For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
LOL NO one HAS TO WANT TO DO 'that' WITH me.Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 8:27 am Too bad nobody wants to do that with Age because he's relentlessly annoying.
LOLFlannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 8:27 am In fact that's the one thing everyone on the forum can agree on, so thanks Age. Thanks for bringing us all together in opposition to your cockroach bullshit.
That won't ever happen. Most of this thread is biggy talking to himself. That's all he wants to do. 380 pages later, why are you expecting him to do anything different?Age wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 10:41 am 380 pages later, these people have, STILL, NOT YET 'come together' TO JUST AGREE ON, and ACCEPT, what the terms 'determinism' AND 'free will' MEAN and/or are REFERRING TO, EXACTLY. But, some HAVE CONTINUALLY INSISTED that EITHER 'one' OR 'the other' EXISTS, ONLY.
So, 'you', "flannel jesus" WILL NOT JUST 'come together' WITH JUST one other person to JUST DISCUSS what the words 'free will' nor 'determinism' COULD JUST BE MEANING or REFERRING TO, EXACTLY, TO JUST SEE what you two COULD COME TO AGREE WITH, and ACCEPT, right?Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 10:45 amThat won't ever happen.Age wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 10:41 am 380 pages later, these people have, STILL, NOT YET 'come together' TO JUST AGREE ON, and ACCEPT, what the terms 'determinism' AND 'free will' MEAN and/or are REFERRING TO, EXACTLY. But, some HAVE CONTINUALLY INSISTED that EITHER 'one' OR 'the other' EXISTS, ONLY.
WHO, REALLY, CARE what 'another' or 'one' IS DOING, here?
AGAIN, WHO, REALLY, CARES?
But 'I' am NOT EXPECTING 'that one' NOR ANY 'other ones', of you, to do absolutely ANY thing DIFFERENT NOR AT ALL, here?Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 10:45 am 380 pages later, why are you expecting him to do anything different?
I've done that plenty. With phyllo and iwannaplato for example. I can't force anyone else to.
Okay.
Great. So, what did you, "phyllo", AND "iwannaplato", come UP WITH, or UNCOVER, AGREE UPON, and ACCEPT, together, here, EXACTLY?
WHY would one EVEN BEGIN TO EVEN JUST CONSIDER, or THINK ABOUT. FORCING another TO DO ABSOLUTELY ANY thing, AT ALL, here, or ANYWHERE?
That any kind of free will worth having isn't contrary to determinism. Determinism may or not be the case, but free will worth having isn't negated in the hypothetical world where determinism is the reality.
"Incompatibilism is the thesis that free will is incompatible with the truth of determinism. Incompatibilists divide into Libertarians, who deny that determinism is true and hard determinists who deny that we have free will." PhilPapersWell, I'm not going to do a research paper for you, but Kant (possibly, see comments below), Schopenhauer, and Popper were all incompatibilists. These philosophers were very invested in human culture and ethics.
Just what we need here. The same word used to describe completely opposite realities "for all practical purposes".That leads us to two prominent attacks on compatibilism. First, metaphysical libertarianism is one flavor of incompatibilism which prizes the human spirit and free will and largely reject determinism as having any sway over human choice. This is subjective with principles of humanism and the primacy of people in understanding and interpreting experience. Physical determinism is downplayed or integrated into choice in Berkeley's subjective idealism.
On the other end of the spectrum, hard determinism advocates that physical determinism is so overwhelming, in the spirit of Laplacian determinism, that little sense can be made of free will. This is compatible with eliminative materialism where ideas like free will are largely relegated to the status of "linguistic illusion". Daniel Dennett was a fierce incompatibilist in his early years, but later moderated his position.
Okay, and thank you for clarifying. It is always appreciated.Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 12:34 pmThat any kind of free will worth having isn't contrary to determinism. Determinism may or not be the case, but free will worth having isn't negated in the hypothetical world where determinism is the reality.
At least iwannaplato and I agreed on that much. Idk about phyllo. I think he did but I might be misremembering.
