I think self analysis is pointless in terms of free will. We can't trust this subjective perspective anymore than anecdotes about out of body experiences proving their truth in and of themselves. Our desire for free will doesn't discount it.

Do arguments for free will typically need a spiritual aspect? Like a mind i dependent of the physical world yet that can affect it? Or is it just enough to say we don't know enough about the quantum world or the larger universe and can't really confirm determinism either?

Are you sure it is binary? Either free will or determinism? Doesn't determinism imply that that exact end state of the universe needs to be a particular way and thus a particular trajectory is needed?

I wonder which gratitude is most important. If I were perpetually grateful I'd be exhausted and feel unworthy of everything and start to stop driving my life in any particular way.

Putting God aside. Do we fear the direction our psyche might go in if we don't take stock in things of a positive nature that we receive that we didn't directly contribute to? Is it part of the expectation managing system more than anything?

:smile:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Jint5kjoy6I

Does this simple quantum example defend the idea of free will? That things aren't certain even in the short run?

Also is the free will question based entirely on objective outcomes? Clearly I can throw a baseball and wish it to hit a target, but I don't control the wind and its end could be slightly off. In science we like things to be predictable, but do we need them to be perfectly predictable? And would there need to be a good reason for everything to be predetermined before they could be?

Horrible state of things. Particularly that screaming teenager thinking he knows anything about anything.

Wouldn't past wars be an incentive to seek more peace? I don't think North Korea gets out much and they are very military oriented. Not sure the last confrontation they've had in recent decades.

Well if this actually is an empire maybe we should work harder on that towards a more democratic society?

I assume the right to bare arms (as vague as it is) was placed as the 2nd amendment because of fear of the United States becoming an empire like England. But clearly that didn't happen. And England is no longer an empire either. And I think there are more guns than people in the U.S. And maybe 2 million guns for 60 million people in the U.K.?

First off. How did things get this out of hand? And secondly, how much more government redundancy and representation is needed to make Americans feel safe regarding our democracy? More senators per state? More term limits? Ranked choice voting? What can take most of the guns out of circulation?

Anyone know what page my post was transferred to after it was moved from my own topic page?

https://www.simplypsychology.org/wundt.html

I just remember something along the lines of Wilhelm using a metronome to determine a most desirable speed of ticking. And other researchers determine the golden ratio is the most desirable way to create shapes. The idea of desirability versus not is subjective even if it it is binary?

My philosophy professor gave us the terms theist, one who believes in God(s), atheist, one who doesn't believe in God(s), and a "super atheist", one for which the idea of God(s) doesn't exist. I don't know if proving God is deductive or not. If a God were all knowing and all powerful and had no wish to be discovered than they never will be.

How do we know "choice" as it seems to be isn't just animal mechanisms? Pure instinct pretending to be more?

Well we can see atoms or at least the protons and we can measure gravity waves with special equipment, but we haven't yet measured or even defined our consciousness. Maybe just learned self preservation behaviors given precedent over behaviors that are risky. Beyond that I don't know its purpose.

If we are 4 dimensional and contain the entire snake of frames from conception to death, what keeps that snake from spanning the entirety of time? Events conspire to bring all of us here. Everything is the consequence of what came before? Are we apart of the star dust that ultimately became our material as well?

Aren't our behaviors and choices somewhat guided by nature, culture, and how we perceive the world has treated us? Under different circumstances wouldn't the same "self" have made different choices?

I guess the last thing left after everything else is stripped away that can longer be divided and contains the sum of everything that matters to us as part of how we tend to define ourselves as unique from others.

If we achieved fair as defined by that image would events still occur or would it be like universal cooling whereby entropy affectively ends?

Would an all knowing and all powerful being need to make upgrades? And couldn't they fix all issues in a space of time and in a way that it goes unnoticed or unremembered?

How do you measure the gratuitousness of the human suffering? We aren't all offing ourselves? I don't understand your statement about creating us sick.

Do we know the will of this god to know if we are doing the right things to the world they created?

You speak of some religious references. We don't know if there is a hell. Buddhists believe in a temporary hell and Jews don't believe in a hell at all. I am only asking about all that exists that we can observe.

Assume to compare philosophers by their generational time period. I'm just wondering if there are themes.

Is this a silly question?

Are our personification roughly identical whether we imagine god(s) or a non conscious force?

Well age research into to epigenetics has made progress giving people a biological age separate from chronological age. And some have managed to reverse their biological age in some or most cell types. And in mice models they have improved their health to youthful levels and in many cases extended their lives as a result by a good 30%.

My question is basically regarding our limitations for imagining our origins as well as the nature of our world in general. What we may tend to project onto these ideas.

So nobody would spend more time learning handwriting, art, math, and all the stuff we currently only get bare minimums assuming most won't be used to the highest levels ever again? Maybe date later in life since procreation isn't a short window anymore. Maybe spiritual retreat at any age. Lots of unintuitive things could happen out of order and to better degrees.

I meant eternal life and eternal health. Age experts tie the two together as the worst disease are the direct result of cellular aging.

No idea who that is.

What do you mean?

Unfortunately dentists are far less regulated than MDs.

Also do philosophers need credentials to be called philophers? There certainly are those that do it professionally and the definition of philosophy has changed a lot during its history. Certainly people thought before the word philosopher existed. But people also studied human behavior before the term psychology existed and wasn't a formal study until Wilhelm Wundt which is much more recent. I certainly couldn't call myself a psychologist without being sued?

Phone reading has become easy for me, but book reading is harder. I recommend blue light reduction options. The speed certainly depends on the language and phrasing and tendencies towards run on sentences.

Was the Marquis De Sade a philosopher? I don't know what he contributed, and his works were only publishable in some places, and only after decades. Was he just a mad man with opinions on why people should abuse the crap out of one another?

Also are politicians philosophers in the sense that they have views of how things are, how human behavior works, what is fair, and how things should be rearranged?

Are there any well known philosophers that one might argue isn't legitimate as a philosopher?

My philosophy 101 teacher said that philosophy isn't merely a person's point of view or way of living. Is there anyone that can't call themselves a philosopher?