ok, you're going with magic then. that's fine.

There is neither anyone left to observe. It is impossible to meet death because it would require an oxymoronistic self to observe the process of dying and the post mortem status. How is nothing absurd or insane? Unless you have learned sayings by heart and now you are only repeating these mental scripts that don’t have a meaning.

I'm saying I don't believe the output of religion could destroy the ecosystem of Planet Earth with the same efficiency that the output of science is now doing.

Do you believe that religion is capable of it, and if so could you explain how?

[removed]

>Now tell me... where, in this web of firing neurons is the "choice" exactly?

No idea! Nevertheless I am aware of having choices. I still don't see why your inability to explain why should cause me to doubt the reality of my experience.

>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.

Yes, physics can't explain it, any more than it can explain life or consciousness, because those things are all emergent properties of complex systems, not direct consequences of simple actions.

Idk, and at least that (morals) line of thought has real roots and real applications (diminished capacity, et al).

What irks me is still this "if physics is determinable, then ofc everything is predestined and free will is an illusion #ironclad".....

You have a very narrow idea of fate and belief if you think there's any irony to what I've said. Don't take things so seriously!

I mean yes it could theoretically be predicted given infinite knowledge and understanding but the point is more about morals.

Like how can we morally punish someone for doing something they could never choose not to do?

Not exactly, but the thought experiment extrapolation (anti-free will/predestination) seems to be based on such.

You’re free to have faith in your own lack of freedom sure, if that makes you feel better.

Ironic considering your determinist position.

Do you think the idea of determinism is meant to be predictive of future behaviour?

Something I learned as I was learning about art is rules are nothing more than causal relationships between actions and consequences. Some Rules are made as an attempt at curving the behavior of the collective into a societal norm others are inherent to our biology. An example in film making is as a general rule the horizon should always be parallel with the frame as a canted horizon will make the audience uneasy. Well what about when you want the audience to feel uneasy. Then that rule becomes a tool for story telling.

Not all Rules are written but all exist none the less. Long before the laws of gravity where described by Newton people were falling down and picking things up. But the better we understood the rules the more powerful the tool became. Culminating in nuclear power and space travel. When you understand a rule and why it exists it goes from being a restriction to being a fulcrum to balance against. Suddenly the thing holding you back can catapult you beyond your peers. Rules aren't made to be broken they are discoveries to be made and understood. Rules are tools.

I do understand what you mean

Because choices are seemingly made from a near infinite pool of inputs, and due to local or hyperlocal conditions those inputs are not consistent.

Which means, without simulation fantasy, that we have two major problems:

1. There is no way to differentiate whether I picked the door I was always going to or did I pick the other one.

2. There is no way to determine how the door was chosen, so even if we could solve #1, it would still be an infinite trial and error.

Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems the argument is "well what if people were just like protons".

Sheesh, I meant sin as it relates to a it’s harm to society.

Today I ate fried rice, salad with walnuts and a little bit of skyr skyr.

No one can ever prove that (A) could have led to (C) rather than (B); nor can one, as it stands, prove that it could only lead to (B); because the only reality we have access to is the one in which (A) indeed did lead to (B). In the absence of cold hard proof, I am left with only intuition and faith.

I do not believe that, if we could rewind time and let it proceed again, anything different would occur. That's the long and short of it. That idea doesn't fill me with existential dread, because it quite literally changes nothing about how I inhabit the world – except that it gives me a poetic sense of contentment and soothes some fears.

Ha! well, no but I do think most of our problems can be traced back to wanting more than we need.

The problem is for the most part those natural psychopaths are our ruling class because their behavior is rewarded by the current structure. To be clear I am not espousing communism, just a regulatory structure focused on rewarding our other virtues and penalizing greed. Heavily regulated capitalism is probably our only option at this point.

We did cover this.

>Observe that saying that event E is contingent is the same thing as saying that event E is “not necessary,” and saying that event E is necessary is the same thing as saying that event E is “not contingent.”
>
>So “necessary” and “contingent” are inter-definable. Be aware of that.

In his words, another way to write the thesis would be: No events are contingent.

While I like your comment and appreciate your perspective, I disagree that thinking about the existence of free will is an impractical exercise with disastrous consequences. At least in my case, an idea about hard determinism gives me peace of mind and feel of harmony in our seemingly chaotic world.

You cannot prove that the elements follow necessarily.

They follow contingently.

That’s my point.

I don’t get what you are trying to prove

Yup it’s a thesis.

But you should ask your professor the difference between necessary and contingent facts.

The question is why would you ever choose something different