I came to the conclusion that I, according to the Dunning-Kruger effect, have a severe cognitive impairment.

I was wondering about moral luck. As I fathom moral luck is a moral descriptor of either a Person's willingness to do something that has an unintended outcome (e.g. someone shoots into a crowd (morally wrong) and unintentionally hits an mass murderer hiding inside(arguably a morally good)) or an outcome that happens independently of any willing participants (e.g. economic growth trickle down (if it exists) actually I still find that particular example lacking, regardless- ).

What confuses me is the possibility of the negative version of those. By negative i mean can I declare a non-action (not simply abstaining from acting) a moral wrong/good?

A rather complicated example goes as follows (i appreciate if there would be a simpler less shitty one, but as of right now I cannot think of any): X has child Y. Y likes Ice cream. To give Y ice cream would brighten Ys mood, thus would be good. X is on the way home. Y is already home. Y spots an ice cream truck in front of the building. Unfortunately the truck leaves soon after. X did not spot the ice cream truck, therefore lacked the incentive to increase Ys mood by purchase of Ice cream. As X comes home Y states "It is bad that you did not bring me ice cream!"

I know it seems rather childish, but what do you think is it possible to blame for non-action?

That seems likely for most. But on the bright side you have come to a conclusion. Could be a sign that it is not so severe after all.

I have an answer for the question "Is free will real": Since the time we are born, we are exposed to repetivie behauviour: waking up, having breakfast, getting dressed etc. At some point, these actions become almost completely instinctive, like if they were completely unintentional and separated from real will. We should also consider that, if you feel like you have no free will, It means that you realized that you have no complete control over your brain or body. And this also proves that the mind is different from the brain.

Free will exists is not wrong. Here's an observation, we sometimes do things in auto mode yes? If we find ourselves doing that, there's an exercise we can do to express free will and that is to stop the act or do it ahead of time, where we stop ourselves from doing something.

That's the only thing that comes to mind on exerting free will.

If the entire universe were rearranged down to every particle to be exactly the way it was in let's say Jan 1, 1950 would it still be the present day that just looked like Jan 1, 1950 or would it literally be Jan 1, 1950?

should we satisfy our desire? Yes, it's justified

Note that "desire" here is in a narrow and neutral sense, like more delicious food, more money, not the scope that more killing or salves.

Nowadays, people often complains that "Life sucks, I'd rather like to be a primitive". Just like Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi mentioned in his book Flow,

When Cyrus the Great had ten thousand cooks prepare new dishes for his table, the rest of Persia had barely enough to eat. These days every household in the “first world” has access to the recipes of the most diverse lands and can duplicate the feasts of past emperors. But does this make us more satisfied?

It seems that satisfying ours desire hasn't made us happy, so what't your argument onto this one? Should we satisfy our desire? My argument as follows to this is positive.

To answer this question better, let us presume that the only goal of our life is to get more happiness. But what is happiness? It's hard for me to define to meke all of us accepts it and that's also unnecessary. Like many democracy, There are many concepts that we couldn't make a perfect defination, but it won't hind us from discussing such topics. Just like [elephant test], It's hard to explain but you know it when you feel it. Since the goal of our life is to be happy, thus, if satisfying desire can bring us happiness, then, we should satisfy our desire, vice versa. Hence, the question here is that whether satisfying desire can bring us happiness?

Obviously, that is not a simple question, but we have a good way to seek the answer. Probably lots of people would accept the view that modern life is the result that human losing themselves in satisfying their desire like more food, more safety, faster transportation and so on, so we have the Agricultural Revolution and Industrial Revolution and the current life. This argument is just like Yuval Noah Harari has stated in his book Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind, and he even argues that the Agricultural Revolution is the biggest fraud in history. Therefore, if we want to know whether we should satisfy desire or not, we just need to look at the two kind of life, the modern one and the primitive one. The one appeals us most wins and will be our answer. Of course, it's impossible for us to reach a perfect agreement, there always will be majority and minority, and the choice of majority is not always the truth, too. But out of the conviction and respect to the democracy and human reason, I argue that if the majority prefer the modern life, then it will be feasible for us to satisfy our desires.

So, here comes the key question, which life style do we prefer? The modern one or the primitive one? I think that most of us prefer the former. We don't want to sleep on a tree or in a cave, neither the fight with wild animal nor the fear of being eaten. That's right, I haven't surveyed everyone on earth, but if I was wrong, as the primitive life is more attractive, then why only a few people choose to live in the jungle or the wild island, people in New York obviously can afford the flying tickets. In fact, when people do choose to live like a primitive, they just do it for fun, they won't persist years after years. Some may argue that, we are adopted to the modern life, so it inappropriate for us to decide which one is better, it is just like asking a addict if he wants more weed and LSD. All right, let the primitive choose. In fact, the dice is already rolled, they choose to "give in" the desire, so you see this post on Reddit today. They may still argue that the primitive are shortsighted, if they can see the negative outcome caused by satisfying the desire in long run, they may probably choose another road. I have to admit that this is a strong rebuttal, but I have two replies want to make. First, we don't have the ability to foresee things in thousands years or even dozens years. Secondly, if they have a time-machine and they just see the modern life, then why is it impossible that they would hate the initial choice? They may be totally attracted, too!

So far, we have proved that the modern life is more preferable than the primitive life, thus we have proved indirectly that satisfying our desire is justified.

BTW, I also analysed why some people always complain about the modern life in this blog post, if you are interested, please go ahead. The post is written in Chinese and you can read it with a translator like Google.

BBTW, I am a Chinese senior student who is about to get a bachelor's degree of business management in 2023 and I want to study philosophy(especially the political one) abroad like a international student for one year in 2023 or 2024. So I'd appreciate that if anyone can help me with that goal, you can contact me here or Via the e-mail.

