I'm a physicalist, and I believe life and consciousness are processes and not something out of the physical world

sounds about right to me.

There’s no reason for the will to be an illusion, even in determinism. Determinism and underterminism are both compatible with taking the mind seriously, as an agent. It’s called ‘compatibilism’. — Olivier5

Ignoratio elenchi, I know what compatibilism is lol.

This is somewhat referenced from Albert Camus “A Happy Death”. When the man was facing death, he appreciates the fact that he existed and that somewhat gave his life some meaning. — Josh Lee

I fail to see the meaning in death truly, its why I kind of disagree with Camus and Sartre on a lot of stuff, they still manage to try to fit in some sort of meaning, when I believe there would never be.

But from your (3) it also follows that you can't control your very argument, so how can you believe in it? That's exactly my problem. — Pippen

you have the illusion of so,
so when you believe in it, you didn't truly will to, does that mean its incorrect? no
it just means that you didn't get to choose to believe it, like everything else, and if everyone can logically reach the same conclusion we can assume its correct, that's truly what it boils down to.

I don't see how this changes anything in determinism, or the notion of it,

Many neurobiologists conclude from premises X, Y, Z to the conclusion that our will is unfree. But that means that their very argument is based on unfree reasoning, i.e. having no alternatives, undermining any confidence or justification in that process and therefore in the conclusion. If you have no choice what to think it's basically circular reasoning: you can just hope your one way is right, no other chance since no other way. — Pippen

Unfree reasoning doesn't entail a conclusion being false, this notion that determinism defeats every action is quite false, it doesn't, you still have the illusion of your own will,
and also now you've created a paradox, either neurobiologists prove determinism with their free will, disproving it, but they also already proved determinism, so this stops making sense,
or they prove determinism and are determined to prove it, so they do, it wouldn't be circular reasoning, since proving its existence in an argument doesn't have "I was determined to" as a premise.
and it wouldn't be self refuting, its the same as saying I exist in the universe.

my thoughts is that, there isn't one, even if there is, it would be truly pathetic or boring, or I would become a slave to either pleasure or pain, it would be pointless to even have an afterlife.

thank you!

Life has no meaning, and its purpose is just to make more itself but more complex,
even with an after life or immortality, life would be meaningless, as it would make any action truly futile, especially in a deterministic world like ours, and you would truly just be a slave of existence and immortality.

being happy is the only meaning to life, but that only sounds like a way to prevent sadness and suicide. — TiredThinker

being happy is very subjective, often comes at the price of others' happiness, and doesn't last as much as suffering.

Can we properly examine life while still alive? — TiredThinker

yes we can, via rationalism, and viewing ourselves in the third person instead of our own eyes, then having our peers try the same and see if we have the same findings

ultimately in my opinion, life cannot truly ever have a meaning.

You might find Wheeler's PAP interesting then... — 3017amen

got any good reads related to that?

she ain't as funny as Elon Musk, honestly thats my consideration for US politics, who is more funny

Depending, who does the truth benefit? and why is it benefitting?
if the truth will only cause harm and danger it is not worth upholding, but if it benefits people, then yes as it would be a moral ought

Is there a specific reason why you wouldn’t? — Possibility

I don't see the reasoning behind it being in the quantum level, but again it's still a possibility.

The earlier without the latter is where we wish to be, however this is impossible due to the fact that we will face suffering later on.
The latter without the earlier is what nihilism seems like, where they await the demise of their life. — Josh Lee

I would not use happiness but peace,

Hence I somewhat conclude, when you’re able to embrace death as the end to your suffering while also appreciating the fact that you’ve existed. Being able to balance these ideas is where you can rebel against the fact that “life has an ulterior meaning” while also living life as it is. — Josh Lee

Why would you appreciate the fact of you existing? why would you do that may I ask?

Anywho what you're saying is correct, but I'd say the longing for living and life in Camus' works is a clear manifestation of his will to live, so the fact that someone lives would be meaningless to appreciate or not, and peace would be hard to find in the suffering found in that one life.

That’s because it’s pure speculation. How would one even begin to test such a theory? — Possibility

I believe it could be tested mathematically only, we cannot actually test a lot on the quantum level,
for me I wouldn't go into the quantum level for consciousness, but its still a possibility I guess.

the quantum-level arrangement of an integrated system in superposition. — Possibility

I would love to see any study/article about so,
in my research I've never noticed a connection to superposition.

Done by human action using their free will — Outlander

Nope, their actions were determined too, and you keep going back, for it all to be determined.

omewhere down the line there's some guy doing what he wanted to just because. The guy who created the lottery company chose to do so? The workers chose to work in said store versus another? The shipping company founder chose to start up the company? — Outlander

Choice is an illusion as I illustrated, in order to choose you must want to choose that specific thing, you cannot control your wants, or outside forces, so you truly have no free will of your own here.

