I understand the situation you keep stating.

I'm not seeing how you are stating it as such.

Why would I go through the same door everytime?

What if one of the doors had an apple on it?

How are the atmospheric conditions always identical? (oh, because this is a simulation*, you said, my bad)

How does determinism apply to non-particle interactions, specifically how is this being stated?

Edit: Maybe I see, so this is simulation theory masquerading as "determinism".

Thank you for the excellent comment.

In my view, a human as a whole - body, thoughts, actions, etc. - at each moment is a dynamic product of genetics, life experiences, and external circumstances (or, more precisely, external influences). The last two elements are ever-changing and interact between themselves and our genetic structure.

We think that we have free will because we have more choices compared to, let's say, a stone. But our free will is an illusion because a human's reactions are as pre-defined as stone's.

>If not my own choice, was it my own action?

Of course! Why wouldn't it be?

again, you seem to fundamentally not understand the problem. What are your choices? They are comprised of some set of neurons firing in one way or the other. Why do those neurons fire the way they do? well, their reactions are electrochemical, based on the strength of the stimulus in and out, and the relative amplification, or damping of the signal within the neuron. This all follows physical laws.

Now tell me... where, in this web of firing neurons is the "choice" exactly? everything just reacts to a prior cause, including all the parts of your brain. Unless, as I've stated before, you are willing to argue that the brain is magic, and is not beholden to these laws.

This is the opposite of an argument from ignorance. I'm not saying "I have no idea how free will could work", I'm saying that based on everything we know about how the brain works, and how physics works, the illusion of choice does not translate to actual choice.

The balance of probabilities makes some more equal than others, therein lies the problem we're forced to accept

In and of itself randomized outcomes to similar situations do provide equality. It is not much of a comfort on an individual level however

If you right now appeared in front of a set of doors and had to choose one to go through, you would choose a certain door.

If we then wiped your memory and reset the door simulation you would choose to go through the same door every time you were forced to go through the simulation.

Nobody is trying to measure how much you like apples

How are you measuring how much I like apples?

How are you stating I would do "the same thing everytime"?

Everybody stop philosophy - this guy figured it out.

So... capital. Money is a symbol for capital. Its amazing how much of a selective reader you are. Also if you read your own comment a few more times you can see that trade is an important element of wealth. People trade their wealth with each other, so no one actually creates wealth out of thin air.

No: the elements of the universe follow necessarily from each other, can not be anything other than they are. But the very fact that anything is at all is unnecessary in that there might as well be nothing. The drama follows a necessary path, but the drama itself is an unnecessary phenomenon. There doesn't need to be a universe. But there is. And that's beautiful.

You may be knowing the rules but try to hide them somewhere in your brain for sake of your convenience.

Money isn't wealth - it's just a symbol for it, so you don't have to barter item for item. Wealth is what the money stands for - which is basically anything people are willing to trade you for.

Fair enough.

Well I'm wagering it on ice cream

And the ceo of the company gets their share, right? No they get significantly more.

No, I am saying that the universe is deterministic. Its basic particles don't have choices. A ball bearing pushed rolling down a forking path at a particular angle must go left. A person starting on the same path will see that it forks, will recognize that there is a choice, and may shift right instead. You argue that the "choice" is an illusion, because you can't explain how a non-choosing system gave rise to choosing beings. That's fine. I've seen people say the same of consciousness, and even (more rarely) of life. But the truth is that that in all cases amounts to no more than an argument from ignorance, a sort of fit of pique because science not only doesn't explain any of these things very well but probably can't.

Im sure the child workers in the vein of matchstick girl would be super enthusiastic that they had been saved from those awful dark ages.

Okay let me ask something else, what do you think wealth is? Cause i feel like we are talking about completely different things. When i say wealth, i mean the money (or the capital) you own and i think a lot of people will agree with me on that. Also for the book example, you know preordering is a thing right?

Let me elaborate.

Each human as a whole - body, thoughts, actions, etc. - is a dynamic product of genetics, life experiences, and external circumstances (or, more precisely, external influences). The last two elements are ever-changing and interact between themselves and our genetic structure.

So, back to our example: the toddler chooses a banana over an apple. Why?

There can be many obvious and not obvious reasons for that choice.

Maybe it's color or taste or neuro association in the child's brain or whatever.

What matters is t-1 moment before the first *choice*, the combo of genetics, life experiences, and external circumstances was out of the toddler's control. And that combo made the toddler choose a banana over an apple.

So, why do we call it free will if the toddler had no control over choosing a banana or apple?

A human's existence from conception to death is a sequence of moments -- seconds, milliseconds, and so on. Do we agree that up until some moment, a human cannot exercise a free choice? What free choice a newborn baby has?

Can we also agree that up to the moment of the first manifestation of what we view as a free choice, the prior moment has a combo of genetics, life experiences, and external circumstances that are out of the child's control?

Each process and action has a beginning and end within a human's lifetime. So, what moment can we define as the beginning of free will?

In other words, can we define a moment when a person separates himself from a combo of genetics, life experiences, and external circumstances?

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Certainly I don’t want employers earning a profit off of the work of their employees. Certainly no more than they are making at maximum.

The value that each person contributes would have to be tallied and paid in full. It was a simplistic example.

Someone receives the books and someone buys new ones, I guess you have to chop the value of each book sold into pieces.

That’s kind of a coop model. Then if you want to go full socialism, the workers own the means of production so there’s no books to buy or utilities to pay.

>What im trying to say is, wealth and value are seperate things. Of course wealth can be produced and grown, im not arguing that. But to produce that wealth, first someone needs to agree on the value you placed on something, and they need to actually give you their wealth in order for you to produce it.

Why? You don't normally pay the author of a book you buy for the book before you buy it, do you?

>Can you answer me how can one generate wealth, or money, without someone else giving up their own wealth?

The same way one produces anything - through their own productive effort.

Not just physical…

>If I work at a bookstore and sell 10 $10 books, I do not receive $100. That’s what it means for a worker to receive the full value of the work they do. What would the business owner get under this arrangement, don’t know, the value of whatever books they sell also.

Then you have merely failed to understand the value of labor. The value of the labor of a clerk at a bookstore is not equal to value of the books she sells. The value of the book is precisely the sum of the values added by the author, the publisher, the distributors, the bookstore, and, yes, even the sales clerk. She gets compensated for her portion of that value.