| Around 90% of the human population was replaced by mimics and those have no free will. |
 |
| didnt you made this exact same thread months ago? anyway i voted kind of since i believe more in compatabilism aka soft determinism since quantum mechanics and chaos theory gives randomness in the universe so its not always about cause and effect |
| Determinism is compatible with free will. There is flex room for people to actually be accountable to varying degrees for their actions even if no one is fully in charge as far as we know. |
| also free will is an emergent property recent development in philosophy shows emergence is opposite of reductionism that all determinism boils down to |
Reply to purple_rayn
@deg Oh boy, "randomness." I'm personally of the belief that we live in a superdeterministic universe. We're basically characters in a novel. Or a movie, or a TV show. Randomness? I doubt it. I think everything is pre-determined.
| @purple_rayn if there is no such thing as randomness how come we cannot predict the weather perfectly or how can we not predict the lottery winning numbers shit happens there is luck and bad luck |
| I have the Summa Theologiae open in front of me and questions 22, 23, 82 and 83 of prima pars address this topic but I'm kinda dumb so I'll need some time to process it. |
| MEA·MENTVLA·INGENS·EST |
| there was a very interesting video i'd watched recently that either questioned "free will" or outright said we essentially don't have it due to some very interesting findings in research. it sure did leave me feeling a little uneasy. i need to think about it more. |
| ultrasonic sound coming out your speaker / the force is electric / your sound |
| Free will is a myth, most just think the illusion of choices as free will. The moment you have to choose between A or B, is the moment you don't have free will, because free will means you can choose both A and B and the other alphabet that not included as the options. |
| . |
| Let me call the expert @BigBoyAdvance |
This dance is the pinnacle of human achievement. |
| Extremely difficult question who's antecedent considerations lie at the heart of any coherent worldview; I don't believe it is possible to answer this question with any degree of rigour unless one is willing to elaborate on how they see all of reality. It really doesn't help that the Anglo-analytical scourge has muddied these conversations by artificially severing metaphysical necessity from logical necessity - the definition given is indeed a nonsensical concept, as you've identified, and only "God" would have it. The question you should ask yourself is "free will" to do what, exactly? If a person is drowning and in half of all universal possibilities you save them, and in half you don't, are you really free? Or merely under the command of the law of probability? Kant would say free will is the ability to not make any arbitrary decision, but the correct decision, and semantics aside I agree. Anyways since I don't think anyone cares about my metaphysical beliefs, here's some intimations as to how I'd answer: - Phenomenologically, our singular sense of "selfhood" seems to the most "real" thing to us; as in solipsism. This is a reflection of the singular reality we share and inhabit, like the two dimensional face of a three dimensional object. Does our singular reality ever "choose" which things manifest and which don't? That seems to be a question which is inherently unanswerable, and the best shot we have at doing so is by reasoning that manifestation is not a choice but a necessity (since it itself is the most necessary thing). - Cosmologically speaking, who are we to say that we didn't choose to be born into this life? "Choose" again referencing cosmic necessity, which you could dovetail into concepts like karma, sin & redemption, etc. If we hypothetically accept that we are in this specific life by necessity, does our reality make less or more sense? - Humans seem to differ from most other animals in that whilst they cannot choose how they subscribe to certain spheres of influence (ex. family, history, technology, weather), they may be able to choose the spheres themselves. To extrapolate this onto a larger scale, and to combine it with the first point I made, perhaps our ability to "choose" the sphere of influence (i.e. specific reality) we inhabit is the most real thing? This hinges upon a Everett multiverse interpretation of physics, which I don't fully agree with, but it's interesting nonetheless. It is basically an elaboration of the anthropic principle, but applying it to yourself as opposed to the entirety of humanity. Edit: for the record, I answered "sort of" in that I think the definition OP described is faulty. I do think we have the ability to enact "agency", but it is not an ability that the vast majority of people have. Also, @Theo1899 , good to see someone else here who's interested in actually educating themselves, rather than transcribing how they'd expect their appearance on a podcast to play out. I recommend Eric D. Perl's books and papers for a contemporary figuration of classic Christian metaphysics, might be a bit too Ortho for your taste but I find it general enough (most contemporary Thomism is vapid and only stresses Aquinas' few errors, rather than fixing them). |
TibetanJazz66634 minutes ago
 |
| Religious zealots commonly embezzle money, display a dangerous amount of narcissism, rape and murder, are generally morally corrupted, seek absolute power and influence over others for their selfish lust, oppress others, promote wars, oppress entire countries and rape/murder children. |
| "Do you believe in free will?" Kind of. |
 |
| Only in a "place with no rules" can you have/exact free will. But then, problem is, that rules of nature take over/take priority, in a place like that. So perhaps rules of nature is the "real/true form" of free will. |
| I still think the Dead Internet Theory holds weight especially seemingly nowadays. Some resources and info on this can be found below. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Internet_theory https://theconversation.com/the-dead-internet-theory-makes-eerie-claims-about-an-ai-run-web-the-truth-is-more-sinister-229609 https://digs.net/the-dead-internet-theory/ |
 |
Reply to Yuno
I still think the Dead Internet Theory holds weight especially seemingly nowadays. Some resources and info on this can be found below.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Internet_theory
https://theconversation.com/the-dead-internet-theory-makes-eerie-claims-about-an-ai-run-web-the-truth-is-more-sinister-229609
https://digs.net/the-dead-internet-theory/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Internet_theory
https://theconversation.com/the-dead-internet-theory-makes-eerie-claims-about-an-ai-run-web-the-truth-is-more-sinister-229609
https://digs.net/the-dead-internet-theory/
| @Yuno sounds like bs to me. Not plausible at all. |
More topics from this board
Poll: » how do you differentiate arrogance, confidence and courage?deg - 1 hour ago |
3 |
by Zarutaku
»»
2 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » how well adjusted or adaptable person are you?deg - 1 hour ago |
6 |
by Little_Sheepling
»»
8 minutes ago |
|
» How does it feel to have a crush on someone?Zakatsuki_ - Yesterday |
37 |
by Yuno
»»
11 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » the internet is full of hate?deg - 49 minutes ago |
7 |
by Commit_Crime
»»
12 minutes ago |
|
» Can everybody PLEASE stop using 4chan? ( 1 2 )Jukemania - Sep 11 |
59 |
by Yuno
»»
13 minutes ago |