentence! Yep it sounds absurd, that's one of reasons - why i think free will doesn't exist. Metaphorical speech eh??? But we know empirically - we didn't choose our preferences. How is that metaphorical, if premise is based on true empirical observation? And is true - that we didn't choose our preferences. If i do something, because of my preferences (i didn't choose) how is that free will? I already linked this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_regress Again there is nothing, that would say this argument isn't valid... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will - search causa sui, or origination So i will give you benefit of the doubt! Prove empirically, or else that - to have "free will worth of having" is possible: without me to have determine my origin. Because, as far as i tell, this logic is sound and it is based on empirical observations/facts! That's true - good point! I re-wrote it many times and than probably forget. For to write something make more effort, than to learn these things I should only include this in more free definition of free will. As obviously humans can force their will on others! Although in case of parasites, some studies says: they cause suicidal behavior in women and more risky behavior in men and 80% of population have parasite, which is lowering their intelligence!!! Don't pet any kitties please! I it made you certainly sound so, as you said: But if i refuted point 2, that would mean your position is false and than free will as well! And you said several option, so even condition 2. would suffice. But no problem, it can happen to anyone I know this well Yeah, but sounds to me incomplete. How do i do that? How do i choose out of nothing? Yeah except sometimes, we don't know why we did something! What about crimes of passion, or accident during escalated debates? And how you can truly know, it was you who did that? Neurologists say: brain just replays what it already decided! That is the thing, i don't know how are you coming to these conclusions!
  5. It seems that you engage in studying QM. Therefore this may be of interest to you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RY7hjt5Gi-E PBS says: that Quantum Information cannot be destroyed, nor created out of nothing! It was confirmed by no-hiding theorem, which was experimentally tested: https://phys.org/news/2011-03-quantum-no-hiding-theorem-experimentally.html There is a theory: that universe came into existence out of nothing - i don't know how these 2 go together Maybe above applies, only after something exists? I have only very basic understanding of QM (i don't know even how to find this - google didn't find anything :D) you would have to tell me! I don't know how this theory is officially called: http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141106-why-does-anything-exist-at-all Because law of Conservation of Quantum Information. He also says: that if we choose condition 4. choice independent of any non-free willed mechanistic process - than free will is dead! Which would be free will camp called: "Non-Causal". He further explains: https://youtu.be/RY7hjt5Gi-E?t=305 Even if information came from something supernatural, lets say: outside the universe. Only way to generate it within its region would be: to generate it randomly. While randomness doesn't seem to help cause of free will ! Or it would have to came from something else. Which is exactly my problem of the origination. How are you responsible for that? Here is arxiv document, saying: "that free will cannot be defended in terms of QM. First, because indeterminism does not imply free will, it is merely a necessary condition but not enough to defend it." https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0208104.pdf
  6. Yeah kinda, however there is but! I don't know what you know about free will... Since you mentioned quantum mechanics and hope for free will - we don't care about deterministic camps and camps denying possibility of free will! So we care only about - indeterminism, which is then divided into more camps. Indeterminism (besides free will denying camps) is divided into libertarianism - which more or less advocates free will (depends on your interpretation - what free will is). There are 3 basic libertarian camps (which are divided even into more camps) but for now let me mention only these 3. It is already hard to grasp differences between them (and i am little bit rusty on these definitions, but i cite partially from sources): Agent-Causal - "agent can start new causal chains that are not pre-determined by the events of the immediate or distant past and the physical laws of nature" "Agent-Causal indeterminists are libertarians who think that agents have originating causes for their actions that are not events, some call it metaphysical freedom" Which means essentially agency of agent, or that there are some other than metaphysical causes. But doesn't explain how is that possible! Non-Causal - variation of Agent-Causal camp: simply denies any causes whatsoever for agents actions! Than how they are caused, because they are?! If they out to be truly random != free will. Event-Causal - "indeterminists generally accept the view that random events (most likely quantum mechanical events) occur in the world. Whether in the physical world, in the biological world (where they are a key driver of genetic mutations), or in the mind, randomness and uncaused events are real. They introduce the possibility of accidents, novelty, and human creativity." Of which Event-Causal would be least free. Other 2 are less clear about that! However, each of these camps have problem of origination. As how do you explain an action, which was originated by agent, to be completely free? As everything has origin, at least from current understanding! How do you explain origin of an agent? You probably checked my another post. But you can check this link about the problem: https://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/origination.html#Voluntarism I have many reasons, why i think free will is illusion, one of them is this origination problem! Which currently unsolved problem, because no one can get behind that. It goes like this: 1. Everything has origin (supposing infinity is false), than if you trace everything back to that origin, how do you explain it to be caused by an agent? 2. Everything existed forever (currently unintelligible to humans), how does that explain origin of that action to be caused by agent, or origin of agent itself (which would determine his character)? Quantum mechanics says (you can correct me): anything can happen, unless it is forbidden by rules and that nothing itself is unstable: so things just popped into existence - but we don't know how. One question: if everything existed forever, could it still came from nothing? As nothing doesn't count as existence! Or it could be: that everything existed forever and there weren't even nothing ever. 3. Or else? (currently unintelligible - other possibility cannot be even imagined)!
