This is a question that’s been weighting on me pretty heavily: supposing all of our fates are predetermined and free will is a mere illusion, is it possible to commit any moral wrong?

Of course we all knew someone at one point or another who uses astrology as an excuse to be a bitch by saying things like “I can’t help being a Pisces” to justify their shitty behavior. This is what raises the question in my mind. If we entertain the notion (and I’m being completely hypothetical here) if our fates are predetermined, and we have limited or no control over who we are or become, then should we be held accountable for our misdeeds?

I’m new to this sub, and philosophy in general, so I don’t know if talking about the Bible is frowned upon, but Christians believe that through Jesus’ crucifixion, all people are forgiven and able to repent of their sins. At the same time they also believe that Judas committed the ultimate mortal sin, and he is in line with the devil for betraying him. Jesus knew that Judas would betray him, as was prophesied, and without his sacrifice (within the faith) no one could be made right with the Lord.

Judas’ fate was predetermined. If this action was predetermined did he have a choice in the matter? So if not, did he sin when he sold out Jesus to the Romans?

Update: I just learned about fatalism and I guess the whole Judas question has already been asked. Does this idea say anything about moral character though?

[removed]

You know, I have also wondered this, if we all have our predetermined behavior or destiny, what about the people we consider with illogical thoughts, for example terraplanists, people who believe in astrology, among others. Do they have a function in the world?

[removed]

I read this New Yorker article today detailing an unconventional familial arrangement, one shared by a professor in philosophy with her graduate student-turned-husband and her ex-husband. I am in awe with how individuals choose to enter a wide range of possibilities for their relationships that aren't the usual straight, monogamous, typical varieties.

More radical, is my recent discovery of the swinging lifestyle, in which couples swap their partners sexually for a night. That discovery shocked me.

My questions:

• To what extent can we normatively evaluate alternate kinds of relationships? Polygamy on the whole is perceived as divergent but not radically abnormal. But this valuation would not extend to incestual love, or pedophilia love. Are there limits to who we have sex with and love? What are the criteria in deciding them?
• What does our surprise, awe, disgust, in reaction to these alternate arrangements tell us about ourselves? Does sexual prudishness indicate a lack of education? Or fear of progression? Or to maintain a stable paradigm in the way we see the world?

Suggestions of further readings (philosophical/fiction) into alternate sexual and family arrangements would be very much appreciated.

Watch the movie minority report if you haven’t. There’s people who see the future and stop crimes from occurring. Even though they know the future they are not causing the crime. I think, and I could be wrong, it’s argued that In the same way, God’s knowledge of the future identifies what humans freely choose to do; he doesn’t cause them to do anything.

Another argument I’ve heard is that it’s written in plural not singular form. So God’s warning against Judas betraying Christ is a warning to us all.

If that is your faith

What is the point of university philosophy tutorials? I am taking two courses as electives and the tutorials seem to just cover what the lectures and readings already cover

The tutorials I took covered what the lectures and readings already covered in more detail, with fewer students to tend to, and with a tutor who's there to answer questions, guide discussions, and do exam preparation. We only had tutorials for survey lectures, so having a dedicated class to actually discuss, say, Kant's First Critique in a bit more detail than two 90 minutes lectures allowed for was actually helpful (but hardly comparable to a seminar on it). And given that freshman students regularly have the weirdest ideas of what studying philosophy actually is like, having a dedicated time slot to practice skills like reading and analyzing isn't the worst idea either.

The flower in the desert

Imagine a vast, empty desert stretching out as far as the eye can see. The sun beats down mercilessly, casting long, dark shadows across the sand dunes. In the distance, you can see a solitary figure walking slowly towards you, silhouetted against the harsh light of the sun. As the figure approaches, you begin to see that it is a human, walking with purpose but seeming to be lost in thought.

As the human draws closer, you can see the lines etched deep into their face, the weariness in their eyes, and the deep sadness that seems to permeate their being. You wonder what has brought this person to the middle of the desert, and what thoughts are occupying their mind.

Suddenly, the person stops in front of you, and you can see that they are holding a small, fragile flower. They hold it out to you, and as you take it, you realize that it is the most beautiful thing you have ever seen. Its delicate petals shimmer in the sunlight, and its fragrance is like a balm to your senses.