Well, and I can gather the response already, say he literally flipped a coin one day and decided to either spend his last extra entertainment money either on renting a movie or buying a lottery ticket. That coin flip- and nothing else- literally determined him buying the lottery ticket. I suppose we'll say it's literally the exact amount of force used as determined by whatever circumstance determined his mood at the time of flipping... that determined precisely how many times the coin would flip and what side it would land on, yeah? — Outlander

a coin flip, would be interesting to say the least, here he didn't actually choose himself, the coin chose for him, he still doesn't have free will, meaning it's still determined.

I dunno... sure. Every cause has to have an effect. We're getting into the territory of refuting Newton's Laws of Motion at that point. But human will generally determined things again if not somewhere down the line. I think that's what we're forgetting. — Outlander

I personally don't believe there is any randomness to any living beings actions,
because in order for an action to be truly free it has to not be affected by anything else, not even the self,

The thing I explained about wants defeats any notion of such, since you have to want to do something in order to do it, otherwise you're forced to do it, but one could say, there may have been, a totally random action, however improbable, that was done once, not affected by anything, and that action would have been different if we went back in time, it would prove some randomness, although it wouldn't prove free will, because free will requires an agent of it.

Other people's free will determines other people's choices. Agree or disagree and why?

Bonus: Thoughts on the butterfly effect concept and resulting book and later movie? — Outlander

Hmm I agree kind of, I would say other people's determined actions determine other people's actions to and so on, this would be Hard determinism.

The Butterfly effect is a really interesting concept, one that is deterministic, and perhaps has truth, everything down the line will determine other actions and condition many other things, its like the domino effect, just more complex.
I've never read the book personally, as for the movie it was a 6/10 for me.

the disk rotating is, the actual process of rotating isn't necessarily.

Yes I would agree, that is exactly my position

If I understand correctly, and agree with much of it, our circumstances in which we make choices or otherwise determine what choices can be made is largely if not entirely outside of our control? — Outlander

Correct

I get that. The average person has an average job and isn't a millionaire. He cannot go on crazy vacations more than a few times a year or splurge on things like second homes, boats, Rolex watches, etc. And- even if he does "randomly" win the lottery and all that changes, you'd insist on saying it really was not random and he was simply determined or dare I say "destined" to win the lottery. Right? — Outlander

Yes, because all the actions done by the production and lottery company, and the store, and all the workers, and shipment, lead for that lottery ticket to be there, and his conditions, his inability to control his wants, his past experiences and actions lead him to buying that specific lottery ticket.

I guess the question that needs to be asked is what would you say would need to happen/what circumstances would a reality have where there is your definition of free will and how does that compare to the one we live in now? — Outlander

ok, so the definition of free will generally is: the ability to choose to have done otherwise.

so if I chose A instead of B one day ago, if we go back, I would have the ability to choose B instead and would choose B.

so a person needs to one, not be affected by any outside condition or sense, so we need to remove the world and his body (count as senses), and then he needs not to be affected by himself, his psychic and wants, and therefore we remove his brain, then you can have free will we could say, but then he doesn't exist and there won't be any free will to be had since it requires a being existing

Ignorance dies in the face of scrutiny, but not for the ignorant.

I had the illusion of doing so, so I did not actually.

it would be the opposite, as
the engine occupies space, the parts occupy space, their rotation required energy
but the rotation in itself is not something that has mass, it doesn't need so

Socratic method! Ah,the appeal to authority. If somebody says the sky is a pink elephant I dont have to refute him. Ditto your assertions are thus. — Asif

Appeal to authority? its just a way of discussing a topic as to reach a common conclusion, and for both parties to benefit intellectually, jesus, also committing poo poo, very cool man, you just got the determinist now with all your fallacies.

And you dont explain how you can choose to respond further or not. Just self refuting pedantic guff.
I suppose you cant raise your hand as a demonstration
or choose to blow out candles at your birthday either.
Ludicrous. — Asif

I didn't even imply I was going to choose, because it was entirely dependent on your attitude, this is my last reply, since this is very unproductive.

now you're just going Ad Hominem,
I have checked the thread, and you presented no argument for free will or against determinism, you literally just called it a pile of bunk now, that's it,
this isn't productive

The choices we have for breakfast are limited to what we have available and is a result of other circumstances. When we went shopping, what we bought, what we can and cannot afford or otherwise can and cannot eat or simply prefer to eat. It's not impossible to have nearly anything for breakfast, after all circumstances can and some even say- when undesirable- are meant to be changed. — Outlander

My argument is, that you don't make the choices you think you do make, you have an illusion of choice, of free will, but it actually is none existent for life,
you have the illusion of two roads you can take to school, and the illusion of choosing road A for example, but you in reality didn't choose, you were determined to for the reasons I explained above.