  7. I agree, we need adequate determinism. If everything was random: truth and reason could not be established! Than how could we choose anything freely, if we wouldn't know what our actions will even do and how would we fulfill our purpose (preferences)? Also it is important to note: that indeterminism couldn't mean true randomness - in a case of agent! So his actions aren't just random, but caused by agent! And it merely means: they are open (undetermined) and not set in stone! I see! However i finally found my problem defined in philosophy and i will elaborate shortly!!! Because i have counter argument, which is problem in any camp of free will! If you want to call your definition - free will. It is technically correct. But you're right - it is matter of interpretation! So i need to explain mine: i was talking about kind of free will, which is worth of having in my opinion. Not the kind, which means you can do anything! E.g. fly, which is not metaphysically possible!!! However your definition of free will is ironical. It is like to say: i follow orders explicitly from my origin and i had no saying in them! I can choose what i will do based on these orders, yet i can't choose purpose of them! Because everything i will ever do, was pre-determined by my origin (otherwise where is origin of decision itself)? Which is not free will in my opinion. So that was important to get this out. So it happens, i was planning new post yesterday and wanted explain exact same thing So from this we can go either way: - you can stand on your position: that your definition of free will is true, based on your interpretation (which technically still correct, but i would call it free will not worth of having, or the ironical free will) - you can try to reconcile your free will definition with origination problem (more on that later)! To prove free will, which is worth of having is real. Before you go, yesterday i prepared thoroughly answer concerning this problem, backed by philosophical sources: I have found principal information about the problem - it is an idea called the "origination" by philosopher "Robert Kane". He expresses this idea in a way: what essentially equates my definition - how could i choose my preferences, before i was born... Also i didn't express myself well previously. I would like come with one simple and complete definition of free will, because previously: i formulated it in many ways, which is confusing. Now i realized, more people were using similar definitions, just not in the extent i was using mine. But i think: my deductions were the next logical step! Confusion could previously arrive, because i used in my definitions of free will - origination and problems it poses... Both are frequently absent from free will definitions. But i deem them as principal, for one to have free will!!! So some other philosophers. Again there are many definitions of free will. First i need to define mine! Note: that i am talking about definition of free will worth of having, not some limited version, which is not worth of having in my opinion! I am also not talking about the one, which implies: that you can do anything! I am talking about the one, where you can do only: what is metaphysically possible! Here goes my new definition of free will: 1. At least adequate determinism must be true, otherwise truth and reason couldn't be established! And we wouldn't know what our actions will even do! 2. Person must have agency (acting freely according to his own preferences, in terms what is metaphysically possible). 3. One's decisions: must be free from external influences aka external factors! 4. Ultimate responsibility (UR) must be true: i am ultimately responsible for the way i am. And nothing else is! - (origination) 5. Determinism can be truth, depends on condition 4. Now my new definition of origination comes (which would be essentially point 4. in my new definition of free will), including problems it poses. Origination aka causa sui, or primer mover unmoved - more on that later... Here it goes (you could help me to create a better definition, i am terrible at language!). I feel this increasingly difficult to capture every relevant thing simply. I will create one in simplest terms. WARNING: (details are missing): I do what i do, because the way i am. To have free will, i would have to be ultimately responsible for the way i am! Therefore: i would have to made myself freely and according to my own preferences to the way i am. But since i did not exist, before i was born - i could not! Therefore something had to be given to me first, before i could choose anything! Therefore i don't have free will, because i didn't choose my original state aka (initial state)!!! Then these 2 points could be used to expand/further explain the definition: 1. If i didn't exist forever and i came into existence at some point: how can i be ultimately responsible for what i became at that point? Since i didn't exist previously: i could not decide/do anything! So from that state of non-existence, how could i ever became conscious and chosen freely anything by my own non-existent (free will and preferences)?! I couldn't - it is impossible. Something had to be given to me first!!! Before i could choose anything! Even if particles were carrying my preferences, how was i responsible for them to do so? Also before universe existed, what caused that? Even if i traced everything to origin of that, supposing it weren't infinity. I would eventually came to first state and how could i cause that, when it occurred before i even existed in any shaper form? From this we could transition to the next point, which would be perhaps backstrap paradox meaning - some events become trapped in a loop, that it is not possible anymore to distinguish, what is cause and what is effect of these events. 2. If i existed forever, without no beginning, or end (currently unintelligible to humans) still doesn't explain - how i am responsible for the way i am! Definition of high complexity - hard to describe: I do what i do, because the way i am. To have free will, i would have to be ultimately responsible for the way i am! Therefore: i would have to made myself freely and according to my own preferences to the way i am. But since i did not exist, before i was born - i could not! Because i did not have consciousness/will and i was particles at different places! Also importantly: i didn't have any preferences yet! More importantly, even if i did: where would these previous preferences came from to be freely chosen, from nothing? Even if: i made these particles and things before them, until i would come to first point! How could i made them freely according to my preferences, before anything existed? Therefore something had to be given to me first, before i could choose anything!. Therefore i don't have free will, because i didn't choose my original state (initial state)!!! Which will determine my future actions from that point!!! Important core concepts to this definition: Ultimate Responsibility (UR) is Robert Kane's concept that we can be responsible for current actions, ones that are essentially determined by our character and values, as long as we formed that character ourselves by earlier free actions that he calls Self-Forming Actions. https://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/ultimate_responsibility.html Self-determination is the common-sense idea that our decisions are determined by our motives and deliberations, by our character and values, and by our feelings and desires. https://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/self-determination.html You have to think about: when/if you was nothing. And then you came into the existence. But how could you control, what you will become, before you existed?! Doesn't make sense! Even if something which caused your origin, was before you was born: where did it come from to be made by your own free will? And even if you traced that to the first state in the universe ever? Or before universe even existed... How would you decided that freely? So problem is everything has begging, or the end. But what causes beginning, or end? And than it would be truly infinite regress, or impossibility! Again even existing forever doesn't explain how! Also you have to ask yourself: how i do i become free from nothing? If i was nothing, i couldn't decide anything. So unless something is given to me first, i can't decide anything. But than how you could claim, you are free, because you didn't choose your preferences by which you decide?! Doesn't make any sense! Philosophical accounts on the "Origination" idea proposed by Robert Kane: "It is the idea that new causal chains can begin with an agent, something that is not predetermined to happen by events prior to the agent's deliberation (between alternative possibilities) and decision." - i agree with this claim, that would need to be true, for us to have free will. But they still don't explain how this would be possible/impossible in the first place! https://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/origination.html#Voluntarism Ten Honderich on this subject: "because truth of determinism requires, that