As you look up from the flower to the person's face, you see that their expression has changed. The weariness and sadness are still there, but now there is a glimmer of hope in their eyes. You realize that, despite the harshness of the desert, the beauty of this small flower has given this person a reason to keep going, a reason to believe that life is not meaningless after all.

As the person walks away, you are left alone in the desert with the flower in your hand. You realize that, like this flower, life may be fragile and fleeting, but it is also full of beauty and wonder. You wonder what other small, beautiful things might exist in this vast, infinite universe, and you feel a sense of awe and wonder at the possibilities that life holds.

As per suggestion, I will post here:

​

This is a summary of a philosophical and mathematical work by a former teacher and mentor of mine. The work attempts to describe mathematical structures based on philosophical concepts that could potentially be applied in physics. I first encountered this work as a mathematics student, but at that time, I couldn't understand most of it. With this publication, I hope to attract interested readers to this work.

Abstract:
"UrEins and Algebra - The Concept of the ONE.
Implications of the Concept of the ONE.

This work was jointly created between the years 2000 and 2006. It is a philosophical-mathematical work with possible outlooks on physics. Philosophically, it resolves the contradiction between the views of Parmenides and Heraclitus, on which Western metaphysics failed, as Georg Picht elaborated extensively in his posthumously published work "On Time". Additionally, it meets Picht's further demands to make at least one step out of the crisis of Western philosophy. Parmenides speculated and argued with the concept of the ONE, in which everything should be united. Heraclitus, on the other hand, claimed that only "movement in being" was essential, and there was no "rest in the ONE."
The "movement in being" corresponds to "water" and also "fire". This movement is also referred to as Heraclitean Logos. It should be noted that even today, the view is still largely held that there is "rest" in the ONE and no "movement."
Picht's work "On Time" is incredibly important for criticizing Western philosophy because he makes further demands, but cannot fulfill them. It seems to us that in general language, this appears almost impossible. What Picht calls "being in time," that overarching mode in which past, present, and future are summarized as a possibility, is the mode of reflection that is embedded in the cosmos. Being embedded in the cosmos also means "being embedded in the past, present, and future." For with the view into the spatial cosmos, we also look into the past and recognize dynamic processes there that point to the future. Moreover, it is considered an unsolved philosophical problem what the present is, which transforms an unknown future into unalterable past. This requires a philosophical justification of the "ticking" of time, which must be considered not yet found. We propose a suggestion for this. Although time is measured with clocks in physics, the "ticking" of time, as well as space in its three dimensions, are simply assumed and described mathematically above the continuum of real numbers. Of course, there are already conjectures that space and time could be quantized.
Beginning a "lattice theory" of space is being tested for elementary particle physics.
In our work, the mode of reflection according to Picht will be expanded with the linguistic possibilities of mathematics. However, it will not be done in such a way that mathematics is added as a language from the "outside" to expand the mode of reflection. Rather, essential parts of algebra arise from the mode of reflection. Permutations as mappings play the fundamental role. Finite groups are introduced as a result. From these, finite rings and finite algebraic fields, called Galois fields, are constructed through endomorphisms of finite, commutative groups as mappings. The concept of mapping is central. This meets Picht's demand to break the boundaries of Western metaphysics. A curious view of possible physics of space, time, and photons emerges, but not yet of matter.
The method outlined is open to extensions.
AUTHORS: Dieter Beckmann, born 1941 Studied mathematics and physics from 1962 to 1969 Teaching activity from 1969 to 2005.
Klaus Pullmann, born 1934 Studied mathematics and physics from 1954 to 1960. Teaching activity from 1961 to 1996."
pdf in Archive (It is written in German.)
https://archive.org/details/Ureinsundalgebra

very nice thought and very nice written.

"Well that's what makes it so exhausting to be human in a highly capitalist society, your whole value is based on how well you can adapt to situation and you constantly adapting to them to meet your basic needs. It's basically like being a wild creature out there in the world. We just don't realize how stressful it is."