Back to that again. He writes a book some hard determinists insist he could never have not written. And others read it and then react to it in the only possible manner they themselves ever could have. So, when he calls on others to stop doing something how is that as well not just another inherent manifestation of a wholly determined universe?Six months ago, Stanford University Professor Robert M. Sapolsky wrote a book titled Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will, which argues that humans do not have free will. He calls for people to “stop attributing stuff to us that isn’t here.”
Just more of the same:He also critiques any system in which we punish or reward people because people have no control over their actions.
From my own frame of mind "here and now", this is just another rendition of free will determinism.Sapolsky’s thesis is that free will is a myth and, the sooner we accept that, the more just society will be.
We'll see.However, in reality, the science does not debunk but instead supports the existence of free will.
Of course, what those who do this share in common with all the rest of us is the gap between free will embraced philosophically in a "world of words" here and free will unequivocally confirmed by the scientific community to be an actual component of the human brain.For most of human civilization, philosophers have posited the existence of free will. This sentiment has driven many groups to incorporate free will as a central tenet of their ideology.
Of course, the only way they can accomplish this is by assuming that "somehow" human autonomy is perfectly in sync with an omniscient God. Click, of course.For example, Christians’ belief in free will has helped them reconcile God’s all-powerful, all-good existence with the presence of worldly evil.
That's the problem, however. Making assumptions regarding how the human brain functions without being able to actually pin that down empirically, experientially and experimentally.In fact, the idea of free will permeates nearly every institution. We reprimand those who commit crimes because we assume that they have a choice to act in that crime. We award honors for academic or athletic excellence assuming that the winner had some agency that allowed them to achieve their talent.
Then the part where one rejects hard determinism precisely because it is too scary and dangerous to believe. As though this belief in and of itself can't possibly be an inherent, necessary component of the only possible reality.There are a number of reasons why humans tend to gravitate away from arguments that disprove free will. Stripping our agency is scary but also dangerous.
Well, again, isn't that exactly how one can feel about their dreams. How are we not basically puppets from start to finish then even though while "in the dream" it is virtually indistinguishable from the waking world. At least mine are.People could justify committing horrors if they accepted the absence of free will. Ultimately, we all feel like we have free will. Our decisions and actions seem uniquely ours. Surely, we would be conscious of the fact that we were being puppeteered.
Please. Logic is useful for many things, but once you take up questions like these...The number of scientists and philosophers that are disproving free will has grown throughout the decades. In 1929, even Albert Einstein was quoted saying, “I do not believe in free will.” However, their arguments against free will fall short of logical reasoning.
Also, arguments for and against free will [here] rely largely on assumptions that the definition and the meaning given to the words in the argument need be as far as one goes.The arguments against free will rely on the existence of determinism, a term that means event A always leads to event B. Einstein, as did many physicists of his time, believed in determinism.
That's what some insist. Once a theory of everything regarding mind and matter has been established, there's nothing that can't be entirely predicted about the future. Only how is this not in turn just another inherent manifestation of the only possible reality.The brain’s processes are complex sets of chemical reactions, and, if the universe was deterministic, these processes could all be modeled and perfectly predicted.
Next up: hard determinists are compelled to remind them that for all practical purposes they were never able not to freely opt otherwise.You couldn’t have free will in a deterministic universe because everything that has happened or will happen to you has been predetermined. However, I do not believe in determinism and neither does modern physics.
Actually, what those scientists who grapple with the very, very small and the very, large are still noting is that no one has yet to discover a theory of everything...let alone a way to definitively intertwine the "human condition" into whatever mind-boggling truth the existence of existence itself entails.Werner Heisenberg’s theory of quantum mechanics discredits determinism. In this new — and now accepted — theory of the universe, the universe is probabilistic as opposed to deterministic.
Sure, if some here are willing to accept that quantum mechanics and a possible multiverse are all "explainable" only if human beings have free will...?The outcome of a specific event has multiple possibilities, and they are weighted by probabilities. There is a 50% chance that I find the electron at point A, a 30% chance I find it at point B and a 20% chance I find it at point C. The rules of quantum mechanics provide evidence that the universe is probabilistic, so the classical argument about determinism fails.