You can also read a more reader-friendly version via this link

It remains for us to examine the spiritual element of speech ... this marvelous invention of composing from twenty-five or thirty sounds an infinite variety of words, which, although not having any resemblance in themselves to that which passes through our minds, nevertheless do not fail to reveal to others all of the secrets of the mind, and to make intelligible to others who cannot penetrate into the mind all that we conceive and all of the diverse movements of our souls. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_infinity

Yeah, stopping a repetivie action, thinking deeply or talking slowly are the only existing free actions.

Indeed. And to think doing them takes a lot of effort too. I feel like calling them effort will or will of effort, definitely we pay something for this will.

But i still feel like i am doing my actions randomly and that i am thinking randomly, like if i someone else Is using my mind and he or she Is manipualting my brain cells or voice in order to do that. But following this logic, I AM that Person that Is controling my mind and all this time i acted randomly and impulsively, and i should accept the fact that i will never achieve total control over my brain chemicals.

If we follow this logic, then Stephen Hawking achieved free will, since he was not anymore in charge of his impulsive voice and body

Yes. That's a scary thought.

Yes, unfortunately that is the case.

If you say "ok it's time for confession, i am the Person that manipualted SovArya all this time", you achieve free will for a few minutes.

Then this leads to this conclusion: if God has free will, then he acts in an uncomprehensible way

This leads also to another conclusions: the first human on earth had free will, since he was not conditioned by anyone else and had to always think how to build a house in the woods or other activites like hunt or harvesting crops. But at some point he also started to act like this impuslively

It depends on really on how we peg the basis of the first humans. Did they got made by God or by evolution. But I suppose we can only speculate.

As for God per SE, it's also another issue because how do we define God?

Like I would define a God as someone if we are 2nd dimensional beings, a 3+ being. Because it would be like an author writing a book and we have no say or control on what gets written. A definition not like that isnt Godlike.

That's not wrong. :)

Interaction based on our senses causing chemicals in our brains causing us to do what we know by automatic or what's wired within us is true; then what you say is not wrong if you caused the environment or interaction prior to the moment you say you manipulated someone.

Scary as that is, it is possible and that's not wrong.

Can quantity exist outside of space and time? I was thinking about Anselm's ontological argument for god where he defines god as "that which no greater can be conceived". This implies that god is omnipresent across space and time (to be constrained in space and time would be an imperfection). If god is omnipresent in these axes then can he be quantified in any real way?

I mean, he could not control the muscles he controlled previously and had to spend more effort into speech, since he used that machine to speak and his disease made the movements of his tongue more difficult too. as a consequence he had to think more, becoming totally self aware.

Your idea isn't wrong. It's just it scares me the level of how we ought to be to exert free will. And what if that's our only option?

It's probably not easy. Or damning hard.

To be fully conscious, the automatic acts disappear. My best guess.

A blank canvas is every painting imaginable and not.

A canvas brushed with one stroke of paint is every painting imaginable minus every other one you can’t because of the mark.

No canvas but the air “nothingness” it relies on as a medium is every creation or piece of art that can and can’t be created.

That medium of nothingness is god.

That which spawned infinity.

That which is you.

That which is…

Which is also not…

That’s what I believe god is

That could make sense that could not it’s 3:30 in the morning and I’m stoney baloney lol

And to answer your question no I don’t believe god had quantity or form but within that lack of contains the true infinity of things.

In my opinion, to become more self-aware and achieve free will, we have to sometimes change our routine and focus on our self-improvement and interests. For example: why would you always wear that clothing while you can buy other ones? Why do you always use the same browser while there are other options aviable? Why do you always eat the same meals while you can try new foods?

Not philosophical but more physics inclined but I think I may be able to answer.

For every particle to be arranged in the exact way it were before yes it would literally be that day simple becsuse to do so you would have to reverse the expansion of the universe also so that along with everything being in the exact same place would be turning back the hands of time…

To sharpen the blade. I think you are not wrong.

Feels like a combination of conscious act and automatic acts working with each other and doing their part when needed.

Now i want to know your opinion about my discussion.

My guess is it's like this.

We exert will when we stop something. So when you buy x, and decide not to do it; will exercised. By those circumstances you decided to buy something new, that part may be a bit fully conscious act since it was fueled by the previous. It could be a combination.

So even in our limited view of reality our mathematics has proven infinity.

So since we are clearly in an individual universe of individuality within a reality of the true scope of infinity.

Us as an individual part of infinity revokes the idea of free will in my mind.

We are ghastly unaware of even all the factors that go on within oneself let alone all the external factors of the world that birthed us.

Is jumping up as hard as you can a true attempt at making it to the moon without knowledge of aerodynamics and gravity no it wasn’t a true attempt so the lack of arrival to the moon wasn’t a failure.

Us in this very limited and “relative” expirience and universe express a laughable demonstration of the concept of free will in my opinion

Yeah, It could be. But i am sure that humans are not walking random generators: if free will isnt real, then we would see people randomly running pointlessly naked across the woods and doing pure nonsense.

:) it's really different that what we thought it to be.

It's a conscious don't. Versus a conscious do or automatic do.

I think you're not wrong in this. Can you link it to the idea of sonder? Because I for one can only perceive based on my own self.

Mine too. I mean, i can't really know if you are a robot, an ai, an alien, a human or someone else.

It sucks knowing that is not wrong. Hehe.

I noticed that my concept of a human without free will is similar to the story of Prometheus

And i can't really know if i am an evil clinically insane criminal that Is actually living an illusion and Is in reality making mafia business or terrorism, right?

A higher being molding us?

I mean, the concept that before acheiving reason and knowledge humans were just AI

Well, if we are mindless machines, as many people believe, why do we have a vague concept of free will?

coming up later today and tomorrow at 1500 CET, I and Streetli will be reading and discussing Bergson's laughter over Reddit Talk at Aristotlestudygroup

See you there.

I came to the conclusion that our brain Is similar to the holy Roman empire: each part of the brain vaguely recognizes the power of the mind (the mind only directly controls a small part of the brain), but a big part of the brain Is actually highly indipendent.