-Stacey Higginbotham

the context of the quote comes from a discussion about an advanced AI being defeated in the game of Go. The players had finally defeated the Ai with a tactic of grouping. The computer couldn't understand or recognize the pattern of grouping. To most players the this seems very obvious however the Ai will learn and adapt and so will humans.

What I found striking about the quote was that here we are 2023 thinking that the role of hunter/gatherer is behind us and yet Stacey points out that we're still performing the age old role of hunter/gatherer, and accurately defines value in our society.

You can here the full conversation on :This week in google, episode 707.

Sam Harris' moral philosophy, particularly his merging of "is" and "ought," is irritatingly ignorant of advances in philosophy. Just as Sam takes care to differentiate between science and pseudoscience, I make the distinction between philosophy and pseudo-philosophy. The separation of "is" (descriptive) and "ought" (prescriptive) has been a widely accepted philosophical tenet since the 17th century, endorsed by British empiricists, including the eminent Hume. Hume's distinction posits that we cannot directly derive prescriptive, normative conclusions (what "ought" to be) from descriptive statements about the world (what "is"). This principle has been acknowledged by philosophers ever since. Yet, Sam Harris, a scientist with a modest background in philosophy, posits the contrary without offering an explanation. He asserts that morality can be determined based on the well-being of neurological systems.

Harris' issue there is that he doesn't understand the is/ought gap. He seems to think it's the thesis that there cannot be moral facts, when it's just the idea that any argument for a normative conclusion must contain a normative premise (i.e., that the conclusion must follow from its premises). And his own take on moral philosophy actually does bridge this gap, since it goes roughly like this:

1. If our intuitions clearly indicate that some moral principle is true, then it is true.
2. Our intuitions clearly indicate that we ought to maximize the well-being of conscious creatures.
3. Therefore, we ought to maximize the well-being of conscious creatures.

That he doesn't acknowledge this might be continuing ignorance, general bloodymindedness, or just the fact that, laid out this way, it's clear that his project is a philosophical rather than "scientific" one as he purports. In any case, the actual problem with his moral philosophy isn't is/ought. It's that he doesn't argue for either premise well, nor even really explain sufficiently what "maximizing the well-being of conscious creatures" means.

[removed]

Interested in you tearing apart my thinking so I can mature my thinking:

Consciousness emerges from physical states. For instance, the arrangement of atoms in a human brain.

The continuous sense of identity a given consciousness feels relates that arrangement of atoms. For instance, I feel like the same person as I was an hour ago, even though the brain that existed an hour ago no longer exists and instead my current one does

The multiverse is vast and may contain multiple physical states that replicate the same or equivalent physical states that produce a given consciousness. For instance, a functional human brain and body may appear due to a quantum fluctuation for a moment in space (‘boltzmann brain’)

The existence of at least one corresponding arrangement of atoms is required for a unitary sense of identity (whether or not space brains or souls exist, at least our brains matter)

Therefore, we may experience a subjective immortality upon the death of our ‘’current’’ body

The current body and brain we have experiences is able to effect change on the world and experiences a sense of non-deterministic free will. Whether or not this is true, it presents a perceived opportunity to reduce the suffering available to the universe that may or may not exist to ‘future’ subjective identities we may have

>Therefore, we may experience a subjective immortality upon the death of our ‘’current’’ body

Can you explain how you got this conclusion?

A “moral wrong” really just means an action that leads to unfavorable circumstances, especially in regards to social behaviors. But even non-social behaviors, like masturbation or doing drugs, are considered immoral as they can be unhealthy for the agent. So we’re just saying that some actions tend to have good results and other actions tend to have bad results. This isn’t really affected by the existence or lack of free will. Punishment and guilt still serve their purpose: to regulate behavior.

Does anyone have any recommended readings, thoughts, or musings on the idea of "truth"?

It is a shame that I don't know German.

This reminds me of a comment I made on another thread today, of a booklet I read by Giorgio de Santillana, "Prologue to Parmenides", I was amazed by it and haven't forgotten it since.

This is a pretty big question. If you're looking for something very intro level on truth, Blackburn's Truth is ok. A but higher level (like a philosophy undergrad course level) would be Wrenn's Truth, which I prefer. If you want a big anthology of primary readings you can't do better than The Nature of Truth: Classic and Contemporary Readings, 2nd ed.

