The Socrates of The Clouds has the advantage of being quite funny though. — Count Timothy von Icarus
This suggests that our learning process is guided by external influences, rather than by our own free will.
Our learning and decision-making processes are shaped by external influences and do not stem from a truly autonomous free will.
Yes, but that's just rearranging the appearance/shell of the figures. The inherent 1+1 =2 if it was actually in reality 3+3=500 we just shift changing the shell. The awareness is set in the decimal system, and its identity will pretty much remain the same regardless of what shell we put on it while using the decimal system. — Vaskane
Why not both? — Count Timothy von Icarus
If you look back, you'll see that I agree with you on the paradoxical nature of an absolutely free will. I think most philosophers would. I guess my suggestion would be: "is this a good definition of free will?" — Count Timothy von Icarus
Once you have faith in logic, it's consistent, but the system of logic itself is not logical, in that you can't prove it to be real with evidence, you have to rely on faith-based evidence. — Echogem222
Any why believe the brain even exists? Likely science, but why believe science is real? Evidence, I imagine, but why believe evidence is real? Etc. I think you get the point here. — Echogem222
You're assuming that all faith is blind faith, but you see, true blind faith is when you no longer think you have faith in something, but instead think you know something is true, because when you think you know something, how can you then be wrong? It prevents people from thinking critically to have blind faith in things, it prevents people from desiring to learn more, after all, you already know so much, so there's no need to doubt what you already know. And this certainty in turn encourages others to no longer think they have faith in anything, but think that they truly know things, which is why so many people in this modern day believe in things that many people understand as being ridiculous. — Echogem222
With how vague you're being, can you truly blame me? — Echogem222
I'm doing my best to understand what you're getting at, and yet the first time I mess up, you don't correct me, you instead just say I'm wrong... and that's all. Makes me wonder just how committed you truly are to this debate. — Echogem222
Free will implies the ability to make choices based on knowledge or beliefs, but if we started without any knowledge or beliefs, there would be no basis for making any choices, undermining the concept of free will. — Echogem222
we had free will, we would have to know (either through direct knowledge or faith) that knowing things is important before we knew anything — Echogem222
This suggests that our learning process is guided by external influences, rather than by our own free will. — Echogem222
and starting from a state of complete ignorance or uncertainty would make the concept of free will paradoxical, it follows that we do not have free will — Echogem222
why am I able to doubt it — Echogem222
For 1, let’s imagine an entity that is definitely free. I put a gun to the entity’s head and tell it to pick a number between 1-10. Having no information about the number, what it means, if it will have any effect at all or otherwise, the entity still has 11 options (1 being to not answer at all). — 013zen
For 2, first of all why not and second of all I don’t believe that we have a predisposition towards knowledge, but we learn over time that knowing things is beneficial and try to actively acquire knowledge for that reason. This has nothing to do with our freedoms. In fact, some people freely choose to not acquire knowledge. — 013zen
↪013zen
For 1, let’s imagine an entity that is definitely free. I put a gun to the entity’s head and tell it to pick a number between 1-10. Having no information about the number, what it means, if it will have any effect at all or otherwise, the entity still has 11 options (1 being to not answer at all).
— 013zen
No, this is false, if they truly had free will, they would not be limited by your knowledge, after all, in their mind, they can react to things you say however they want, suffering would not affect them, they could shut off all of their senses, and killing them would not be possible because their body and mind would be fully them, you could not use things to control how they experience anything. — Echogem222
For 2, first of all why not and second of all I don’t believe that we have a predisposition towards knowledge, but we learn over time that knowing things is beneficial and try to actively acquire knowledge for that reason. This has nothing to do with our freedoms. In fact, some people freely choose to not acquire knowledge.
— 013zen
Some people freely choose to not acquire knowledge?? Where is your evidence for that? Am I just supposed to believe that you're telling the truth? — Echogem222
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.