we give up 'origination' ". - I don't know his exact account on this problem. But i agree with this notion: if our intentions (preferences) are pre-determined. This means: free will is not true. Which i think is - what he meant by this. Because it makes logical sense: origin of decision would have to be determined by us, in order we could have free will. Otherwise we just follow original programming from original state... "Robert Kane's Ultimate Responsibility (UR) restores the case for self-determination and origination and makes our actions up to us"... - well not quite, read further and on the UR site: they also do not explain how! (i recommend you to read whole pages and click on links, to understand these better): https://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/ultimate_responsibility.html https://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/up_to_us.html https://informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/kane/#ultimate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kane_(philosopher)#Work More excerpts from Kane's UR: "Ultimate Responsibility is Kane's concept that we can be responsible for current actions, ones that are essentially determined (this can only be adequate determinism, of course) by our character and values, as long as we formed that character ourselves by earlier free actions that he calls Self-Forming Actions". - This is particularly important, even this guy says essentially the same thing: we can be responsible for current actions, as long as we formed that character ourselves (by which we decide) by earlier free actions! Doesn't this make perfect sense??? Which then becomes problem, if you elaborate on that idea! But makes sense! "To act freely is to be unhindered in the pursuit of your purposes (which are usually expressed by intentions)" Kane says: "if you were a libertarian about free will—believing in a free will that is incompatible with determinism—you must (in order to make sense of such a free will) inevitably appeal to uncaused causes, immaterial minds, noumenal selves, non-event agent causes, prime movers unmoved, or other examples of what P. F. Strawson called the “panicky metaphysics” of libertarianism". - here, particularly notable term is: "prime mover unmoved" - which essentially means what i was saying! prime mover unmoved definition: "In doing what we do, we cause certain events to happen, and nothing—or no one—causes us to cause those events to happen." - which is exactly my point, because where did these decisions come from? We need to trace them back to their origin - to ascertain, whether or not, we are ultimately responsible for our actions!!! "Such a notion of ultimate creator of purposes is obscure, to be sure — many would say it is unintelligible!" - agree: since we can't get behind that currently! "Its meaning can be captured initially by an image: when we trace the causal or explanatory chains of action back to their sources in the purposes of free agents, these causal chains must come to an end or terminate in the willings (choices, decisions, or efforts) of the agents, which cause or bring about their purposes." Also incompatibilism mentions origination as: "causa sui", which is approximately the same thing. All philosophies have different ideas and deductions stemming from that base idea. You can find it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will Also i would to address this again. You said: "Using a definition that implies an infinite regress from the beginning is a very poor move, and leads inherently to absurdities." I would argue: just because this definition creates infinite regress, doesn't mean it is not true, or that it is coming from incorrect premises. Yes infinite regress is absurd e.g. (so is a paradox) - which is coming from correct premises too! As i cite wiki: "knowledge of the conclusions which follow from them is not pure scientific knowledge nor properly knowing at all, but rests on the mere supposition that the premises are true." Doesn't say anything about, whether premises are true/false, or not! Also free will problem remains currently in the area of philosophy, because it is possible to be scientifically proven yet! Obviously scientific proof would be ideal, but it is not currently possible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_regress So would it be any more reasonable to suppose, you can decide freely, whether to act on your preferences, or not - from the blue sky? While we know everything has begging, or end? Or existed forever. Or else ? Yet there is no explanation for your definition of free will - to reconcile it with origination problem! Even on wikipedia's page of infinite regress, (problem of origination) is stated in their own words: "Some forms of libertarianism assert that human actions do not have causes and are chosen consciously – i.e. are not random. This assertion raises the question: what are these conscious decisions based on? Since they can't be based on nothing (as the possibility of decisions being random is excluded), this question can be asked for each subsequent answer or answers to it, thus forming an infinite regress." - but now i think about it, why to even assume it would be possible, it either means impossibility, or infinite regress! You also caved in - into a logical fallacy! When you said: to refute your position (free will is true). I would have to prove that: 2 statements are not true (i won't mention 1. for now, because it doesn't concern this): 2. Proof that my definition cannot bear the weight of our praxis of blaming, praising, earning salary, assigning responsibility, taking obligations, etc. Because if i proven, our praxis doesn't bear weight. Than it would = free will is false, determined by your condition. So you conditioned free will on moral responsibility! Which is a logical fallacy - ethical/rational misunderstanding was created over history of free will problem about this: https://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/ethical_fallacy.html https://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/responsibility.html/ There is no proof, that would dictate: that free will is conditioned on moral responsibility. Even if free will was false, i don't see any reason, you couldn't be morally responsible for your actions! If you know something about evolution, it is logical. Also what if: - free will was illusion, but we believed in it anyways? - even if it wasn't, there would be still need to protect society against crime, so society don't collapse! These above, i would say: are rational arguments. I also saw studies, don't remember how it was called. Which found out that: people with disbelief in free will didn't act any less morally responsible - not sure exactly about that, but perhaps i/you can find some of these later... I cite: "Some modern thinkers still make morality a criterion for free will, rather than freedom a requirement (some call it a 'control condition') for morally responsible behavior." - i still think even freedom is not requirement I don't know how we could prove, that free will is conditioned on moral responsibility. You would have to know free will is false and than observe, if you can't bear weight of our praxis. Otherwise no idea. Or feel morally responsible. But interesting thing is: i don't believe in free will and still feel morally responsible. Because it is pivotal for my survival. So this need still doesn't go away! Consider this example, not sure what it is but: if someone has free will, but he is given a gun to his hand by someone else, which then presses a trigger with his finger and kills someone. Does this mean you are truly morally responsible for this action? Even if you had free will... How is free will conditioned by your moral responsibility in this case?! You had free will, but you didn't have freedom to choose course of action! Than in this case: if free will = true than moral responsiblity != true But than you could argue, than you didn't have free will. So it is iffy. I don't know how to prove it, i just know it is logical fallacy to condition free will on moral responsibility, because there is no proof to allow you to deduce so! Even i read: some philosophers still condition free will on moral responsibility, which probably comes from some rational/ethical misunderstandings. At the end: i stand firmly on my position, that it is valid! At least from current understanding. I included many sources! Unless you can refute it, which i doubt. But your definition (based on your interpretation) is also correct technically! https://www.informationphilosopher.com - is prominent informative site about the Free Will Problem! Created by Harward astrophysicist, cite: "Bob Doyle is the Information Philosopher. He has likely read more works of philosophers and scientists than any other modern thinker" - I found from this site about more camps of free will. Than from the whole internet Although i heard some criticism. I also heard from someone engaging in philosophy: he is an excellent writer and has great grasp of these problems in philosophy! Ofc. you have to multi-check. But so far, it seems correct and accurate!