I would recommend Jenkins' What Love Is: And What It Could Be, which is a book on the philosophy of polyamory by a polyamorous philosopher.

[removed]

It has been 13 years since my intro to philosophy class. Perhaps I'll start with Blackburn. Thank you very much for the recommendations!

Have you ever noticed that many philosopher, scientists and thinkers that negate Free Will, very rarely admit having been irresistibly coerced and forced into believing that? (and everything else btw). On the contrary, they tendt to act like they came to this conclusion after careful reflection, sound logical reasoning, deep discussions and critical thinking.

They expose their opinion almost as if they really weighed the alternatives, selected and then chose (!) the best thesis.

Isn't that strange? Is there a philosophical explanation behind this curious behaviour?

Spinoza was a badass

I found his Ethics mindblowing. Never again I’ve come across anything like it.

Are rationalism and his questions so out of fashion that he is considered not relevant anymore in the current philosophical debates (whatever these may be)? Or have the critiques to his thought exposed too many mistakes? Or what? I just don’t see enough Spinoza around.

What do you guys think?

How to reconcile the idea of free will, lack thereof, and responsibility for one’s reaction to stimuli?

We do things? Why? Why do we want to do things?

If someone acts on us, we have a choice on how to respond. If they’re trying to agitate us, we can choose not to engage, to get upset, etc.

Then we have the nature vs nurture argument.

Also, the altered state of consciousness one deals with when under the influence of mind altering substances, or dissociative influences of traumatic brain experiences.

Where does free will start and stop?

I’m relatively new and I was wondering if there was somewhere to look about the value of immaterial/metaphysical things vs the value of material things. I was thinking of the value of person’s idea or emotion vs a person’s bank account or properties

I've pondered this question as well. What I've concluded is that, instead of assigning "blame", "fault", or "responsibility", it's better to simply take a more consequentialist view, and ask: what are the likely outcomes of this person's actions? Should I convince them to do otherwise? Would it lead to an overall better outcome if something were done to stop them from doing it (again)? What should that something be?

By focusing on these questions, we can sidestep the question of who to hold accountable and instead look at what would be the best thing to do overall.

However, what's interesting is that answering that first question, "what are the outcomes", can be very complicated given the chaotic nature of human behaviour ("chaotic" here means "deterministic, but unpredictable in practice"). We have to use rule-of-thumb approximations for this sort of thing, instead of precise calculations. And it turns out that concepts like "accountability", "blame", "fault", and "personal responsibility" are very useful rules of thumb; in effect, when you blame someone for something, you are asserting that their behaviour requires some internal changes, or they'll just do it again. Even if the underlying causes are far outside that person's control, the logic works out the same.

To put it in maybe a more whimsical/poetic way: if we are but the fingers of the hands of Fate, then we cannot be judged for our sins, for they belong to Fate just as we do. But, since Fate doesn't have a mailing address, we'll have to settle for cutting off its fingers as necessary.

If you're looking for terms to google, "epistemology" is the name of the field of philosophy that deals with the nature of truth and knowledge.

If you're looking for terms to google, philosophical fields that touch on the subject of truth include metaphysics, logic, and epistemology.

> They expose their opinion almost as if they really weighed the alternatives, selected and then chose (!) the best thesis.

Well, of course they chose. The determinist might simply reply that the fact that they ended up choosing that option is the result of ancient chains of cause-and-effect, stretching back far into the distant past, theoretically traceable to the Big Bang.

Those chains of causality, the determinist might continue, led them to have the childhood they did, to developing the thoughts they did, and ultimately, to their own interest in philosophy and to their own careful reasoning and conclusions on the subject of free will: that it is nothing but an occasionally useful fiction.

In this context, what is the epistemological diffetence between the brain processing informations according a stricly causal chain of cause effect and the stomach processing food? You can define choiche the first pheonomen and digestion the second, but what is the epistemological extra value of the first?

I'm not sure what you mean by epistemological value, but I would respond that, from a determinist position, "choice" is just a label we assign to certain kinds of brain activity.

Hi, does anyone have experience in using structural existential analysis to analyse qualitative data? I am conducting my doctoral research on the experience of being cyberbullied from a phenomenological and existential perspective...

