The fact that there's even a debate about free will is hilarious when it's obvious that we are all apart of the universe, which has fundamental rules, which every single thing inside this universe is subject to. So how can you have free will when even the idea of free will itself comes from the universe which you are subject to? Anything you know or believe is a creation of your own imagination and if you believe otherwise you are simply delusional
the most trivial kind of determinism seems like a tautology: everything has a cause, so everything has a cause. is there a non-question begging way for determinism to be more informative to psychology or cognitive science, or whatever it's supposed to be a claim about? it doesn't seem to be an empirical claim.
>>17962187Honestly, no. Anything that is a product of the universe, is part of the universe, and is subject to the same laws. Consciousness and it's implications are extremely profound, but are still subject to the very basic rules of the universe
>>17962230well, that's fine because metaphysics is not physics, but I'm not sure the average determinist redditor would agree with you.Sapolsky and these other "just-so" determinists seem to think there's evidence from neuroscience, etc. but how could there be evidence if it's not falsifiable?
>he hasnt heard of the wave function collapse and superposition.
>>17962279Consciousness is the same caliber as metaphysics. The only difference is consciousness came from a universe which we can observe. What is Reddit? I only use 4chan and Newgrounds
>>17962293the problem with consciousness is that qualia and intentionality go beyond a physical description, allegedly. like the knowledge argument.but determinists seem to be making claims at the level of physics, involving action, decision, psychology, neuroscience, cognition etc. that are all scientific/empirical, nominally.
>>17962319>>17962187Retard
>>17962319How is it an argument? Every single thing we have observed in this universe obey the same exact rules. Why would human consciousness be different? We literally only exist because we follow natural low and co-exist with our environment. That's not a decision
Quantum physics is indeterministic, thus the universe isn’t fully deterministic.
>>17962135>free willbest I can do is free speech
>>17962135free will was proven by quantum physics. take your Calvinist nonsense elsewhere.
>>17962135>>17962187That all depends. Do you believe human beings exist?
>>17962342faggot>>17962397I don't understand which part you're responding to. I'm not a fan of the knowledge argument, I was using it as an example of how metaphysics is underdetermined by physicsor are you responding to the second part: that freewill determinism is unfalsifiable, despite making claims involving domains like neuroscience, which are making testable predictions>>17963210not really sure that I understand the chart there but agree that determinists deny agency at the level of the human organism. ie neurons are not decisions or behaviours (behaviour is at the level of the whole organism)
>>17963314It's about clarifying terms (the chart) what do we mean by determinism and free will. If you think "human being" is a useful descriptor, why not "free will"? It's a useful term in the same way, examine your biases. In reality, so to speak, there is no human being. Only a constant stream of causality. No one disputes that, it's just a question of how far down the list of premises you go, and why. Some people believe in determinism because they feel powerless, which is ironically a form of ambition. Determinists want more power than they have, they are power seekers.
>>17962135we control our own destiny
>>17963356>In reality, so to speak, there is no human being. Only a constant stream of causality.you kind of lost me.>it's just a question of how far down the list of premises you go, and why.so I actually do think there are reasons to stop at certain points because it doesn't explain the kinds of things we want to explain. it's simply not useful. for example: in economics, you would never describe economics using quantum physics because it's not the right scope. you will never find the principles of supply and demand at the level of quarks. in the same way, a detective can only solve a crime at the level of theory of mind, like intentions, desires, etc. not at the level of physics. methodological pluralism can determine the appropriate method and scope of inquiry.
>>17962675Based infoanon even if you missed this
>>17964392well, if you look at a person under a microscope there's no human being down there. If you zoom out it becomes hard to see any human beings. You only exist from a certain point of view. All the popular arguments against free will, about its "caused" nature, apply to humanity as well. Even the human body is host to a large ecosystem of nonhuman cells.
>>17964438yes. it's the question, the inquiry itself, that determines the relevant scope and what an appropriate answer might look like. if you zoom out too far or too close, you might confuse yourself into think that the human-level isn't relevant, that humans don't make decisions, agency doesn't exist etc.
>>17964438There is no "self" - what did your face look like before your mother and father were born?
>>17964444>before things exist, they don't exist, therefore there is no selfmaybe try the ship of theseus style of argument
>>17964444Exactly. It's not free will that you disagree with, it's nominalism in general. The whole basis of consciousness and intellect, agreed-upon meanings. That's why determinists fail, they're trying to use language against its very foundations, several layers too deep to reach with this kind of argument. A nominalist should be opposed only by brandishing your club.
>>17962135We are you denying the empirical evidence of free will existing? Which in turn proves there must be some sort of God because as you say a purely deterministic universe can not have free will.6 billion people experience free will every single moment of their lives and you come here and see that the observation must be false because it does not align with the conclusion you have already drawn. What you are doing is the opposite of rational or scientific. You have first assumed your hypothesis true and are using that to deny the evidence you observe.
>>17964455wasn't really meaning for the latter to be an argument for the former. "No self" is a fundamental teaching of Buddhism, second part is a Zen koan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anattāhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_face
>>17964467ok, well my religion says the self exists, so there.just joking. but I am probably more of a kantian about the existence of the self. that the self is a kind of unifying principle of experience. and then I think some post-kantians had ideas about a phenomenal self and a noumenal self, and that sort of thing, but that's a bit more difficult to justify. although it does fit with some of the pluralism I was talking about earlier. different aspects of the self might exist at different levels of analysis. that seems more plausible to me than this all-or-nothing approach. even if a religion that I don't follow disagrees. I will look at wikipedia though.
>>17964486haha no worries I was just trying to provide a bit of context not trying to convert anyone.CS Lewis talks in Mere Christianity how if a man lasts for nigh on 100 years then a state, nation, or civilization might be more important, but if man is eternal, as his religion teaches, then they are incomparably more important than those other things which are finite.
>>17964496This is the holy moment. Things happening now will echo for eternity. That's why all men are equal (and superior to all non-humans) all beneath God. Only God can comprehend the infinite depth and breadth of the moment, only God knows where it's going. Those are all real truths that we have yet to exceed in secular format.
>>17964496there's also an asymmetry in importance in the sense of something of great importance in the past seems less important that something of minor importance in the present/future.but it is strange to compare the finite and the infinite in terms of value when really it seems to be a question of benefit.again, if we use this kantian framework of a self that we can know that exists in time, that self has a beginning and an end. annihilation. but if there is a noumenal self with the possibility of surviving, it would also be different from the self that we apprehend in experience.
>>17962135If "free will" is defined by how determinate our actions are, one could argue in favor of free will based on the idea that the initial conditions that enabled the universe are fundamentally indeterminate.The Garden of Forking Paths model of free will also suggests that even though our initial actions are determinate, that because any quantum particle exists within a probability cloud until causal interaction is made, that actions going forwards are fundamentally indeterminate but remain constrained to physical laws insofar as they must still exist within this probability matrix
>>17965204Free will is what human beings do. There's no point in being human if you don't exercise will. >>17964561It seems I marooned that second sentence. All men are equal because the ability to exercise will, right now, is everything. If you're drowning and someone walks by, will you say "no thanks, shitskin manlet" no. You will say thank you SIR, or Dad, or some other honorific that recognizes a man of will has chosen to favor you. That principle is universal even when you're in a position of strength, because everyone becomes frail in the end. Whether you're strong or weak right now is a pure accident of history.