  8. Or it is random. My understanding is: so far physics didn't find out, that some laws would change. Only found out, that theories about these laws were wrong! That's not to say: that all physical laws are same in whole universe - whole time! You can't prove, or disprove anything! Because there is always some irrefutable argument, which is not testable! Like last Thursdayism https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Last_Thursdayism Except: i think, therefore i am. So everything is guessing. I am just using my arguments on premise of the materialism. Because i don't have anything better to my disposal. And even other philosophies about free will, suffer the same problem!
  9. Strange i started with the subject and ordered everything from most important to the least. So i would define these 2 word likes this: Decision: deliberate action made: based on our preferences (can be: free, or involuntary decision - e.g. if everything is pre-determined, or random). Also i would like to include interesting fact: there can be an impulsive decision - people, which did something impulsively, when having small amount of time to decide. Couldn't say why they did that! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro Very interesting example here: https://youtu.be/pjDS578FROw?t=296 Preferences: anything that is basis for an action: emotions, morals, reasoning. Without preferences, there would be no reason to act! I call them all preferences, because there are too many emotions and things, which give reason to act. I would even argue, that even emotions can cause an action. Scientists found out, that even most logical person, decides based on emotion at the end! https://bigthink.com/experts-corner/decisions-are-emotional-not-logical-the-neuroscience-behind-decision-making I don't think you ever said: that a free will is 100% true. But you think, that free will is possible. Right? So do we agree on this logic: I do what i do, because the way i am. But i didn't choose: the way i was born. Therefore i couldn't choose my initial state. Because my initial state was pre-determined at the origin of the universe, or randomly decided. Than my preferences, since i was born: drive my actions and development of new preferences. Than i can't have a free will. Because we have proof of genes determining IQ and personality, which both drive our actions. if these studies didn't exist, or say all are wrong. How do you still explain origin of these preferences, or of decision itself?! Since you didn't exist forever, or at least not forever as human!!! Even that wouldn't explain how?! So what is it exactly, you agree/disagree with? I think you already agreed with: that you can't choose your preferences, before you was born! I remember you said, that free will is relation between your preferences and your actions and whether, or not - you can choose to act upon them. But than wouldn't you argue: that your initial state - determines your future actions and than state after that - your next future actions and next the same and next... Especially when we know either determinism, or randomness is the truth! Because i couldn't choose my preferences, before i was born: so something had to be given to me first, so i could choose anything! But you didn't choose your initial state, which will than determine your all future actions! To me this is perfectly logical. Than, if you still wanted to stand on the position: that we have a free will. Than you would have to explain: origin of a decision and prove it was caused by your definition - of your own volition. And not by initial state of the universe, or randomness! Well i don't want it to sound offensive: but you can't prove that, can you? Because physical laws determined how each particle will act, from origin of the universe until the end, or infinity. Even under determinism, entity could exist (i don't see why it couldn't). Which can predict future and decide - which course of action to take. But it wouldn't be a free will, because it was determined - by origin of the universe! Pre-determined means to me the same thing, as its definition in physics. That everything was pre-determined by initial state of the universe. Pre is included, because state of the universe at origin - determined all future states at any point in the time. So something in the future was not determined at that time, but pre-determined by initial state of the universe -> therefore pre-determined! But i heard, some philosophers deem that as superfluous and say determined is enough. As some compatibilists say - for one to have a free will (while determinism is true): 1. A person has to have an agency! Means: (a person is causing his own actions, from his own volition, without influence of external factors) and not a deterministic universe! 2. A person could have done otherwise at some point in time. So as i see it, it would go like this: you can cause an action at each point in time (because you can do only one action at each point), while if that action - was determined by you (compatibilism) freely! And it wasn't caused by an initial state of the universe. You have a free will! What i don't agree with is: How do you explain origin of your first preference in the first place? As we can go causally back to the point where you was born! I take this from perspective of materialism and what was proven empirically. Even it is based on premise, which may be false. I take this premise as axiom, because we can't prove, or disprove anything -> than everything is guessing... But we don't have any better information at our disposal, so... Suppose materialism is true, or something - which doesn't disprove natural sciences: we have studies, which confirm evolution and that environment has higher impact on us, than genes. Sure some studies may be wrong, but probably not all. And probably not most established and highly studied - studies about evolution. And still - it would have to be determined, or randomly decided somehow, because that's nature of things. I read over million articles and never even saw even sign of a third option. So said all prominent scientists thorough history, until now. And i read: in natural sciences: everything is either - pre-determined, or random! If you have another theory, how to explain origin of your preferences, while it is you: who decided to have these preferences freely. That would be interesting. So i see the same exact problem in any view of a free will: how do you choose your preferences, which will than shape your future preferences, before you was born? E.g. even while you existed before you was born as particles, or possibly even before origin of the universe. Or if you did exist forever, but that also doesn't explain how? But from human point of view, it sounds preposterous. In my opinion - to prove we have a free will, or at least have a theory how, you would have either: - to get somehow behind, before you was born. And back track each particle, which was part of you at some point in time, even beyond origin of the universe perhaps, if determinism will prove to be true. If randomness will prove to be true, than you would have to still prove: you are the one who is causing actions and explain how you got your preferences freely! As preferences will cause your actions, otherwise: there would no reason to act! Or origin of that decision to decide, whether or not to act upon our preferences! Or if you existed forever - still how? - or have some other philosophy like dualism: which took potentially hit (scientists found out, your mind state is always dependent on your environment) https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/body-switching
  10. Sorry for question 1. in the poll. I thought i edited that! Lets say, if you choose any of these questions, it means: it is right. Defend yourself with a lawyer against eviction. Accept money and let yourself to be evicted.