If the theory of evolution by natural selection is the inevitable result of ancient chains of cause-and-effect, stretching back far into the Big Bang, and the hardcore biblical creationism is the inevitable result of ancient chains of cause-and-effect, stretching back far into the Big Bang, why should I "rate higher", ""consider more reliable/correct/true" the first one

Ah, here I can see how one's epistemological framework plays a role. Speaking as someone who subscribes to empiricism, I would say that there is more convincing evidence for the Big Bang than for Biblical claims.

I would say that this only moves the problem backwards.

If you are forced to consider the empirical evidence for the Big Bang more convincing than the Bible because of a chain of cause-effect stretching back to the Big Bang, why should I rate this opinion higher/better than being forced consider the empirical evidence for the Big Bang less convincing than the Biblical claims because of the same invincible chains of cause-effect?

Well, I want this to be my very last post at reddit. I'm not an english native speaker, so it may not be quite precise on the language. But let's try.

I'm posting it here because I consider it as related to philosophy, but it's also me venting something. So, either because it doesn't get considered as philosophy or because it gets too boring, it may be deleted.

*

I studied a lot of different subjects, and it showed me many relations I never thought it could be possible. The Metaphysics also showed itself as the meta-thought, that is, there is the chaotic information on a subject, but then you may create categories on it. The more you think about these categories themselves, the more the thought jumps from the particular topic to a general way to think about ordering. This metathought, that is the thought about the thought, opens the door to the sense of Metaphysics.

Anyway, by doing these studies, I actually got pretty much depressed. I mean, a lot. I summarize this experience like this: one thing is to get to know the evil (the imperfect, the ugly or whatever). It's easy to see, and easy to imagine. The more you know evil, the less you believe there is good, and whatever shows as good seems to you like something disgusting, because you end up believing intuitively there's an imperfection hid somewhere. The other way, though, hurts more: if you get to know good, the more you try to get to know higher goodness, the more you realize the lack of it around. Notice this: one thing is evil, the other thing is lack of good. They are, let's say, the same "gap of goodness", but the first way you see it as expected or disgusting; the second way you see it as what it could be of good. And that hurts much more. The more you train this vision, the more you start to see how the world could be of good, and realize it is not that. Evil doesn't matter, but the lack of goodness is saddening. It is Tristesse, like Chopin expressed it.

So, I went through this path and from my experience I tell you guys: Plato said evil is the lack of knowledge, and it seems he's pretty much right. Knowledge has a theleology: any knowledge can be used to direct an intelligence to understand itself. In the center of intelligence, the mechanism that makes it work, there's Good. But I won't prove it here, since this is my last post ever, or so I hope. For anyone who wants to investigate it, try paying attention to your insight: when it happens, how it happens, what it brings, what it is related to, how does this relation builds the insight content and so on.

​

Anyway, I consider today as the end of my journey. I found out something that is my limit. I call it (for now) "the map of learning".

I studied my culture and the public education of my country as much as I could, and it led me to realize some lacks, great lacks. It's not quite the fault of anyone, it just happened that no'one seems to have thought about these ideas (according what it can be read through the main educational discussion). And I'm no'one, I shouldn't even have investigated none of what I did. I was supposed to be a worker and nothing else, but my curiosity led me to some weird tracks. And now is the time to head back to the main path.

So, anyway, this map is about the problems of learning. I already had made a "map" on how many of cultural works end up being close to useless because the author wasn't really sincere about it. Now, even though the person is sincere, still there may be some errors.

I mean, imagine when you try to learn a language. You can either:

I) Learn it by a course (a formal list or order)

II) Learn it by yourself (chaotic)

I knew too many people who passed through courses and didn't learn almost anything. But chaotic learning also mostly doesn't work. The idea of today was to organize my experience on this. This is kinda Lao-Zi's search of Tao. Well, by the end, I found out some things really sad. And that was the final blow. I'm officially depressed lol

So, well... I know it's not written entirely, nor explained and so on, but I just needed to share this somewhere. And that's all. I got bored of all of this search for knowledge. I want to do my destiny, which is to be a hard worker. I wasn't supposed to be here, I wasn't invited to the symposium, I got here by accident and feel very ashamed for trying to usurp a place I wasn't supposed to be in.

