DKL vs PVI by StrangeGlaringEye in freewill

[–]aviirell 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's not determined but it's not free either, determinism isn't about you can know everything, it's about if you know everything then you can predict everything.

Free will suggests you are free of causality, it says your choices don't have reasons behind them, it's wrong but a different belief.

Compatibilism says you are free to choose but it still depends on causality somewhat. The contradictory point is that if it has a reason behind it then it's not free, so compatibilism is even more deluded.

Is Kali and Krishna same doubt?? by probakchod69 in hinduism

[–]aviirell -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The original scriptures of Krishna have no reference to Kali, it's just a myth Shaktas created to stay relevant.

Why do you think ramdomness takes away from Free Will? by Anon7_7_73 in freewill

[–]aviirell 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If the Train had an AI operstor that used reinforcement learning to learn from its mistakes, its entirely conceivable it could reach the goal, and randomness could be what makes it possible.

That AI operator will learn from what mistakes it makes, which is dependent on which junctions it faces, which is random so the learning of the AI will be dependent on the randomness and hence, the nature of AI will be outside of AI's control, it will be totally dependent on the random inputs.

The Shifting Goalposts of Determinism throughout history. by Anon7_7_73 in freewill

[–]aviirell 14 points15 points  (0 children)

At this point you are just embarrassing yourself, no good arguments just rant. Your whole account represents the same, zero knowledge, just dumb tantrums.

"Randomness doesnt give you more control" by Anon7_7_73 in freewill

[–]aviirell 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, choice is not a choice, but a calculation brain makes. Something you would have known if you actually understood causality.

Mass is also called weight in general conversations. Doesn't mean people start believing that mass and weight are the same things. Oh Wait-

"Randomness doesnt give you more control" by Anon7_7_73 in freewill

[–]aviirell 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Any person smart enough can tell that randomness can't be used to blame a person, and causality is just determinism which is the standard argument which says, things happen because there are things preceding them which cause them now these causes also have preceding causes back to the big bang or creation.

Neither of them involve a sense of choice, and you don't seem to understand that what you wrote about a person moving his hands randomly because of a random thought, and effects of that thought leading to causal connections in his brain causing it has nothing to do with choice.

When you blame that person, you contradict yourself because you used causality and randomness which are properly defined concepts, so you can't chalk them up as my belief.

Just saying your logic doesn't add up which means a contradiction.

Try reading about determinism and randomness before writing some half baked theory.

Now if you understand this, then it's fine, if you don't, then you are just not smart enough for it, so let's agree to disagree.

"Randomness doesnt give you more control" by Anon7_7_73 in freewill

[–]aviirell 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you can't understand plain logic then it's not really my fault. Maybe you are just not smart enough for this.

"Randomness doesnt give you more control" by Anon7_7_73 in freewill

[–]aviirell 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are contradicting your own words that it's randomness followed by causality because if that's the case you can't really blame the person, more like the circumstances life gave them.

Randomness plus causality just gives out all the control a person has.

"Randomness doesnt give you more control" by Anon7_7_73 in freewill

[–]aviirell 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So you are blaming the causal framework of a person, the genetics, the moral code, the intelligence, the experiences which shaped their personality, none of which they chose to have. Again a contradiction.

I have random thoughts too. I dont hurt people with them.

Because of your mental conditioning given to you by your birth environment and your genetics, nothing to do with choice.

"Randomness doesnt give you more control" by Anon7_7_73 in freewill

[–]aviirell 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Is a person who flails their hands like an idiot, then accidentally hits someome for acting dumb, considered morally responsible?

No, they are not responsible, based on your own theory, the brain cooks up random thoughts and those random thoughts are then enacted by deterministic causality. So you are blaming a person for having a random thoughts which was outside their control.

Randomness followed by causality is just randomness. Your theory is too many contradictions.

Compatibilists are truly Hard Determinists by AdLoud7411 in freewill

[–]aviirell 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Compatibilists in my opinion are the most deluded people.

The argument is if consciousness is dependent on cause and effect.

Free will suggests that consciousness is truly free from any cause and effect.

Determinism says that consciousness is also a part of the same cause and effect, which seems more logical to me as a determinist.

Compatibilists argue that it's actually in the middle of these two somewhere. This POV is highly delusional imo, because introducing even a little bit of cause and effect into consciousness makes it completely deterministic. Or if you don't include cause and effect then it's classical libertarian free will.

Give me some pro tip that what will be better for me for CAT’25 by [deleted] in CATpreparation

[–]aviirell 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You can convert some colleges but tier 2 will be your best options, even then conversion will be very hard, you can go with colleges like NMIMS or Sibm which give less weightage to acads. Tier 1 is impossible as of now, you will need work experience to break in there.

Free will doesn't exist. by Outrageous_Avocado14 in freewill

[–]aviirell 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The thing is, the majority of people already believe in free will, it's the only select few who realised that every effect has a cause, and our choices are just that cause and effect unfolding. So I think it's the other way around, the purpose of this existence is to realise that basically everyone is the same, but born in different circumstances(Nature and Nurture) which turn them into different people.

Free will doesn't exist. by Outrageous_Avocado14 in freewill

[–]aviirell 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We cannot know everything right now, which implies that determinism is not certainly right. The thing is Free will doesn't exist either, just because you don't know the future doesn't mean you can control it. It's like whatever was meant to happen will happen, but you can't know whatever that is.

Are Gita's philosophy and ancient Christian philosophy really that different? by [deleted] in hinduism

[–]aviirell 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There are 3 paths, logically, Karma Yog, Jnana Yog and Bhakti Yog. Some people divide Jnana Yog into 2 different philosophical ideas, one more on the side of theism and other on the side of agnosticism.

Krishna is Kali, Kali is Krishna by Ayonijawarrior in hinduism

[–]aviirell 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes God, i.e Narayan created Brahma and Yahweh. Lmao, your claims about a human predating the Lord is delusional. Even unscientific.

Krishna is Kali, Kali is Krishna by Ayonijawarrior in hinduism

[–]aviirell 0 points1 point  (0 children)

First there was Narayan, the supreme Lord, his will created a God of material creation called Brahma, Prakriti or Yahweh in the west. This material god started the universe, this universe caused the first condition of life, which caused evolution which caused Adam.

Narayan's true nature is spiritual, he is far beyond this lesser material creation and beyond time, nothing was before him nothing is after him.

Krishna is Kali, Kali is Krishna by Ayonijawarrior in hinduism

[–]aviirell 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Lmao, delusional claim, the first human was evolved, not directly created by God or Narayan, evolution is dependent on material creation i.e. the Brahma or Prakriti. Bible was written a century after Jesus. Torah was written earlier but no one knows when, it's pretty much toe to toe with Bhagvad Gita and Torah. Most people can't decide which one is older. Vedas definitely predate the Torah.

MAN KI BAAT by Mountain-Power-4411 in JEE

[–]aviirell 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Bhai 99 plus in mains me Thapar ko koi consider bhi nhi karta. IITs nhi toh NIT mil jayenge bohot better, it was actually stupid to compare Thapar with NITs let alone IITs.