  11. Well i meant exact behavior like that. I have 46 posts dude, while i registered here like 4 years ago? I have ADHD, but i don't create posts to bother people. I have high respect to scientists! Only one topic was moven, as far as i know from me... No hard feelings, just don't suppose i am doing that... It is like i don't know little bit discriminating, but i understand your concern.
  12. Yeah i agree - didn't read all. But these all seem like pretty logical things! I love how these forums are relaxed and anyone here can post anywhere without having to worry about censoring. Which is less comfortable for pros, so i can appreciate that. You will just move topic, if it is not correct... Because sometimes, these people could be right, i saw here interesting ideas from layman people once, or twice I like these forums 👍 Generally: - Probably most prevalent is, when people have incorrect understanding of something like: a basis and post incorrect things from there, which happens. Or they are just asking if not sure. - Or if they are called wrong, they go full copium mode (we learn from our mistakes) - Sometimes people can't even agree on a basic idea. And than they use different arguments - they know and don't know how stay on the subject. And than discussions diverges more like to argument exchange, than constructive discussion or becomes irrelevant to the subject. Because it is difficult sometimes, when tackling complex issues. Or it is issue with some people... For me: - My main issue is expression (have ADHD), i understand something well in my brain, but having trouble organize huge texts and present my arguments well... -Sometimes you use something in some context, or as example, even it is not meant literally. But no one probably bothers, like after every world, specify that as a fact/theory/hypothesis/opinion and what not. When it should be apparent from context, but when tackling complex issues, it is easy to misinterpret something. - I hate when i say something, in a wrong way. Because after you say that, than it is too late to change that, even if you explain that in next post. I improve my ideas gradually, i just will say everything i think, even it gets confusing many times If something is not correct, i will accept it and move on, unless i have good reasons to think - it is correct. So i want to keep idea a least bit yet, unless proven otherwise. Problem is some things are vague - hard to prove! - I don't know, but i have feeling sometimes: people don't take you seriously, if you don't have PHD from that area. Who ever learnt anything in school anyways ? And discard your opinions too quickly, even when they are based on the facts etc. Or just because you were wrong about 1 thing, they discard other things. Or they don't listen well, dunno... But i think, most of people here are great! Even i don't post here often, so it is whatever. Just saying my opinion...
  13. I get you, i don't say i agree with you completely, or with people here in everything. But i see your point. It is a complex issue, if discussion continued, this could go on forever As some things are very hard to pinpoint, or claim with 100% certainty. Because there are so many individuals, hard to explain everything in current age! May i recommend some tesla, or https://fabiusmaximus.com/ Also 2 things i recall may interest you: look at glass ceiling, glass elevator theories. Once you start it is rabbit hole! Ignorance is the bliss! Obviously don't trust one source and question everything But it may give you more ideas etc. Seems like intelligent site. You can find there a lot of topics, like gender wars, feminism and such. Also one thing to remember - you can't predict behavior of an individual. But when considering behavior of masses, you can tell with high probability what would happen sometimes. Google some stats on scholar.google.com and some interesting studies. Which may give you some more perspective. Also steer clear away from mainstream opinions, or isolated groups and communities like the red pill subreddit - there are some people there, which are polite and just want to discuss things constructively and want to know the truth, but also a lot of toxic people. There are a lot of myths in society. Not everything what you heard is true, it is probably the opposite. Also these myths are creating the reality how it is! Because people's behavior is affected by a culture greatly!!! Forget everything what you heard and think critically for yourself! Also good thing how to understand genders is an experience, but you would have to travel a lot and still you will have small pool of people - you will meet. I agree societies were dominated mostly by men thorough history: In ancient-medieval age, yes there were societies like amazons (dominated by woman) and some matriarchal societies, i don't know this fact from head. But i doubt they were big enough, probably mostly minority somewhere, or isolated societies. Even vikings had shield maidens and women, which fought alongside man. It was probably minority, majority of armies were males. Even we don't know for sure, because don't have enough sources back than, so it is hard to know for sure. Why is that? Because roles, men were hunter gatherers and women since they were making babies, they cared about them and took care about base So men are naturally stronger, because they hunt etc. But woman eat for 2. I saw some theories, that's why they have less of a mass. Also there are 2 important distinctions in influences (someone said that already): there is biology and than there are social constructs. Some customs, which were created by a culture arguably have higher impact, than a biology. Also our brains are still wired from the stone-age - say scientists. There are many variations in biology, something from both (whether race is men, or women dominated). So for example: like in 60s you can say societies were dominated by man for sure, i don't even want to mention it, because it is disgusting from what i heard. So there is no wonder women are very angry now Also in women and men - brain doesn't differ that much as you would think - scientist say. Yes there are small differences like reading a map. IQ wise, yes there is like: 4 times more (don't remember exactly) of men with high IQ, than women. And don't know if this is actual. But that may be, because women couldn't even get to universities in 20s and didn't engage in stuff men did, so they didn't train their brain for the same things. It is similar thing, in medieval age - there were probably some farmers with intelligence of genius. But they couldn't engage in science and stuff, so their potential was unrealized. Some studies says: women IQ is higher on average currently. But IQ is not that precise measurement, especially in some tests for masses, intelligence is very complex. Tho on a high scale like that, it probably says something. Inequality: yes genders were never equal. We evolved to survive, so how we are and what we do should increase our fitness. If it was best way to survive, chances are we evolved into that. Does that mean both genders are fair and have to suffer the same? No! In stone-age sex would happen forcefully. And men forced their will on women, even in middle-ages. But you have to also understand people are more complex, than animals. We evolved into a society and we don't act only based on instincts anymore, we are still evolving after all. So we can change that. It is not reasonable to want 100% equality, because that is not even possible in practical environment. But there shouldn't be huge differences either and oppressed genders in a modern society. I would just delete completely distinction and call everyone just people and treat them fair like anyone else... Even both genders have specific problems, but you should take them as a whole - that's what i mean. And both genders have both disadvantages from a biological perspective and from a culture - what is expected from them etc. And are not still equal. Tho huge constraint to equality is culture and bias in society, which spreads. I also think you are right in equality, if both genders were completely same, we wouldn't like each other. But we as whole are one race and need to cooperate for survival mostly, even it will be always who from whom... And individual vs individual is also completely different, than whole. Now women can enjoy more freedom, than ever, because feminism and democracy etc. Former is very stupid idea and causing problems for both of genders and gender wars. Also i don't understand why some jobs forcing to have exactly 50/50 population of men/women. Didn't it occur to them, that's because women are interested in other things that men and it is not only because inequality? Social justice warriors are stupidest people i ever saw. Completely devoid of any logic what so ever, iq 30.. Hope this helps.