Not wrong. I guess the brain also does all things we know are automatic, heart, breathing, blood flow, etc., Organs. And the part where we try to exert our conscious behavior is left for the dependent one.

Because chemicals interact causing us to do stuff, and we act a few seconds later and all we perceive in a way as present is really the past.

Any fool with a mirror can see into the future. Any fool with a gun can kill. Any fool with a tool can farm. Any fool with a broom can clean. Any fool with a job can pay taxes. Any fool with two hands can lift. Any fool with two legs can run. But most fools choose not to. Any fool with a brain can be a pawn. Any fool dumb enough to be a fool Can be a fool. A fool will seek power in the wrong places. A fool will seek love in a whore house. A fool will seek imortality among mortals. A fool will find death where he didnt seek.

A byproduct of evolution. By our ability to mix and match what we experience. I think in a way, the idea came about.

Also based on what we talk, I guess imagination of something new, not just recall; is another free will ability.

Not wrong. I think what separates use from AI is the ability to imagine and act on those. The ability to think; therefore I am.

I was saying that also calculators can do that, but calculators in reality work on a "if this combination, then do this" system, unlike humans.

Yes, the ability to be in specific, to imagine.

If I make a mimic - like human. It must be programmed to do auto random stuffs. I think by so many iterations it can make human like results. But not like humans.

If then else for the functions. Then random act or crunching knowledge to make something new.

Creativity, probably is the highest for our level.

But someone would say that dall-e can do that too. In reality, that AI program just smashes pictures from the internet together.

Yes, they can mimic, but that will always be based on existing data. The thinking part would be to create something new.

If we can program something that can imagine, then truly, all that we are has been passed.

But when we humans create something new, we use real life existing objects . For example, you cannot think of a color your eyes can't see.

This is where experiments come into play. For which can be programmed into something. But the ability to make iterations will be the test.

After making this discussion, i started to become a bit sad: since a lot of humans have or never realized that their actions aren't fully conscious, does it mean that they are no different from machines? Does It mean that real humans are very rare? Since children often act impulsively and almost randomly, are they still humans? I don't like the idea of humans being for the most part aleatory slaves, people who have no choice but to serve a dice...

Not in terms that were able.

Probably something like 1/0=error.

It reminds me of the idea. If we are 2 dimensional beings and limited by all 2 dimensional limits, the God is 3+ dimensions, based on your definition. It's not something I can fathom.

It means that, for example: When you walk downstairs without thinking about the movements of your legs, you do it without wanting to basically. But when you realize that your legs are mindlessly walking downstairs, you realize how scary that lack of will was. Or, another simplier example: When you realize you are breathing, you start to breath wanting to do that.

Thought experiment.

You have to first think of something to do, then not do it.

How did this fare for you? Or did you try it?

This also proves free will, because you can separate the actions of your body from the actions of your mind. Now, many people say that mind and brain are the same thing, while they aren't at all. For example: an old man who became foolish and ignorant because of Alzheimer's still keeps his tastes, even though he doesn't know what does he like anymore.

It's hard to practice. We think, then not do. At least for me, for now. I need to work on it.

Atleast based on this experiment. Free will is the act of not doing what you thought to do first. I mean it's the easiest way to stop doing something.

It makes me idle and then pause to think what should I do right now.

That means that we should not do what we like, therefore going against our free will. Real example: this year i entered High school because i love to study the subjects there (in my country there are different types of High school). But since I should follow my free will, then i should change school and live a sad life with nothing i like. Ok, i realized that the reality Is that the concept of "free will is not real" is an illusion and that free will is real, but since we are really deep in it we can't see it anymore basically. We just discovered that free will is real and the lack of free will is an illusion. We humans are so limited to the point of denying ourselves.

Not wrong. But I think we can have this thought experiment also.

If the thought is something positive, defined as what is good for you, you can let it be. Sure it may not be free will but we don't have to suffer by default.

But if the thought is bad, killing someone with no reason or basis, instead of doing it, we can hold ourself accountable and not do it.

This of course means the idea of good or bad is based on our own personal ideal or nature.

After all this discussion, i want to admit that in reality i am a catholic christian, and i think that God wants us to make this questions in order to make our faith stronger. I don't know what religion or system of belief do you practice, but i respect your opinion too and please, don't pretend to be smart by calling me an idiot who blindly believes, because i go against blindly believing.

I don't mind. I think religion is not wrong if it teaches us to be accountable.

I see nothing wrong with believing in a God also based on the above.

It also aligns with the idea of free will.

Think of it this way, if you do something and it is good according to your observations, and if you don't stop it; then who ever controls you; is doing good thru you.

And if doing bad, you stop that, then you exercise free will.

Of course this will depend on your perception.

As for the idea of creation, I honestly don't know, but there must be a source. And I'd like to think, I think I've been influenced by reflexivity that, God is that which nothing is greater.

I don't think that knowing the future denies the will of humans. I think that God knows the future, but doesn't want to manipulate people and so he allows humans to be free. Even though he knows what Is going to happen, he writes human characters to be free. So, if God wrote a book in which humans are included, he would have wrote, in simple terms: "And so this day X person was born. Leaves empty space in which X can write"

Some interpret God to be like man. I think this to be wrong.

If God is that which nothing is greater then; such being I can't understand. I can only appreciate what I see and feel and express the free will.

Also believing in that definition; I fear such a being. Simply because said being can do what It will; and I have no say.

A simple example would be, if I am to dumb it down to something I can understand. If an author writes a story, does the written characters have a say?

As for the Bible or holy texts, whether they are factual, I honestly love them for the idea of accountability.

Because of my belief that nothing is 100% certain or knowable; I can't say its not written by people influenced by such a power.

The idea of hope - to be saved; the nearest thing I hold unto this is a saying by Marcus Aurelius and that is - this too shall pass.

If I am to liken myself to characters in the Bible, I honestly feel that - we should be in awe, frightened if such a being exists, and exercise that free will and enjoy the time we are here.

