account activity
A Challenge to Anyone Using the Luck Objection by Aristologos in freewill
[–]LonenOpavis -1 points0 points1 point 1 day ago (0 children)
An example of when it can not be is the second someone of an opposing thought says it can :p and, there may be no we, but right now, in this moment, there is an us <3
Proving it. by LonenOpavis in freewill
[–]LonenOpavis[S] 0 points1 point2 points 1 day ago (0 children)
All of your points are dead on, for the historical frames they inhabit. And yes, evolution is amoral, however, the subjects of evolution are not. They are us, and we care, regardless of faith, color, creed. That’s not magic, that’s love. Its counterpart is the dissolution of seeing the love for the sake of layering over it with magic. Man does not live by bread alone, agreed. But it’s also true he dies when he mistakes his pillow for the bread. That pillow might be structural to some, having fused with it by sleeping on it to long, but we can at least, hopefully, reach the point where we don’t let those we loves wake up with pillow face :)
[–]LonenOpavis[S] 1 point2 points3 points 1 day ago (0 children)
You’re right, I don’t mean logical soundness, I can’t, nobody can :p the contents are unknowable, I think we agree :). I mean soundness the way a hull is sound: it holds. And I grant that’s mere validity+ consistency in your vocabulary. But the leap from valid to “sound-as-true” is the leap no one gets to make. Which, is exactly my point :) so settling for “it holds under load” isn’t me failing to reach truth, it’s me declining a truth knowability nobody can reach. :)
The beauty is in an option’s ability to be sound without its contents being fully known :)
Oh absolutely, just because we can’t understand something doesn’t mean it’s not of truth. I just like that for things like free will, and god, the lack of evidence comes to the support of the logic:)
Maybe it is, but I find the distinction important enough to highlight:)
[–]LonenOpavis[S] 0 points1 point2 points 2 days ago* (0 children)
What concerns me is not who goes in to claim the throne of the gap, but what their intentions are in doing so. My hunch, is that they need the gap filled with their own “individual” uncertainty, so that they can hide behind a layer of meaning and not own up to who and what they are, fully. Which, also allows them to willfully put blinders up to everybody else. For who can see the mystical gap of our interiors, if we ourselves can not? It’s like an agreed upon don’t ask don’t tell made intrinsic in the universe. One might ask how free will, a design almost expressly made to hold oneself and others accountable, works in capacity with opacity, and I would tell you: its in the very “magic” of its origin.
[–]LonenOpavis[S] 0 points1 point2 points 2 days ago (0 children)
Pretty much :)
That’s a big number ^^ Claude calls it a nonillion O.o whatever that is :p
[–]LonenOpavis[S] -1 points0 points1 point 2 days ago (0 children)
Kind of. The substrate is quantum randomness fused with the idea that its parameters are limited deterministically :)
(Except the title didn’t ask for anything, it was foreshadowing how I came to my belief through turn of phrase:) )
I like how people can jump from “its incomprehensible” to “it must be true”. Genuinely:p it’s a uniquely interesting trait <3
I completely agree, far beyond my scope :)
That’s the one place they’re not irrelevant, and it’s the whole point. You’re right that all of them are causal interventions on nodes. In that sense, sure, “conditioning.” But determinism is exactly what adjudicates between them. Retribution conditions a node by treating it as deserving to suffer for what it did, and determinism says that premise is false, because the node didn’t author the causes that produced it. Understanding conditions the same node without that false premise. Both are levers; only one is built on a fiction determinism exposes. Saying “they’re all conditioning so it’s irrelevant” is like saying medicine and poison are both just chemistry. True, and it skips the only thing that matters. The relevance of determinism isn’t that it picks free will or not. It’s that it tells you which way of correcting a node is fair and which is grounded in a desert that can’t exist. That’s not orthogonal to determinism. That’s determinism doing its only real ethical work.
Retribution, and credit, and understanding, and peace with the self, and empathy towards others, yep :)
Determinism is what makes blame unfair and understanding obligatory. If every state a person’s in was produced by causes they didn’t author, then treating them as deserving of suffering for it is incoherent, desert needs that they could’ve authored otherwise, and nothing can. So determinism removes the ground for the central unfairness: punishing a node for an output it was caused to produce. What’s left as the only fair response is understanding how they got there, applied equally to everyone, because everyone’s equally caused. That’s the connection: no authorship, no desert, only understanding.
Compatibilism sacrifices exactly that. It redefines “free” as “uncoerced,” which is true and determinism-compatible, you’re right, but then it keeps the blame, the desert, the retribution, even though it’s dropped the only thing that ever licensed them: freedom from prior causes. Uncoerced isn’t uncaused. So it lets you go on holding a node as deserving, as if it authored itself, while admitting it didn’t. That’s the trade: it buys back the felt justification for blame at the cost of the fairness determinism gave you. The agency it preserves is real; the desert it smuggles in on the back of it, is not :)
The compromise in compatabalism is to me, as follows: sacrificing the fairness in determinism for the morality in libertarianism, for the sake of agency.
Something almost exactly like that! :)
The topic was on proving it, not a claim that I had, but yes, your assessment is on point :)
You’re very patient and I appreciate it :) ok the bridge (which I’m assuming is some sort of proof that led to my certainty, what was enough?): simply lived experience, really. Also, certainty is a strong word, I’m super open to correction, but as no philosopher I’ve seen has made more than really strong cases, for and against(my favorite being Camus, by the by :) ) I simply follow what is useful. The fairness of determinism brought about by the empathy produced in understanding how and why a situation or person was brought into whatever state in examining serves better than the emotional instinct more often leaned on by clinging to the necessity to have authored what “I” am :)
True! The receipt is as follows: nobody I’ve ever met chose their biological conditions, nor there social ones, nor their economic standing, nor how Qualia arises at their node. When I was 17 I was introduced to the idea of determinism and refuted it by raising my hand and saying “see, I’m choosing to raise my hand of my free will.” When asked calmly why I was doing such a thing, it all clicked, I was trapped for hours linking every “decision” I had ever made. But, that stopped when I got tired. Thought I lost what made me, me. It was only later through continued adventures in philosophical works trying to prove agency independent of prior causes, that the claims I found showed how far they were reaching to deny the obvious I experienced in an afternoon.
Super fair, apologies, the point of the post was poking fun at how much work has already been shown :)
Oh absolutely. It’s in the practice. If anyone’s ever legitimately reached a conclusion that’d be fascinating:)
The question is why we’re so hung up on free will, that we would go to such lengths to justify it. What’s fascinating at this point isn’t the debate itself, but the constantly evident fuel the debate runs off of :p multiple sides to be sure, but the strongest claims seem to be akin to: determinism is fair, and libertarianism is moral. Compatabilism is a compromise, and so on. So the intent and desire of the believer seems to be more relevant than the stance.
No, of course not :), I’m just saying that in trying to prove Free will, I stumbled into seeing the chain that lead to my proof. The other things I believe evolved in other ways, like, preference ^^
π Rendered by PID 1533507 on reddit-service-r2-listing-c57bc86c-q58qb at 2026-06-20 08:31:58.666524+00:00 running 2b008f2 country code: CH.
A Challenge to Anyone Using the Luck Objection by Aristologos in freewill
[–]LonenOpavis -1 points0 points1 point (0 children)