  14. People have belief system of what is right, or wrong. Which is inherent to them. Even babies will cry, if they need attention, when people are fighting, or are frustrated etc. But that's a basic emotion. When we are angry, that's because someone is damaging our interest, so we get angry at someone who wronged us. There are 2 basic emotions: pleasure, or pain. All emotions can be put to one, or another of these categories. Emotions are universal in any demographic. Yet moral standards will differ from country to country, from group to group, from person to person. To be honest even emotions aren't universal to some event: for one person something can be pleasure, for another that can be a pain. Let me give you an example: for one person studying math can be a pleasure, for another it can be a pain. To add: emotions are universal in a way, that an expression of pleasure means the pleasure, or expression of pain the pain. But feeling what is right, or wrong differs subjectively! How is that determined? Brain has system on its own how to decide and they are dependent on what information we gather. Emotions are processed subconsciously. But ethics are more deliberate and thought about consciously, even they are determined by our emotions at the end! Pleasure, or pain exist in evolutionary science as mechanism for a survival. Evolution is fact, it is not even theory! Before we developed part of a brain, which engages in thinking. We were dependent more on limbic system, which processes emotions. And even today neocortex tries to satisfy limbic system most of the time (Elon Musk confirms :D). Brain determines what is good for your survival and what is not. Sometimes genes can go even awry and cause an extinction. It is not that survival is goal of an evolution, more like a chance in the natural selection. Some races survived, because they did decisions good for their survival, some died, because they did not. Nevertheless we are primed for survival, that's how we evolved and we are still here. It serves us well! No person can choose his emotions, you just start to feel in a some way. Sure neocortex can regulate them, but it can't suppress them, or you would probably die, or get a disadvantage. Before we were able of abstract thinking, we were dependent on emotions for survival. Neurologists say: even most logical person, decides by emotions at the end! We are still dependent on them - as i said before. Ethics stems from emotions, we are making moral standards, which feel right to us. Notion of what is right is a positive emotion, while notion of wrong is associated with negative emotions. So reason why i write this now is this article: People give higher value to a human life, than to an animal life. Denmark's Prime minister wants to cull 15 million minks. Imagine 15 millions, that's like almost whole country of people - crazy. While i am not even animal activist, or anything. I am neutral in my thinking, i very logical person and even my behavior is decided by emotions at the end. I just wanted to know the truth. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coronavirus-mink-denmark-to-cull-15-million-animals-concern-mutated-covid-infections-in-humans/ Would you say, if you could chose between one person dying and one living, any choice is right? E.g. if both people weren't criminals and were approximately similar in terms of moral standards and reputation. But than we have automatic cars, which will prioritize just that. They will give priority to kids, over adults. Because they are younger, so they have more life ahead, therefore more value. Random people, if they had to chose who lives, or dies. It would be more likely to chose criminal to die, than a honest person. That's basically killing someone indirectly. Would you say killing is right? Yet we do it on daily basis for the survival. Someone would argue we need that to survive, but killing people is different (especially for not survival reasons ofc.) - i will get to that later. And in future, we can stop killing by growing artificial cells (for obtaining food, isn't relevant to all situations that exist and will exist probably at least at some point in time!). See ethics are not about what is right, or wrong. It is all about survival! Sure we can try to make utilitarian ethics to try favors all people much as possible. Also it is logical from perspective of a civilization, to save as many lives possible, but always from an individual perspective. Like when someone is trying to take your house to construct a road, which will benefit many people, but may destroy your live. Why the hell you would be fine with that?! So when there is a bomb, police will try to minimize casualties, if it cannot be defused and put it somewhere, where it will do least damage. Problem is people are not equal and never will be probably. That would be possible only in perfect environment theoretically. And i bet people, which have higher social status are enjoying it, so that will never happen... Sometimes it is win-win situation, but at the end, life is a zero sum game - i know life sucks! There will be always situations who from whom. To be something truly right, you would have to kill all people, when choosing between one, or another, from perspectives of both sides! Which is worse than to spare at least someone. I find it most ridiculous, that some people think, that they are better than someone else! Also all people got advantages, or disadvantages from point they were born... We are no better than animals, or one another, we are all from same particles - atoms. Doesn't make sense for one to have greater value, than another. Humans are animals too, it is just name for the animal. Also if there were no moral standards, there would be just chaos. I don't say we shouldn't have any, better than nothing. It is just whole concept is ridiculous and misinterpreted by religion mostly and some people - i am just calling it how it is... There is no right, or wrong inherently in the universe, so far as science can tell. Do you think one atom cares about another atom? It is just you vs someone else in clash of your interests - survival needs. Caused deterministically, or randomly, without any agency. Nothing is right, or wrong everything just is. But why do people think: it is not same to kill an animal as person? We give ourselves priority, but it is not different. It is just survival. Or we experiment on animals. Now imagine: you being an animal. It wouldn't seem fair, you would be outraged, if you had part of a brain, which allows abstract thinking. So you see - it is you vs someone else. Even most utilitarian wouldn't probably apply their believes to most of situations. Imagine if someone threat you with a torture, or killing your family, to force you do some crime, which may kill more people. But is it really wrong for you to do it? (kinda impossible situation) It is just you vs someone else in some situations. Civilization is emergent phenomena, but each individual interaction with another is causing it. Than civilization has properties, which any of its parts do not have and can perhaps, affect people back - makes sense. But it is in fact: all people interacting together, or a new phenomena? I am not sure, if it is something new. As 1 individual can't have these properties, but interaction itself between is emergence. Don't quote me on this Don't know about emergence that much! Imagine if you talk about an object e.g. mountain vs river. River is caused by a rain, or by springs etc. River will wash away a mountain. Is it right, or wrong for river to do that? It is just physical process, which occurs due to physical laws, same as anything else in the universe! Does it make sense to assume, it is either way? Do you feel anything, when imagining it? No! There aren't some universal laws, if river will do that, it will be punished and evaporate. While ethics make more sense in religion (i am not saying they do at all!). If you do something right - you will be rewarded, if you do something wrong - you will be punished. It is supposed to be some universal system from a god. Do you have proof, that good said/write these to us? And it wasn't just some caveman, who wrote these in a book? As there is literally 0 proof for the former, but they are very conspicuously similar to human emotions. Wow what a coincidence! Also ethics even in religion will change over time, how you can explain that. Some religions even don't force their dogma on people anymore. How you can explain that? If it were right for some group of people than, but now it is wrong. Even at some point in time, there are many groups of same religion How than your rules can have any credibility, that something is right, or wrong. They literally change all the time and are subjective to each religion, which has no basis on the reality at all! And people are making these, which still steams base of some ancient book. Do you have proof god said these to us? If so, how come previously they were different? Ridiculous... What if it favors someone else, over you, does it make sense for you not to do it, even it is not morally correct from perspective of a civilization? Ofc. this is very abstract situation, it would be discussion for weeks to dissect everything just to prove point... Even religion is also just evolutionary mechanic for a survival. It is hard to topic to argue about, because there are situations, where it can benefit fitness and where it will not.