I think that the idea of God living on the clouds can be used in art and it's also a cool artistical concept, but that we shouldnt believe that Heaven Is like that: the idea of gods living in the sky comes from the olympian greek mythology, if i am not wrong.

You're not wrong. There has been similarities in the stories. It's like there is a template and has been spread and based on the current readers; they make it their own.

As we are able to think critically, comes progress. Exercise of imagination and the like. And the base format of that is in the stories.

Familiar with the heroes journey?

No, what Is "the hero's journey"?

It's the common template of most stories.

Hero is at his place of origin. Evil comes and hardship happens. Hero has to leave home and overcome trials. From those trial, he applies what he learns to beat the evil; when evil is broken, he then can return home a changed man/woman.

Most stories are like that. Imagine star wars 4-6. Or lord of the rings 1-3. Pendragon. King Arthur. Most myths in one way have this formula.

Animals don't have the idea of good and bad, they act like if someone was forcing them to do that stuff.

This story creates a cool concept: we can't pretend to be good if we have never fought evil. And i also dislike the concept that being a good person means NOT doing bad, rather than doing good.

They act based on instinct/patterns. As we do too. Except upon exercising the don't.

Yes, not doing bad is the way. Not doing is the exercise. As we did the thought experiment. It is not easy. It's hard. Haha

Maybe going against istinct is an example of free will?

We realized that the lack of free will is an illusion the mind of the soul creates to explain the limited brain in the limited body.

Yes, you will have to stop your nature if you truly want to.

Like I have this instinct to slap mosquitos because I once had dengue. So I consider them the enemy. But if at one time I choose not to slap them, that's pretty much against my instincts.

Yeah, i dislike this istinct of mindlessly killing mosquitoes. When i want to slap a mosquito, i try to do It using reason.

My guess is we simply didn't have the capacity to disprove it before. Now we have experiments capable of checking the chemicals in the brain.

The chemicals makes us do stuff. And stopping that is not automatic.

So the process will be don't move, think before you do. Think before you do.

We should accept that we don't have full control on our brain. Maybe God created us this way because It was needed to. Maybe the human mind is just very weak and has difficulty controlling the brain and istincts like anxiety or mosquito hate, but very strong compared to the animal mind (the animal soul probably isn't real).

The philosophy of leaving things better than you found them

"A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in"

-Greek proverb.

I´m quite interested the philosophy, and i would like to live by it as much as i can, but sometimes I do find myself questioning if it truly fulfills me or if I´m just telling myself to do it because it makes me feel better. I also know i should not expect any reward, for following this philosophy is the reward, however I also struggle with that sometimes. I would like to hear your thoughts and opinions, and I would also very much appreciate any paper/book or quote reccomendations concerning this philosophy as a whole. Thank you in advance.

I think you're not wrong. I also think we can't really function if somethings are not automatic. That's why it's really hard to make a synthetic lifeform.

Why is being located at every space and every time better than not being...? Is being six feet tall better than being five tall? Is being 50 years old better than being 40 years old? Is this principle only apply to occupying all of space and time vs. occupying less-or-no space and time at all?

I now think that the "scientists" who deny free will are just sadistic madmen who want to deny the obvious and make humans aleatory animals.

If they are scientists, then they will be convinced by experiments.

I understood that the brain works with chemical reactions, but there must be a cause of this chemical reactions. Maybe it's the soul causing the chemical reactions, like a man in a car.

The first cause in science is unknown for now. We have guesses, but it's really hard to say we know for sure because we can't go back in time.

What science has to offer is in the how. Like proximate causes.

Here's a thought experiment. Imagine a movie, you were not in from the beginning, but there in the middle.

In the middle you probably understand a portion of the story and can make a good guess based on the story so far, but can't say for certain how it all started.

And let's say a movie has a director. If we only saw the movie, it's really hard to imagine the director and how it came to be from the filming, actors, acting; synthesis of the final cut for distribution.

To me a God is that which nothing is greater. So that something greater, is not something I can comprehend. But I can observe what I can see and make sense of the present. Like I have an idea of using a camera, there are actors, etc., And the story the theme, the journey.

In my religion, God is infinitely bigger than nothing and, in order to be comprehended by our primitive weak minds, became a human in the year 0 AD.

My guess is, it's best to understand what we know now and see where it leads us than things we can't comprehend yet.

Atleast until we have the means via test.

I would like to know your thoughts about this pdf :) https://philosofer123.files.wordpress.com/2022/06/my-philosophy-of-life-6-18-22.pdf

Ok, from this discussion we discovered that:

1. free will is real
2. some actions of the body and of the brain are impossible for the mind to control
3. the mind, if smart enough, will believe at some point the absurd theory that free will is an illusion
4. this last statement will cause a paradox in which the mind uses its free will to deny its free will
5. the mind is so deep in the freedom of free will to the point of not being able to see it, like fish in water

1. Not wrong
2. The mind controls all, but we can only control consciously a few. This is to distinguish the auto mode vs the conscious mode. Example. Breathing as you watch tv is automatic, but you can slow it down or breathe fast. Thinking before doing and stopping a thought becoming an action if bad for us; is probably the highest form of it.
3. Not wrong. I observe we can be convinced to believe a lie. But we can also change our minds if we're shown the correct measure.
4. The act itself is not denial of free will but believing in falsehood or a non fact
5. The mind rarely exercises it since most of the time were in auto mode. Only when we exercise the act of stopping to think and deliberate action non action do we exercise it.

To quote a meme:

“Hypocrite that you are, for you trust the chemicals in your brain to tell you they are chemicals. All knowledge is ultimately based on that which we cannot prove. Will you fight? Or will you perish like a dog?”

• Mickey Mouse

The idea of the matrix is not wrong, but there's nothing wrong also with focusing on what we can sense even if it's limited. It comes to the point of which one can you live with.

