221–230 of 265 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No that is absurd and dehumanizing towards the victims.
Plenty of things about reality are unfair. I'm not quite sure how free will being nonexistent is dehumanizing towards victims, but even if you feel it will be, that isn't an argument that free will exists.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don’t have a good grasp on philosophy to suggest the meaning of free will and complatiblism. Yes the justic system is a disgrace to humanity and I understand determinism. Prove otherwise please from what I wrote and I’ll be thankful. Instead it looks like someone with a hurt ego writing nonsense to me.
There's nothing to prove. Your comment had no substance, and advanced no arguments. It was a set of bald assertions without justification, and so can be dismissed without argument.
There is no way to even conceive of what free will could be, determined or not. Either the activity of your brain is causally determined by previous brain states and interactions with the environment plus or minus randomness, neither option gives you the intuitive notion of free will.
Edit: also the Nobel winner Gerard t’Hooft argues that even these quasar experiments don’t rule out determinism. He argues that any closed deterministic system will have correlations across any distance in spacetime.
The idea that randomness gives rise to free will is ludicrous. If my brain randomly chooses to eat an apple on Monday and randomly chooses to eat a Pear on Tuesday how is that giving me more free will than if my brain was predetermined to choose an Apple then a Pear. There is no way to even conceive of what free will could be, determined or not. Either the activity of your brain is causally determined by previous bra…
Random just means unpredictable. It means that the information about whether your eat a pear or an apple is nowhere to be found in the universe. We can only see it after the fact. Something has been injected in the universe from outside.
That something is undecidable by definition, therefore, it is outside the realm of science, and it may very well be free will, god, a soul, whatever. Having that randomness leaves an opening for metaphysical free will.
On the opposite, without randomness that form of free will is impossible. Everything is determined and science doesn't leave any space for these concepts.
The motivation seems to be to paint an awe-inspiring picture of mystery through the facade of science for link clicks, with the defamation of science. Science is meant to make things clear not enigmatic.
The question debating if free will actually exists, is a denial of experience and a solicitation to some sort of ontology outside of experience that can never be known.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The idea of punting the problem off to some metaphysical cloud in the sky is just plain old fuzzy thinking. We're starting from the position that we are not entirely sure how the physical world works. From that starting point, pushing the problem of free will off into some other metaphysical realm which we also don't fully understand solves no problems. Unless we can posit rules or mechanisms that apply to souls but…
You seem to be saying that only explanations that rely solely on the physical world are valid or worthwhile. But when doing philosophy, it would be hasty to say that only empirical facts are knowable.
Only if you want to stay with reality not venture into phantasy.
So many popular science articles have started to commit ontological fallacies like this. Free will obviously exists because we experience it. This question presumes a denial of experience and a claim that really the experience isn't real but instead this other thing that cannot ever be experienced is. What's even the motivation for that? The motivation seems to be to paint an awe-inspiring picture of mystery through…
You seem to be confusing the subjective experience of consciousness with free will. They aren't equivalent. (Free will can be viewed as a conjecture about the relationship of conscious experience with the outside world, but is not synonymous with conscious experience.)
My view on "free will" is that it's a non-falsifiable notion. The universe isn't deterministic due to randomness. In absence of determinism in the universe's laws, free will is at least possible. However talking about it is like talking about the existence of God. The question is this: what observations can you make that, if they were true, would lead to the conclusion that "free will" doesn't exist? And the answer i…
I think this is a useful touchstone in the debate about freedom of will. - It moves the goalposts so that your requirement is the ability to shed will instead of the ability to pick new ones.
I’m a person who acknowledges everything is deterministic and free will is a facade. The two types of people I’ve encountered who desire the notion of free will: 1) Person with ego who needs to have a belief in free will. 2) Persons who has ego, gets annoyed by free will being a facade and refuses to think about it because “it doesn’t matter” to this person. I’m perplexed if the problem is singular between the two ty…