So, I didn't appear very much here, but I've read posts here and comments, and I'd like to thank you guys for them.

And also I'd like to thank for all the reddit. This is really a great place. I like this structure, which is close to old forums. Facebook and specially Instagram don't have enough space for a real discussion.

Thank you for reading this venting.

That's not really true. The study of truth goes across many subfields, including metaphysics and logic as well. In fact most of the work today on truth is on its metaphysics.

For example, I wrote my PhD thesis on truth and I don't consider myself to have an AOS in epistemology whatsoever; I'm firmly in metaphysics.

Perhaps you could consider it a hobby? I am here after years of schooling at the durnoid table. Every sesquipedalian I come across means writing it all down and reaserching endless big words, not supposed to be here crossed my mind.

Recently I saw a news story, a fella totally unrelated to archeology decided to work out what the dots were on the animals die to a hunch. He unlocked the language that scholars have been banging their gigantic heads against their walls for years trying to figure it out. Maby your exactly where your supposed to be, somewhere that makes your sound passionate.

You know, when you get to a point, everything just seems bad. That's the end of philosophy. "It sucks... but i don't know if that's true."

Oh shit, my bad. I'll correct my comment.

I'm trying to formulate an idea of epistemology and I would like to see if it stands up to scrutiny. Imagine you have three sources of authority in your model of epistemology, A, B and C. Sometimes those sources disagree or contradict each other, so you use another source, which we'll call D, to adjudicate the disagreement and decide which one is correct. Given that type of scenario, would it be logically sound to say D has a higher tier of authority than A, B, and C?

Assuming that's true, a simplified secular epistemology might look like this:

>1. Reason
>
>2. Intuition, sense data, outcomes, authority figures (doctors, scientists, etc.)

And a simplified religious epistemology might look like this:

>1. The Bible
>
>2. Intuition, outcomes, authority figures (pastor, theologian), sense data

Regardless of what you put in the #1 slot, there must be only one authority source in that slot because it there were two authorities there, they might disagree, which would require another higher authority to adjudicate the disagreement.

Does that make sense?

and not only multiverse, if time happens to be infinite in this universe, all possible atom arrangements will happen and infinite amount of times, and that might produce our councioussness too

There is no meaning to life. The universe is cold and neutral. Yet the negative emotion that we assign to that realization is not neutral. It is negative. Why?. That's not logical. Shouldn't the emotion be neutral too? In other words, nothing has meaning including the fact that nothing has meaning yet we automatically assign a negative value to the fact that nothing has value, thus self-contracting without even realizing it. So I wonder if the solution to that kind of existential suffering is not to find meaning, but to identify and remove the arbitrary emotional response one has to the fact that nothing has meaning. Maybe the reason we do this is that when we are doing something we perceive to be meaningful (even if ultimately that meaning is an illusion) we receive positive emotion. We then, for some reason, automatically attribute that positive emotion to the idea that the task had meaning, so over time we develop a mental association between meaning and positive emotion. I wonder if meaning is just a placeholder concept the brain uses because it cant self conceptualize its own reward system (the mesocorticolimbic circuit) in its unconscious levels of processing. Thoughts?

It would be better to analyze what value is itself, rather than compare things that we assign value to.

(I've edited this comment over and over like a dozen times now, so sorry for any confusion.)

Could you please elaborate on your point? As stated, I don't see the contradiction between human thought being deterministic, and human thought being capable of deciding which claims to believe.

In your example, I would say that, even though both positions are determined by "invincible cause-effect chains", there's no rule that says both chains have to produce correct beliefs. In fact, since the claims are contradictory, only at most one of them can be correct, which means that the "cause-effect chain" of the other one must have included some step which entailed faulty information, or faulty logic. Or the same could apply to both, if both claims happened to be incorrect in some way.

To give an example, let's say person A lies to person B. If we accept determinism, that means "invincible chains of cause-effect" led to A and B believing different things, but A still has the correct information and B doesn't. The fact that both have these really long "cause-effect chains" doesn't prevent us from pointing out that A happens to believe correct information, and that B doesn't.