If the Matrix was true, then the film Matrix in this world was actually created by the people of the real life Matrix that maybe were created by another Matrix and so on

If we really were like animals, who don't have the even to us misterious concept of free will, then we would, as said before, run mindlessly naked in the forests without a goal. But animals don't spend all their time running in the forests without a goal, therefore they have a primitive free will too. They even have primitive forms of the abilities humans have, they even have a primitive reasoning and primitive communication systems.

I had a crazy idea I'd like to share.

I had before an idea for the description of the being as such: there's the One (Being), there's the Multiple (the objects we get through senses), but then there's Intermediate Categories. These are the categories you get when you abstract from a multiple: I'm a multiple; but I'm a man, that is a human being, that is an animal and so on until you reach the Being.

So, in this idea, the sciences are what happens when you select an intermediate category and describe it. The techniques are when you get one and try to open its possibilities. I won't go further, it's not well descripted yet, but imagine there's the obvious difference between poetry for poets and poetry for literature theory.

Ok but then... I realized I may have got into this idea because I actually live a situation in life that's very odd. I liked so many things since birth that I got commitments with many people and techniques. I had to move from city sometimes, so I always had to restart things, but as it was since childhood, as a child I decided never forget the best I got in each place (and people), and it's cute and so, but actually turned out into a curious situation.

I, for instance, right now need to be at the same time a poet, a programmer, a clothing seller and a teacher. You can't see how crazy it is, but it did got me many ideas about what is life, how it works, how looks, language and knowledge influences a carreer and a social cyrcle and so on. That's a very enriching situation. Still, pretty shitty, I got smashed by the weight and right now have to restart life. Still, carrying the weight.

So then I had to start thinking starting my life for real. It means having more than one life. I realized yesterday that's the empiric source of my idea of the Being. Because first of all, I'm at the same time all of these things and none of them. It doesn't feel like being an actor, because although I have to act differently in each place, I'm not pretending. For instance, the poet and the seller need to have two different personalities, but I'm both of them.

I'm venting this because this at first kind of break the sense of identity. Each "life" I'd need to have to take these things serious have even a nickname on their own. But then I realized these are intermediate categories, while I, the truth self, is something before all of this. It's either the whole of them combined, but that's the price I have to pay for existence (I actually don't really like/identify with any of these lifes, although I feel positively resposible for them), or this empty self whose only property is to be curious. I'm essentially curious, then, but that, in time, means having a body and leaving a track necessarily. Thus, the price comes.

I then thought, but that's out of the point: if there could be an afterlife where the curiosity, without body, can live by itself and get knowledge without a price, that would be actually pretty fun.

Are the arguments against objective ethics/morality, motivated by persons unable to deal with shame and/or thier previous bad decisions? Similarly, do you people that believe in subjective ethics/morality do so because it is easier to just do/say whatever they want if they don't get caught?

Just a quick thought. I might edit if I can better adjust or articulate what I am think. Thanks in advance!

>Are the arguments against objective ethics/morality, motivated by persons unable to deal with shame and/or thier previous bad decisions?

Some might be, but others are motivated by the fact that those who advocate for an objective morality almost invariably have extremely poor arguments for their position. In other words, those who advocate for objective morality tend to not prove their position, and we are left wondering if their failure is due to them being just wrong. If it is objective, like other facts, such as rain falls from the sky, a demonstration of some type ought to be given, yet that isn't done, and they almost always end up appealing to someone's feelings about facts, rather than demonstrate some fact that is morality. Which suggests that what they are doing is really subjective instead of their claim that it is all objective.

Of course this also depends on how, exactly, one defines "objective" and "subjective" for morality. If, for example, we look at something like David Hume's ethical theory, what determines right and wrong are feelings, but not simply one person's preferences. It is based upon feelings of empathy, that are shared among people who are not regarded as psychopaths or sociopaths (and whose feelings are not corrupted with false beliefs). So, is that objective, since it is felt by many, or is it subjective, because it is based on feelings?

​

If anyone wants to read what Hume has to say about ethics, a good place to start is his Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals which can be found here (among other places):

https://davidhume.org/texts/m/

We are animals is not wrong. Animals has levels of intelligence is not wrong. Example. Ants do what they are programmed to do, and react based on instinct. However smarter animals like dolphins are able to appreciate pleasure. Smart still are killer whales who are able to discern not to bother humans.

If evolution is not wrong or whatever process came about where we are able to picture what we do outside of mere program pattern reaction to stimulus, then free will is exercised the moment we stop doing something we think is not proper.

If humans were created by God and not a product of evolution, then we must have an unknown feature that makes us different from animals.

Do you have a guess for what this unknown feature is?

Don't ants and bees have complex society structures, divisions of work and a monarchy government type? If they act instinctively, then the creation of a government Is a completely involuntary process.

The Spirit of God, i guess, but we really don't know what cognitive features should be considered "the soul".

The system or template may be involuntary. But the nuance, humans can exert their will. To not do a command, to defy a wrong order, to correct and rise to better the system or devolve into a worse one. Ants and bees don't do that. It's all for the proliferation of their kind.

My guess is it would be the ability to exercise free will. It's something that not all animals exercise. Or it's the one thing that sets us apart.

And I mean this by the idea that when you think of doing something - think it thru- then not do it.

Are you saying that some animals have free will? You mean us?

My guess is higher mammals are capable. Like primates, dolphins, and others. Even dogs if trained.

Us especially.

We act based on the chemicals but if we stop the effect of what was caused by the chemicals, that's your will and not automatic.

Like managing anxiety?

Like being able to control your anger. Like boom emotions flood wanting you to kill someone by punching etc , but you don't do it.

Now that i think about that, if people with down syndrome or other impairments were actually mindless, they would act by istinct and not by empathy and emotion.

If the brain has damage, then I'm not really sure. I can't really speak for those with my limited knowledge on the subject (special needs)

Maybe emotions (the human ones) are also part of the soul? I mean, the only emotion animals can have is fear, right?

Emotions are the effect of the chemicals. Our will is the reaction to not act based on those emotions or consciously use the emotions to do something.

