>The universe is deterministic>So, I don't have free will!Is this the most midwit philosophical view in the world? Why do so many scientists fall into this trap when compatibilism has been written about so richly from so many angles?
>>17279755>Compatibilists often define an instance of "free will" as one in which the agent had the freedom to act according to their own motivation. That is, the agent was not coerced or restrained. Arthur Schopenhauer famously said: "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills."[15] In other words, although an agent may often be free to act according to a motive, the nature of that motive is determined. This definition of free will does not rely on the truth or falsity of causal determinism.[3] This view also makes free will close to autonomy, the ability to live according to one's own rules, as opposed to being submitted to external domination. Compatabilists don't deny causal determinism, they just define free will in a different way to get around that problem.
>>17279755It's the height of human vanity to think you're a product of oneself.
>>17279781Why would free will be dependent upon a lack of causal determinism?
>>17280512If causal determinism is true then you don't have free will because your choices are just the inevitable result of events that you had no control over. You will always end up in one deterministic state and thus you never truly had any choice to act in a different way than you were determined to.
>>17280558You did have a choice and you chose the thing you wanted.
>>17280567It was impossible for me to make any other choice.
>>17280588>I didn't swerve into the oncoming traffic lane because I didn't want to get hit by a car>Because I never wanted to get hit by a car, I don't have free will to swerve my car
>>17280603>because I didn't want to get hit by a carYou are not the author of this desire. As long as you don't want to get hit by a car you are not free to intentionally swerve into incoming traffic.
>>17280603This, they will call not having the ability to transform into a jumbo jet at will as "not having free will". It merely means the mind is not enslaved to the body, you can choose to quit cigarettes for example. It's fucking hard but people succeed at it. If that is not reason (the mind) over the physical then I don't know what is. Same with suicide, the complete negation of the biological drive.
>>17280617>It merely means the mind is not enslaved to the body, you can choose to quit cigarettes for example. It's fucking hard but people succeed at it.Why do some people succeed while others fail?
The Western religious notion of free will is pure narcissistic delusion - a grandiose fantasy that places human choice on a preposterous metaphysical pedestal above the natural laws and deterministic forces governing the entire cosmos. This contra-causal fairytale imagines our minds as immaterial, formless, magical sources of utterly uncaused, ex nihilo causal powers, exempt from the physiological constraints and causal chains that rationally explain all other phenomena. It arrogantly recasts human decision-making as some miraculous, self-created form of willful creationism rather than recognizing it as shaped by the same rational patterns and processes describing the rest of the known universe. In essence, it inscribes blatant anthropocentric narcissism as pseudo-profundity, shamelessly elevating human ego over empirical explanations of how embodied minds actually operate via scientific naturalism.
>>17280624Some people are retarded, you for example
>>17280629>anon is so stupid he can't even present one (1) argument for his positionmany such cases
>>17280638My argument is that you're retarded, my proof is you're retarded postsThe fact this went over your head reinforces my claim
>>17280672>you're retarded postsIt's poor etiquette to point out spelling mistakes instead of addressing arguments but unfortunately you don't have any arguments
>>17279755>scientistsHe wasn't a scientist that's the foundation of all criticism behind him
>>17280721>Can't readScientists don't believe in free will, Hume did.
>>17280628That's nice gpt.Joke aside, you are right about it; it has also been misused colloquially by it becoming the forefront of the shitty debate of "real humans vs npcs"
>>17280682You're a retard, you don't deserve etiquette
>>17281437>lost argument to a retard by default because you are unable to justify your viewsshamful
>>17280801Thomas Reid was the foremost scientist of his time and he was the only man to oppose scepticism since the late 1200s
>>17281465>lost argument to a retard by defaultYou're a retard, remember? You lost the very day you were born. It's literally that easy for me
Especially silly as a world where determinism is true, would look the same as a world where determinism is falsewe don't observe causation I'm very skeptical to theories that lacks empirical content
>>17280588Christians who believe God knows the future sure as fuck don't have a problem with the other choices not actually being possible, and still believe in free will
>>17279755>The universe is deterministicwhen I write about revolution and replace ruling class in one sentence then the world suddenly becomes very deterministic jokes aside according to this anime for kids hard determinism creates compatibilism https://youtu.be/uKtLZzEtoNw?t=56psychological states start to get out of sync and overlap (depression)a world that moves faster than the human mind can comprehend would collapse rather quickly unless people adapt and become reactionary but that creates the problem of flooding with the reason being that you can't materialize psychological states I wonder if people have even noticed that they no longer consume products but psychological states due to digitalizationI guess that makes total sense in hinsight that a society based on progress and things moving faster undermines itself by creating more of less (scarcity) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mo-c2hk_hQghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k9_bSqQQH8
Determinism is a dead scientific theory and to even postulate it is a religious idea
>>17281781Which would be deterministic
>>17282427Who are you trying to fool? Yourself?
>>17282825Sigh. Explain how determinism survives the fact our universe can generate true symmetry?
>>17282834Deterministically
>>17282839lol no one is saying true symmetry isn’t a causal part of the 0dimensional point over the axis of time. What I am asking and I’ll ask again, how does determinism survive after the first symmetry breaks? If you have no clue what I’m talking about and are to weak to use google just admit your uneducated and ask for help
>>17282055based unironic retard not knowing anything about Christian doctrine on freewill but talking out his ass anyway
>>17282503You think I give a fuck?
>>17281781>days without an argument: +1>>17282055I don't share their opinion
>>17280588You could have not posted and gone outside to look up at the sky instead.Determinism is braindead.
>>17283025>You could have not posted and gone outside to look up at the sky instead.That thought never even entered my head so no, I could not have done that. Even if it had I would not have made that choice, because my brain isn't wired to leave warmth, comfort and entertainment to go out into the cold and look up at a dark sky doing nothing. When weighing those options against each other there is no outcome where I choose the second one.
>>17282858God knows I will eat ham for breakfast tomorrow, he even reveals this as a prophecy Tomorrow comes and I simply utilize my free will to choose cereal for breakfast. What gives?
>>17282971>I don't share their opinionThis don't have anything to do with opinions, it's about how language is usedClearly there's a historical precedence for the word 'choice' being used, despite it being impossible for you to choose anything else
>>17282844Look, if you are saying 'true symmetry' is incompatible with determinism, (if you are not saying that, this is just silly burden shifting)Then I would just not grant that the thing- 'true symmetry' is a thing that exist, in need of an explanation whatever phenomena you want an explanation for is merely false symmetry, and got a casually determined explanation, just like anything else that has ever been explained
>>17283148Go read a little brainlet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetry_in_quantum_mechanicsIf you’re going to say something doesn’t exist in the standard model you have to explain why if you don’t want to be immediately discounted as a pseud.Regardless, how do you rationalize determinism with our