I'd like you to describe this "subjective immortality" experience a bit more, or at least how you imagine it. Is it just like, I die, and then my point of view shifts to another "me", elsewhere in the universe?

If I've understood your thought experiment correctly, then I'm convinced you haven't preserved continuity of consciousness — in fact, it has been explicitly interrupted. As a counter-example, imagine creating a perfect clone of yourself. Your subjective experience won't suddenly be you looking through two sets of eyes; you'll have your consciousness, and the clone will have theirs. If you choose to kill yourself, you won't suddenly "take over" the clone's consciousness; it'll keep having its consciousness, while your brain will have permanently (?) stopped being conscious. CGP Grey has a nice video on the "Star Trek teleporter problem" where he goes over pretty much this exact topic, particularly as it relates to the Ship of Theseus problem.

In my understanding, the key missing factor is hiding in your second paragraph — the continuous sense of identity relates to that arrangement of atoms, as it persists continuously through time.

Studies have shown that our brains make decisions before we're even aware of them. Isn't that enough evidence to conclude that libertarian free will is false? If you were truly free in your choices, you would be aware of them at the same time as you make them.

If you do something good, you feel good afterward. If you do something bad, you feel either guilt, shame, or both; sounds like engineering by a feeling, moral deity to me.

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

That's because you have a preexisting belief structure that makes you think that.

A much more sound reason for this was that morality was selected by evolution in our human ancestors in order to promote cooperation and smooth social interactions. Aka- if u go around killing people or being dishonest or perpetrating other "immoral" behavior's it would impact your chances of reproducing. Evolution often has the appearance of intelligent design untill you learn the mechanisms behind it and you realise that the aperant design is an illusion. Too many people think they know how evolution works but they dont, so they are confused as to why it wasnt "designed" by a God.

​

Here is a good explanation of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHmjHMbkOUM

Pot meet kettle; your existing belief structure makes you think that.

Evolution is a hypothesis, btw, given that it can't be tested in a laboratory to confirm it. The evidence is the same for everyone; interpretation is subjective, conforming to prior beliefs that we have. You have zero evidence that God doesn't exist, so my interpretation should be just as plausible as yours in your mind.

Right after graduating college a few years ago, I had a dream about a blonde woman in her 20s. I memorized her face that day, as I had never seen her before. Months later, hundreds of miles away, I walked into one of my graduate courses and there she was... The bible talks about God's foreknowledge, which makes sense if everything is determined. I believe it is all determined based upon this: if you were given two choices and it was 50/50 whether you choose one or the other, then you wouldn't choose either because nothing *convinces* you to choose one option over the other, whether it be a pro, a con, or an innate proclivity. Thus, we are determined in every decision by the aforementioned variables.

Evolution is not a hypothesis lol, also it CAN be tested in a lab, not only that, it is the basis for pretty much all modern day biology. Saying it doesn't exist to a biologist is like saying a hammer doesn't exist to a builder, they use it every day.

Also I do not need to prove God doesn't exist, the burden of proof lies with the one making the positive claim.

I think one thing that makes people confused is the term theory of evolution. The word "theory" when used in a scientific context has a completely different technical meaning from the coloqual use of the word. A theory is a carefully thought-out explanation for observations of the natural world that has been constructed using the scientific method, and which brings together many facts and hypotheses.

The difference between a hypothesis and a theory is that a hypothesis is an assumption made before any research has been done. It is formed so that it can be tested to see if it might be true. A theory is a principle formed to explain the things already shown in data.

Here is a video of the principle of evolution in action right before your very eyes: https://youtu.be/plVk4NVIUh8

If im not wrong that is only proven for irrelevant decisions as choosing what object to take. I tend to think free will doesnt exist but as far as i know its not proven.

Our brains do have an original "purpose", it was an evolutionary advantage that evolved to make more efficient the genes replication. Brain is a machine of solving problems towards a goal. So it seems normal that we deeply feel bad at realizing universe has no meaning.

I don't understand how you came to that. The last sentence seems like a non-sequitur.

if we define "universe having meaning" as something like " there is some goals we objectivly should follow", well, the brain has many innate goals, it evolved to pursue those goals. so when we are realize the universe is actually meaningless it goes against our intincts

I asked A.I. to write a dialog in the style of Plato on the nature of beds. I found it amusing.