Here's an example. When tired, look up with eyes open for 15seconds, you'll be awake and alert. Consciously choose to do that when you can take advantage of how said act affects you physically.

Then we should learn how to use emotions conscioslusly. For example: in a funeral, you obviously must cry, but when you do it, do it in a correct manner.

Of course, emotional control is a part of growing up. It's a skill. Until recently I dismissed it. But now knowing it's actual our own choice; free will, it's a must now.

Half of the comments in this post are in this discussion XD

Not wrong. I mean we're probably interested in this sort of stuff :)

I have a theory that space-time cannot be a hyper-cube of infinite volume, like in usual 4-axis representation where each axis is linear. Instead each axis must be circular, in a way. Like in computers, a limited data type is subject to overflow. Like in my noise algorithm, Ihave a 2D representation of "space" that wraps, there are also 3D and 4D ones. Space-time is 4D, supposedly, but it cannot be a hypercube of infinite volume. Like in my noise algorithm, where each edge of the square of "space" coincides with the opposite edge, In 4D, each cube of the hypercube would be on top on the opposite one. To represent coordinates logically, or operate on them in limited time, the data types must have limits. The main point is this:a linear spacetime of infinite volume does not have a possible logical representation (i think), so it can not be the truth. The implications of this are massive. And, it seems to be possible at the very least. Don't you think? Of course, this is just a way of speaking, time is not a line or a circle. But I think a circle is a more appropriate metaphor.

What do you prefer? To be forever a killer? Or forever a giver of life?
It is objectively true that I prefer the latter.

Please read my poem? If the totality of consciousness is God, and time is a circle more than a line, then he is infinite in life-span and in greatness, and we are the fingers of his hand. God pronouns are complicated.. Should probably be they. Elohim, God, him, her, and they.

The Correct Theory of Epistemology

​

To have correct beliefs about the universe it is necessary to know how humans can acquire knowledge. Any being that can get knowledge must have a mind. A mind can know when something has changed or effected it. Anything that can effect the mind is something that the mind can be aware of. Different senses indicate that there are different sense organs, and effects in the world such as light and sound. One thing a mind is sure of is what senses it has. What is real and existent is what can effect the mind.

Humans can know about causality, and knowing how they can know this is needed in epistemology. A mind cannot exist without time also existing because all thoughts are a process with duration. Humans could expect or believe that causality would be violated which means how they are right about causality always being obeyed in the real world must be explained. There are examples that show that the human brain could accept violations of causality in Time Travel which is a concept invented by humans in fiction. The belief that causes are before effects is based on noticing certain changes in the world always are preceded by different similar changes where there is an increase of entropy. There are always usually some effects currently observable, so time always seems to pass for all humans. If a human were the only object in a universe it would seem that time were nonexistent. The ability for a mind to think causality is likely is no different from its ability to notice any other pattern. You could notice letters are always in alphabetical order as an example of another pattern. In both the example of causality and an order in letters a single direction is used and a single mental model. The direction is toward the future for causality and whatever direction the list of letters is read in. The single model is a "list" that must be read in a certain direction(otherwise the letters are not connected and random) and a single timeline or calendar for causality. Belief in causality is based on probability.

Everything in the knowable world has the common property that it can effect everything else in the world. Motion is something universal to everything in the world and space and time are connected to everything. Models can be universal because of how spacetime connects everything. The principle of uniformity of nature can be adopted when attempting to understand the universe. A model can be tested by seeing if there are any contradictions in it, and by testing its predictions. If you say x is true,and whenever x is true y must be true and y is found to be false than x cannot be true. A good example would be testing the model that says heaver things fall faster. A light thing should fall slowly, and the model also says a heavy thing should fall quickly. However if both are attached to each other the model predicts that it should fall faster and slower at the same time which is a contradiction. Another example would be the model that everyone has died. If everyone had died, then cars must not be driven since people drive them. You can observe cars being driven, and know that everyone has not died even if you do not see the people in the cars. The model of gravitation can be tested with the same method, and will always be confirmed. It predicts an asteroid not moving sideways and falling around the Earth like the Moon will instead hit the Earth with a different path. These paths observed in real life are very similar to the model. Gravity is confirmed.

One of the biggest problems in epistemology is beliefs/models that are false but seem true. Most religions are examples of these. Religions are believable because they say significant things about morals, and events in the past which cannot be tested with experiments. It is difficult to know all predictions that result from beliefs and to know all evidence/observations that would count as a test of them. Religions contain many beliefs, and it would be impossible to think about a whole religion rather than small parts of it which makes them harder to test and more believable. Many people simultaneously believe that God can account for everything, and that religions say something significant about how they should live. These two beliefs contradict each other, and the problem of not understanding a whole model prevents most from seeing this. God could not account for actual morals if the morals of a religion were wrong, and this could be used as a test. However most people think no matter what happens God could have explained it meaning a religion is non-falsifiable and does not say anything significant morals. Models or beliefs that explain many things like religions should be separated into easily understood claims that can be tested. People often believe what they wish were true rather than what is true, and this makes them happier. Beliefs you wish were true should be doubted and seen as potentially wishful thinking. For most people it is equally impossible to test quantum mechanics as it is to test religion because most people are not intelligent enough to imagine a Hilbert Space or to remember every single experiment that tested Quantum Mechanics.

Ethical beliefs are seen as knowledge by many people. Ethical beliefs come from peoples emotions being seen as something universally important. Is pain bad in outer space, a place with no humanity? Pain does not exist there, and ethical beliefs do not apply there. Not everyone's happiness has a large effect on everyone else's which could make it seems that ethics are not real and ethical nihilism is true but considering all of humanity as moral agents and summing up the happiness of all humanity is possible. In the future ethical beliefs which are incorrect should be replaced with an awareness of everyone's natural empathy, it effect on their happiness, and the most economical way to create the society that everyone would prefer to live in with the greatest aggregate/sum utility. The idea that values are universal and not particular to human beings is not true. Ethical systems are similar to religions, pure mathematical systems, and philosophy which are sort of hallucinations. Morals seem to be a different type of thing that needs different explanation for how humans can acquire knowledge of them, but they are actually false beliefs based on applying ones own emotions to the whole world incorrectly. Once it is understood how humans often fail to accurately get knowledge about the world it shows how they actually get knowledge.