  15. I was first hesitant to answer, because it seems we are in major disagreement and it is hard to talk about next thing, if we can't even argue about thing, which precedes it. But i was bored I was writing a lot, because there are so many experiences, which contradicts the free will. And so many arguments can be made against them, which have tons of counter arguments and lead to complicated analysis of everything. And it makes it more difficult to prove the point. Therefore i must think, about simplest way to put this... I still stand on my position. First i should mention, where my interpretation differs. At the point 2. by your definition: it is the relation between the free will and my preferences. And free will is ability to decide, whether or not to act upon them. If i can choose to act, or not to act on my preferences - i have the free will. Or it could be: i can do whatever i want, even if i don't have the free will. I just can't choose what i want! So i would start my argument with: but where this decision to act, or not to act came from?! There has to be a reason! You said when i create a post, it should relevant and truth. In all natural sciences, everything is either: 1. predetermined by initial state of the universe 2. random on the microscopic scale, and it is possible: it averages on the macroscopic scale and we can measure for example: motion and position with extreme precision almost on 100%, making everything seem pre-determined (this is called adequate determinism) I checked every prominent scientist and many sites, yet i never heard of any other option. So we could agree on, that this is true, right? Than there has to be reason to act. Without reason, there would be no reason to make an action, unless it would be a random action - again hardly the free will! Neurologists say: our behaviour is directed by the limbic system (part of the brain, which handles emotions) and our neocortex is trying to satisfy this part of the brain most of the time. Elon Musk says this as well! Supposed these studies are truth and there is empirical evidence it is. To the least, these are highly studied theories, as evolution was extensively studied and this is related to it. We don't choose our emotions, but we can decide: whether or not to act upon them. Although scientists say: even most logical thinkers decide, at the end, by an emotion!!! Brain has it is own system to determine an action. Think of emotion as subconscious system, with its own logic (which is outside your consciousness, since many philosophers argue: there has to be consciousness to have the free will, yet brain decides subconsciously it seems). Former is based on true facts/theories. I also understand it is not good to combine science with philosophy, so this was meant just to state: that my arguments are based on the truth. So would we agree on, that to act: there has to be a reason? If there was no reason to act, from both emotional side and logical. Absolutely no motivation. Would we agree on: that there would be no action, as long as it is not a random action and there is an agent, which has ability to make choices. Supposing he is not a simple lifeform, which doesn't need consciousness to act. So therefore: there has to be reason to act, so any action is made! So we are at the point 2. of ascii diagram - relation between my preferences and the free will. So since we can agree upon: there has to be reason to act. Where does this reason come from?! If it is not tied to causal chain of our preferences and these preferences changing other preferences??? Non-locality? Even with non-locality, same problem would be faced. And if it is, how we can be free since our new preferences, were determined by older ones, which i didn't choose! We can back trace our whole existence to the point, where you were particles at random places, devoid of any intelligence, or consciousness what so ever! Panpsychists could argue, every particle have some form of a consciousness. So we would have to trace back to the point, where there was either nothing. Or if everything existed forever, that wouldn't still explain where this reason to act came from. So since you said, arguments should be truth, i could be an asshole (not that i would want to be) and say: how can you prove, that free will is relationship between your preferences and whether, or not, you can act these our. Since whether, or not, you will act them out: there has to be a reason for it. How do you prove this reason was created by you freely? So we get to my deduction. For it, so there could be the free will, there has to be a reason to act. Otherwise, there is no will! Which has to be determined by me. I call this preference, as everything is a preference, or preference over something else. And i act the way i act, because the way i am. But i couldn't choose the way i am, before i was born!!! Because i didn't exist before! And even if i did, something had to be given to me first so i could choose anything, otherwise i would be an empty shell with no preferences and no ability to form any!!! Yet i didn't choose my genes and environment, which both have been proven, to change our personality! Hope this makes sense. Btw i agree partially with notion of compatibilism: as far as agent has an agency and he is causing these actions - even if they are pre-determined, he can decide at each time what to choose (as you can choose only one actions at the time). But what is important: that he could have done otherwise! So they are causally linked by each choice, but not pre-determined by something that's not you - like external forces. As you are determining them each time! This sounds reasonable. Yet there is still this problem... Also one philospher has similar position on preferences: https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/ekstrom/ This philosopher says:"our preferences are developed in causal, but not determined way. Our character is an aggregation of these freely developed preferences, which we have the power to alter at any time." - i would argue that: previous preferences changed my future preferences and at present i am result of a causal chain of these preferences in the past and they are pre-determined by my initial state (again which i didn't choose). E.g. saying something in public, which has huge impact, will deny me chance to go into politics! You could argue, you took these preferences freely and you got to that point, of your own free will. So these examples, can be always deeply argued about, many times even to uncertainty. I would argue, these previous preferences will determined new ones. And ability to alter them any time faces the same problem! Some examples: I could argue with unforeseen consequences: - If i had iq 200, i could perhaps foreseen this and choose otherwise to achieve my goal, i wouldn't otherwise achieve. And it is fact, you don't choose your intelligence. Probably someone with 100 iq couldn't be