So where does that leave us as far as determinism? Who knows, a friend can stop by with McDonald's or something on a whim and that ends up being your breakfast. Everything is determined by something. What I think that determinism doesn't properly include is that everything can change. The Earth could lose it's gravity one day. Some things (circumstances or "realities") are simply less likely to change than others. — Outlander

who knows is not a proper answer, logically, because who knows the tooth fairy may exist and Fascism was humanity's greatest creation, who knows
we can logically prove determinism via deductive methods in philosophy,
as for everything can change? well you have to prove so, you have to prove that there is a possibility, the earth could change suddenly one day,
and then you have to explain how this affects determinism for living organisms

I chose my own breakfast. If your logic says no then it's not logic but dogma — Asif

Let me formulate this deductively,
I chose my breakfast
therefore I have free will, this is clear circular reasoning, a logical fallacy mon amie,

do you learn anything new if your determined? Is a boxing match determined? — Asif

I am determined to learn new things in the future, and yes a boxing match is determined, because of all the factors accounting into it determining the result, the illusion of free will exists, but is just that, and illusion

When folks get that blinded by their thinking that they cant identify their own will and choice then really I say you have been bewitched by false doctrine. — Asif

Simple Argumentum Ad Hominem, and then you claim my doctrine to be false without any actual counter arguments, which is a Argumentum Ad Lapidem

The examples you gave and the big bang response are just illogical. Tell me was it determined for you to get up this morning at the exact time you did? — Asif

again with the Argumentum Ad Lapidem, you are providing no reasoning to why my position is illogical nor any counter arguments, this is unproductive.
yes it was, because I didn't get up by my choice, that's pretty clear.

I notice determinists cannot explain the simplest of everyday experiences. — Asif

you literally are just throwing accusations and fallacies around yet provide no actual counter arguments or point out the illogical in my arguments, I see this debate as entirely unproductive, and doesn't follow to the Socratic method, if you continue to do so I will be ignoring any responses

haven't even presented a counter argument or an argument for free will at least, jesus
Argumentum Ad Lapidem

point is, you don't choose your own breakfast,
that was pre determined by many factors before it and affecting it,
and take this example for instance, do you want to kill your dad?
yes? can you not want to kill your dad? if you say yes again, it would require you to want to not want it
which is simply illogical, you cannot keep wanting in an infinite manner,
now if you said now you don't want to kill your dad, can you want to kill your dad? that would require you to want to want to and so on,
you cannot control your wants, therefore you cannot control what you do, meaning you are determined


as for what caused the mythical big bang that's a red herring and is another discussion

bizarro world? dude you're in a philosophy forum, you must damn know what determinism is?
only the quantum basics of the universe are contingent, nothing else is, not events or probabilities, every action has a reaction, everything has a cause.
free will is an illusion
sense is not something we make here, logic is

So your saying some folks are determined to be optimists and some pessimists? — Asif

Yes.

Maybe its personal determination that settles reality. — Asif

There is no personal determination, you never had any ability to determine your future.

I'm hungry right now, and have the choice to go eat.

Later I'll be tired, and will have the choice to take a nap.

If I start suffering in my mind, I have the choice to do something about that too.

We have the choice to let go of the sweeping grand philosophical claims, and get practical and real. That is, rational. And we have the choice not to do that too. — Hippyhead

no you dont have the choice to eat, in order to do something you must want to do it or you are forced to do it,
if you want to eat you will eat, can you not want to eat? no you cannot,
you don't have a choice in anything, its determinism 101

No one has a choice?! Many people live without this dogmatic view of suffering and prosper. — Asif

Of course, because they weren't determined for so, it isn't their choice, they don't have a choice, i don't, you don't, no one does, this is just where we were determined by the past and our biology and limitations of existence to be.

Such is an argument from incredulity,

what I mean in simplified terms is, 1+1 (process) = 2 (result), 2 is actually just the process 1+1, that is correct, but it is also a two.
So there is the brain which is physical, the brain has processes, which are physical, and every process is like 1+1, it has a result, and its result is consciousness or the mind, so in some terms, consciousness is coming from a physical process, but doesn't need to be regarded as physical, you could say it is the process itself, and I wouldn't disagree

You said a while ago that the mind does not occupy space then say it is a physical object. Which is it? — Sir2u

the mind is a result to a process, that process is physical, the mind is just a result of it, i.e. doesn't have to be physical, and that process in the brain does have mass, and is affected by time and space

they're relative,
The mind or consciousness is a result to a process, going on in the brain, not an inherit object with mass itself,
the brain and processes in it do have mass, are affected by space and time,
and as we know no energy truly disappears it just gets transferred into different forms, explaining why death doesn't affect mass.

the mind changes definetly with time, as do all physical things, it gets more complex, with more processes, more memories, and more thoughts, and even on an atomic level, its atoms will get replaced by new ones eventually

elaborate please?

You have the right to believe that if that's what works for you. I'm not an evangelist. I'm not going to try to shove an alternative down your throat. Should you express a wish to discuss an alternative I'm willing, but I will respect your choice until then. — Hippyhead

ITS NOT A CHOICE, no one has choice, determinism prevails, but alright, take care

I do not have a choice, neither do you is the point, its the inevitability of our condition