[removed]

Utilitarians don't necessarily think that utilitarianism is a guide to behaviour or assigning moral responsibility. They might even reject the usual sense in which we're concerned about moral responsibility since, if utilitarianism is true, punishment and reward ought to be apportioned based on utility rather than deserts.

At its minimum, utilitarianism is just a theory about what constitutes the good. That it might fail to inform behaviour or judgement certainly looks like a problem at face, but it's not clear that this means we should reject it in this latter sense.

see, e.g., https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/#WhiConActVsExpCon

Morality and concept of heaven

Heaven in christianity(catholic and orthodox) is not only beyond concept of morality, ethics but also immoral in some sense. Imagine a situation: you have killed a person, normal human being, who you surely know did not go to heaven, therefore is in hell, suffering, (imagine how great their suffering is, imagine it from christian perspective, (christ says that a second in hell is unbarable) )How can u even have a will of going to heaven, when u know that because of ur sin, crime someone is suffering for eternity. What would u do as christian? You would repent and try your best to go to heaven. does it sound immoral? of course it does and it is in some sense.

Plot twist: because you feel that killing someone who is evil is part of gods work, that eliminates any guilt in your conscience. That would be the main Christian belief

[deleted]

Definition of knowledge

The classical definition of knowledge is "justified true belief", that is, a person knows a proposition if the following conditions are met. 1 - The person believes in the proposition. 2.- The proposition is true. 3.- The person is justified in believing the proposition.

However, there are counterexamples where all 3 conditions are met but there does not seem to be knowledge.

Suppose you see on TV how your team won a soccer tournament. So you think they won, it is true that they did, and you are justified in believing it, because seeing it on TV is a good reason to believe it, therefore you know that your team won.

Now suppose that the television station made a mistake without your noticing and instead of broadcasting this year's game, it broadcast last year's replay, in which your team also won. So you believe that they won, it is true that they did, and you are justified in believing it, because the reasons why you believe it are the same as in the previous case and we had said that they were good reasons, however it does not seem that you know that they won this year, it was just a coincidence that your team won both times.

So we have to change the definition of knowledge, what seems to me the best solution is to add the following condition. 4.- The person does not have any false beliefs relevant to the proposition. Where a belief relevant to a proposition is a belief such that if you did not believe it you would no longer be justified in believing the proposition.

So the counterexample no longer works. The false relevant belief is that the game you saw was this year's tournament, if you had not believed that, you would no longer be justified in believing that your team won this year, so the fourth condition is not met and therefore you do not know that they won.

What do you think of this solution? Does it look good to you? Or what do you think is the solution?

Logic cannot disprove free will in favor of hard determinism

The big, ancient question: can free will and deterministic causality coexist?

We can trivially answer:

A) yes. I perceive causality, I perceive free will, this is what is offered to me originally, in the flesh and bones, and this is it.

However, several people would answer:

B) no, because deterministic causality and free will are not LOGICALLY compatible.

A first B1) argument usually looks like this.

If all reality is governed by the principle of causality, and therefore if every phenomenon/event is pre-determined by other phenomena/events, according to well-defined physical laws, then this will also necessarily apply to the person/subject's actions and thought: therefore there is - there cannot be - no room for free will.

This formulation seems to me to be a classic circular reasoning (therefore fallacious, or at any rate tautological) in the sense that it implicitly assumes the very thing it seeks to prove: the premise (all reality is deterministically causal) already contains the conclusion (if "ALL" reality is deterministically causal then necessarily the actions and thoughts of men -- which are part of reality -- will also be deterministically causal).

Therefore,we will have to opt for a B2) variant.

We start from the observation a of a "weaker" and less dogmatic causality (we observe the existence of causality without assuming from the premises that "everything is always causal," otherwise we would fall back to B1). And let's say that from this premise we can come to LOGICALLY affirm its incompatibility with free will.

It's not important which logical steps might lead us to this result. Let us simply assume and admit that from X (I observe causality in the world-of-things) -we can develope an impeccable logical reasoning -> and in the end conclude Y (there is no free will, because what we call free will - our thoughts and actions and decisions - is causally pre-determined).

However, a corollary of Y is necessarily that the very activity of "impeccable logical thinking/reasoning," is also totally subjected to causal pre-determination. And not only with regard to the development of the reasoning process, but also with regard to its very "use" as a instrument to resolve the present question. I was going to write "with regard to the methodological choice to use logic to solve the free will problem"... but at this point to speak of "choice" would be paradoxical, wouldn't it?

Now, this corollary tends to be warmly welcomed by supporters of determinism. Logical reasoning (like mathematics, moreover) is used as a method of inquiry, it develops and it comes to its conclusions **by virtue of invincible necessity ** (not choice or discretion).

And THIS is what - according to some - makes this method "certain," secure and reliable.

But doesn't this also ultimately make B2 circular?

Let's examine a classic example of flawed circular reasoning:

That God exists corresponds to the truth. Why? Because the Bible says/proves that.

And why would the Bible be reliable?

Because the Bible is the absoulte and Word of God (it's "God's intended key to understand the world".)

Reformulated and adapted:

That Reality is totally deterministic, with no room for free will, corresponds to the truth. Why? Because Logic says/proves that.

And why would Logic be reliable?

Because Logic is the necessary instrument given to us by the deterministc Reality (it is the key of interpretation direclty and invincibly imposed on us by Reality itself)

This is the criticality underlying the totality of pan-deterministic systems.

How to evalue the knowledge one acquires from them, insofar as it cannot be conceived that the prefaced introduces a novative/modifying element within the pre-given configuration of the system?