elon musk, that we can say like with 99% certainty! You could say, we have a limited free will: - Yet other people can manipulate us, or force us to do something against our will. Would you say, there is choice and ability to resist?! But so far, i didn't see anyone, who would have chosen his ability to resist a torture. No one chosen his resistance by himself, you could argue you can train to be more resilient, but even if you commit 24/7 to that, there will be always people more resilient than you! Or smarter and more successful! That's just a fact! And everyone will break to torture, some people can force their will upon us to the extent making people slaves! - I would also say: to act according to my preferences, i have to have knowledge about events, which constraint them and ability to avoid them! From less severe events: i want to be a Quantum Scientist and i want to discover something cool. If i have iq 70, this won't be probably executable. I can't think of any better argument now, which could not be doubted, even this is like super improbable. Than lets say iq 30, we would say it is near to impossible! Or to be Elon Musk with iq 30! - To more severe events. I chose to wait on next bus, because my friend is coming and it gets bombed. If i had knowledge, it will happen: i would have to see a person yet , who would chose to wait on a next bus. You could say some extreme fanatic, like monks set themselves on fire could chose this. But i would say for 99.99% of people this won't happen. As we are motivated by pain a lot and it hurts too much for any reasonable person to do it!!! - Or lets say something, which i can say with 100% certainty is not possible. I am on the island, no method of transportation. There is an event, i would like to go to, if i knew about it. But there is no way to know about it, so i won't be able to chose this. Lets say it is at undiscovered isolated tribe, no way of knowing of it. You know when people get old and regret things and decisions they made, if only they knew what they know now! How would you reconcile this with the free will? Tesla said we create branches, which is immensely complex and theoretical, with no relation to reality. I like to always compare these theories and facts to the experiences we have! While i don't like this creates problems, which are in majority of cases unprovable and irrefutable! I think too much and i like sci-fi. Science says: people who watch sci-fi - judge relationships between people more realistically and with less bias. I saw tens of thousand tv shows and even i am far from behavioral expert, i know a lot about specific things. And i think about theoretical scenarios all the time, what could happen. I read a lot of about psychology! I claim, that our experience doesn't equal the free will. It is the opposite, it is far from it and i can't even imagine how free will could exist! Which is scary! It doesn't make any logical sense what so ever!!! You have to think, about every possible permutation, that could happen, hopefully find some: that can't be refuted, or is theoretically sound on 99.99%+ I would like to see someone to reconcile free will, with every permutation of behavior that can happen, or happened! Because it should be correlated to our experience. Also new hit to dualism https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/body-switching 1. Well to prove point 1. we would need a dyson sphere to calculate and predict human behavior on 100%, without changing the result. And you know this is currently not even remotely possible... Or to prove mind is materialistic and obey same physical laws as everything else. That's when comes my point, because it doesn't make logical sense for free will to exist, i can't even imagine how. If you could imagine, how could free will exists, i would like to hear it! 2. Well you said something has to be true, but how do you know praxis couldn't bear a weight, if the free will was an illusion. As far as we know free will is illusion and it makes sense for people believing in it, for good mental health and survival, so we defend ourselves against crimes of others! Logically weight of the praxis would be possible in both scenarios. Even if you didn't believe in the free will and i don't on 99.99%, as that's closest estimate i can get and i don't like guessing either. But it is "unprovable on 100%". We should reserved about facts/theories. And science just began to understand the brain. But there would have to be some insane twist of epic proportions, because everything goes against free will in my opinion. I have many more reasons, perhaps i should create website, or something. I don't believe in free will strongly! Yet i blame people, because i know it damages me and cause me negative emotions, which makes me to blame people so they don't repeat and cause unwanted behavior to me. So i think it is irrelevant to whether, or not free will exists. These are two separate entities. And again i don't know how would you prove this, or disprove. Since you would have to know, whether or not free will exists. And than obviously since we weight our praxis, you would have no way to test other option. Or perphaps you could create deterministic ai (if free will was true), which will experience weight of a praxis PS: Hope this makes sense, i have an ADHD and i have problem to organize text, to not repeat myself and to remember what i said. I see instantly 10 possibilities how to answer one question and from it another 10, that i forget what i wanted to say. And i not good at expressing myself, as i don't speak anywhere. Even i watch a lot of tv shows and i am a lot of better in understanding text. And bad in grammar as i never cared about it, i just learned from tv shows and from translations. And must say ADHD feels like anything, except free will. Also at first, recently scientists have proved in a study: that adhd is caused by genes, again which i didn't choose. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/11/191126121153.htm BTW i don't know if you know this site: it is tremendously useful and information there seems correct. I was searching whole web, read same things elsewhere, google flagged me as bot and they also want my mouse movement to spy on me As i read like thousands of sites /day. https://www.informationphilosopher.com/ Believe me i want free will to exists more than almost anything, yet i am very logical person as i have aphantasia - meaning no imagination. Also i don't know, if you care about argument. That if people have free will, they should know reasons: why they decided! People will sometimes mix up order of events, between rash decision and deliberate action. E.g. people after going after yellow sign at traffic light, or after stopping, have trouble to say why they did that. This always fascinated me, i asked my mom: why she stopped on yellow. But she couldn't answer! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.