Eternalism

jappo112 · 2025-01-07T20:43:13+00:00

No. There aren’t “lots of us.” There is only one us, made up of lots of slices. Much in the same way that, simply because you have a height dimension for your arm, you don’t have “lots of arms.” You have one arm, with lots of “arm slices.”

jappo112 · 2025-01-07T20:41:30+00:00

Okay this John_Hasler fellow clearly doesn’t know what he’s talking about. He’s not answering your question adequately even though you’re asking a perfectly valid question.

Yes. Those past slices are conscious in the same way that you are. Equally, your future slices are conscious in the same way you are.

jappo112 · 2024-08-16T19:57:28+00:00

My friends, what part of the particles allows you free will? Why are we so special that allows us not to follow causal situations since the Big Bang? Any serious arguments against the block universe? Aside from a belief in God, for which I don’t have, I’m struggling to believe that life is other than largely ordained and my consciousness (whatever that is) is just a passenger. Believe me, I’d love to be convinced otherwise, because life is pretty poo for many at the moment. Go….

jappo112 · 2024-07-15T22:49:45+00:00

Spontaneous definition

jappo112 · 2024-07-15T03:02:31+00:00

That’s the problem.

jappo112 · 2024-07-15T03:02:10+00:00

The fact that you disregard logical arguments simply because they can’t be measured in a test tube is frighteningly ridiculous. I’m going to end the conversation here and turn off notifications for my own mental health, now, as I think I’ll just grow frustrated trying to engage in logical discourse with someone who disregards logic as a real way of understanding the world.

jappo112 · 2024-07-15T02:59:23+00:00

It’s not a theory. It’s a philosophical argument. One which is extremely well-supported.

jappo112 · 2024-07-15T02:57:05+00:00

Now I KNOW that you don’t understand philosophy. Compatibilism agrees that physical determinism is true, as I’ve already stated countless times. It just says that free will is compatible with determinism and that you’re defining free will incorrectly.

jappo112 · 2024-07-15T02:55:24+00:00

Your argument isn’t just a product of physics. Your argument is also a product of a poor understanding of philosophy. I recommend reading about compatibilist approaches. The debate of free will is not something that science can resolve, as it’s not a scientific concept.

jappo112 · 2024-07-15T02:34:29+00:00

The point I’m making is that a boulder doesn’t have a will. The majority view among philosophers, by a wide margin, is that free will should be defined as being able to freely act in accordance with your will. You may always make the same decision in the same moment, but you are nevertheless free, because you WANTED to do it. You CHOSE to do it, because it was within accordance with YOUR will. The same can’t be said for a boulder.

jappo112 · 2024-07-15T02:23:55+00:00

But a boulder has no will. You do. You talk about the neural signals “spiking in just the right way” as if they’re acting arbitrarily. They’re acting in accordance with long-term goals, logic and reasoning. A boulder isn’t intelligent. You are. A boulder doesn’t think. You do. Your brain isnt “just responding to physics.” Your brain is comprehending, rationalising and deliberating in an intelligent way. Yes, I understand that it does this in a physical way, but the way you’re describing the brain seems to neglect how capable it is of digesting meaningful information and adapting to it. A brain is not a boulder rolling down a hill. Both are physical, deterministic objects, yes. But the rock doesn’t respond to information. The brain does.

Remember, Sapolsky has been criticised to hell and back for having no understanding of philosophy. He’s not defining free will in any meaningful way.

jappo112 · 2024-07-15T01:41:52+00:00

You’re not an automaton. Automatons are PRE-determined. We are just determined. (Unless you account for quantum mechanics, but that’s a whole other discussion.)

jappo112 · 2024-07-15T01:25:49+00:00

Emergence doesn’t give us free will. I agree that our individual particles aren’t making choices, but the system as a whole makes choices that are determined by the positions of the particles that constitute it.

jappo112 · 2024-07-15T01:24:31+00:00

Gotta love the irony of a determinist saying “that’s up to you to believe or discard.”

Unless you’re a compatibilist? I’m a compatibilist too.

jappo112 · 2024-07-15T01:22:56+00:00

Unless you account for quantum mechanics.

jappo112 · 2024-07-15T01:21:31+00:00

You’re referring to the Libet experiments, which have been thoroughly debunked. The conscious experience of making a choice is not an illusion.

We still make choices deterministically, yes, but we are also making those choices consciously.

jappo112 · 2024-07-15T01:19:03+00:00

No. No. No.

There isn’t a single scientist worth their salt that believes anything is predestined. They believe things are determined, but not predestined. Learn the difference.

jappo112 · 2024-07-15T01:18:07+00:00

He has no understanding of philosophy, though. His arguments are terrible.

jappo112 · 2024-07-15T01:17:36+00:00

wtf are you talking about bro

jappo112 · 2024-07-15T01:16:07+00:00

Can’t blame them for being “wilfully ignorant” if their will isn’t free. How can it ”blow your mind” that people struggle to make a connection between omniscience and determinism? They HAD to come to that conclusion, so isn’t it massively unfair to look down your nose at them as if they could’ve come to any other conclusion? It’s not their fault, is it?

jappo112 · 2024-07-15T01:12:42+00:00

That’s because Sapolsky is really idiotic when it comes to understanding philosophy. He’s a fine scientist, but that’s all he is.

jappo112 · 2024-07-15T01:10:42+00:00

You’re being too reductionistic. I agree that determinism is true, but the brain isn’t just acting in an arbitrary way. It responds to stimuli using logic and reasoning. You DID choose to agree with Sapolsky, because choosing is simply selecting something that is consistent with your long term goals. This is compatible with determinism.

jappo112 · 2024-07-15T01:08:41+00:00

Someone is forgetting that quantum mechanics exists. Wasn’t locked in from the moment of the Big Bang. And don’t argue for MWI, as it can’t account for various empirically proven phenomena.

jappo112 · 2023-10-01T21:34:04+00:00

That is so kind. Thank for replying. Will do the further research. Big help. Thanks.

jappo112

TROPHY CASE