I'm not a hard determinist, but aren't you just strawmanning the position here? I think most HD would agree with you that begging the question is fallacious.

I don't think so.

Let us assume that Reality is indeed deterministic, and that this inevitably and certainly leads to the impeccable logical inference of the non-existence of free will, of choice, of critical thinking etc.

OK, only one thing remains to be asked. Why would logical reasoning be a good method of dealing with the problem?

The only answer can be: because logical reasoning, it's election as a method, its development and its inevitable conclusions -- the full package -- is also, inevitably given and pre-determined.
If reality is deterministic, we are deterministically driven to use logic to prove that reality is deterministic.
And there you are, stuck in a circular reasoning, therefore invalid according to the canons of logic itself.

Hey,

Are you familiar with Descartes and his meditations on first philosophy? So do you remember where he goes into how people come to know things they've never had access to, like perfect beauty? So do you remember his argument about not being able to know a thing from the negation of that thing?

If you're familiar with this argument can you break down why you can't come to know a thing from the absence of that thing? I remember understanding this when I first read the book but now that I'm thinking about it years later I don't seem to have the argument lined up in my mind. Can you help? I did a quick Google search and I don't see any exact references and explanations of this line I find interesting.

Thanks in advance.

>If all reality is governed by the principle of causality, and therefore if every phenomenon/event is pre-determined by other phenomena/events, according to well-defined physical laws, then this will also necessarily apply to the person/subject's actions and thought: therefore there is - there cannot be - no room for free will.

>This formulation seems to me to be a classic circular reasoning (therefore fallacious, or at any rate tautological) in the sense that it implicitly assumes the very thing it seeks to prove:

Point of departure: The universe is governed by the principle of causality.

P2 The principle of causality suggests all phenomenon/events are the consequence, and predetermined by, other [causal] phenomenon/events.

P3 People are phenomenon of the universe

C Therefore people's actions and behaviour are also governed by the principle of causality.

I don't see how this argument begs the question. I think it's just concluding something besides what you think it does, that human action is predetermined not that the universe is.

Because, if C Is true, it necessarly means that the process of going from PoD to P2 to P3 to C is also a phenomen governerd by the principle of causality.

So, essentialy, you're saying that everything is predetermined because you are predetermined to say so.

Which is logically invalid, circular.

Hi. I’ve been on an existentialism kick lately and I find it compelling and a lot of older philosophers and literary figures get labeled honorary existentialists (Dostoyevsky, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard,…). Almost to the point where it seems like anything could go under this umbrella if you squint hard enough.

Are there any particularly “anti” existentialist novels or philosophers? I’m not really looking for arguments against existentialism; more examples of works of philosophy or art as far removed from existentialism as possible.

If I were smarter it would be obvious. I’m guessing most any deeply religious work focused on heavenly rewards would fit the bill.

I believe I get what you're saying but I don't believe the argument is circular. Your criticism seems to be that you believe the argument isn't sound because it's a consequence of predetermination, not that the argument isn't valid per se. What I see in the argument is "everything is predetermined, I'm a thing, I'm predetermined," which by itself seems logical.

I think your objection is epistemological, you're questioning how you can know a thing is predetermined if your idea about that thing is the consequence of predetermination, am I correct?

yes, the argument can be logical per se, internally coherent let's say, but if we "zoom out" taking with us the results and "update" our knowledge with that, the consequence is that epistemological objection.

you believe that reality is deterministic just because you are deterministically forced to believe so.

Logic does not give any additional value or to that belief, being logic reasoning nothing more than a deterministc phenomenon forcing you to that conclusion.

I think absurdism could be seen as the opposite of existentialism because instead of saying a meaning must be found for life it says life is inherently meaningless and absurd and finding a meaning is impossible. I am not sure what exactly you mean by opposite.

hell and morality of the creator

I want to start from the begining. I have heard people say many times that anihilation is better than eternal suffering I am trying to articulate my thoughts and feelings about anihilation. One part of me understands the statement, why anihilation is better than suffering but the other part does not understand it since anihilation is not exisntence, but absence of existence it can not be compared to neither happiness nor suffering. Can anyone present their thoughts about the subject?

Good day. I watched this YouTube video from then & now https://youtu.be/C5mf_G-U8nw. What do you think of it is equality natural?

I agree that logic alone doesn't say anything about free will or determinism. Logic is all about language and pure reasoning. We make some rules and see what follow from these rules. Logic is not about causality. If you come up with a logic (formal system), all the consequences of that logic are instantaneous and eternal, the formal system didn't 'cause' those logical consequences -- they have always been there, just not known. Logic is not about cause and effect through time, it's about timeless truths from assuming concepts.

In physics, not all things have a 'cause', 'virtual particles' pop up from existence and disappear without detection, and their energy has been measured. Physical entities are different from abstract entities. Abstract ones are timeless (an And function, numbers,...) and physical ones are bound by time. The universe behaves in a certain way but for all we know it could have been different. To find the truth about free will, we need to learn more about the rules of the reality we exist in -- what rules does our reality follow?

In annihilation the sum of pain and pleasure is zero, unlike how in eternal suffering pain is more than the pleasure so the sum total is less and therefore worse. Both pain and pleasure could be seen as on the same scale , like how negative and positive numbers are on a number line. The common unit would be utility of the person. Anihilation can be compared to an very painful afterlife because it would have an effect on the total happiness of the dead person, like how zero is on the number line. They can be compared because a person could prefer one to the other naturally. The state of deep sleep gives us someone idea of what annihilation might be like, and although we are always conscious we could experience stopping some of our senses with things like blindfolds. This would allow annihilation to be compared to eternal suffering. If we wish for everyone to be as happy as possible than
annihilation would be perhaps a better option than eternal suffering. I do not believe that eternal suffering would exist after death, instead I think some random mind in the future or past or annihilation would be experienced.

In the literature this is referred to as the "No False Lemma" solution and while there are potential problems with it, I'd say it's a pretty good solution to the problem.