​

>Socrates: What is a bed?
>
>Glaucon: A bed is a piece of furniture that we sleep on.
>
>Socrates: But is that all it is?
>
>Glaucon: What do you mean?
>
>Socrates: I mean, is there not some deeper essence to a bed? Something beyond its function as a place to sleep?
>
>Glaucon: I'm not sure I follow.
>
>Socrates: Think about it. What makes a bed a bed, and not something else? Is it the wood it is made of, or the shape?
>
>Glaucon: I suppose it is a combination of those things.
>
>Socrates: But if we were to change the wood or the shape, would it still be a bed?
>
>Glaucon: I don't see why not.
>
>Socrates: So then what is the essence of a bed? Is it its function, or its form?
>
>Glaucon: I don't know.
>
>Socrates: Perhaps the essence of a bed is not something we can see or touch, but something more abstract. Perhaps it is the idea of a bed that defines it, rather than any particular example of one.
>
>Glaucon: I see what you mean. So then, if we were to imagine a perfect bed, what would it look like?
>
>Socrates: That is a question for another day, my friend. For now, let us simply ponder the nature of the bed, and all that it represents.

Yea that's kind of what I'm trying to get at, except I would ask why the perceived objectiveness of a goal has any bearing on the chemical-emotional reward we get for pursuing said goal. I think this is done at a cognitive level and we don't actually suffer from the realization that the universe has no meaning until we assign the negative connotation to that fact manually.

I would say there is no need to assign a negative connotation for us to suffer. A meaningless universe goes against our instincts. For example, for many people, one big part of universe not having meaning is we are going to completely cease to exist, that goes against our survival instinct. Also we have instinct to try to improve the situation, but we will grow old and all we do will dissapear eventually.

Wrong, given that a scientific theory must be both experimental and falsifiable, and the hypothesis of evolution is neither. Evolutionists infer common ancestry, leading back to the first cell, which was composed randomly through time and chance. There is no way to test this hypothesis throgh experimentation, making it unfalsifiable. Evolutionists assume it's true based upon their preconception about God, namely that he does not exist, which is another hypothesis they presume to be true, yet have no evidence for.

Know that God loves you, but it's on his terms.

Do you guys have any good podcast recs?

I've listened to a rendition of the Republic. I've also listened to Understanding... By Laurence Houlgate. Both of his series are absolutely incredible.

I don't mind incredibly dry so long as it inspires thought.

Again, evolution is not a hypothesis. Also the burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim about a god. Also you need to do some research on what the theory of evolution actually is I think you are quite confused about what it is.

Alright, but what is the point of DNA replicating itself. I wonder about DNA and if it made the decision to keep itself alive. It became aware of its own existence and perpetrated it. If not, then we’re did the self Replication start. If we follow it, particles would therefore attempt to maintain their state and form larger particles as a product of their maintaining. So, if particles maintain themselves, then, is the Big Bang, an attempt at the universe maintaining itself infinitely (assuming another one starts after the end of this universe).

I find it hard to follow the person maintaining themselves to the DNA as I have no concept of DNA’s consciousness just the idea that some RNA self replicate. States return to maximum entropy. The most stable form of the system. When everything is stable though, nothing will happen, or maybe something does happen in stability. In stability, one movement could mean a massive reaction.

[deleted]

[deleted]

Does anyone believe that the universe preserves itself just as how humans do?

Personally, I think that since humans preserves themselves, animals preserve themselves, cells preserve themselves, RNAs preserves themselves, that probably all things preserve themselves just by being themselves. Likewise the universe preserves itself just by being itself. So this is probably one of infinite timelines. Does something change in the future? IDK, but there’s always gonna be another one.

This is based on an assumption though. I can’t see there being nothing forever since there is currently something and this must have come from something, nothing, itself atleast right? I mean, I am here currently…

In one way, life makes me a little bit sad because of the philosophical nature of truth and reasoning. All truth and reasoning, whether you like it or not or admit it or not, is based on assumptions that may be true but cannot be proven true outside your blind acceptance. That's just how it is. And since we are known to be wrong about things sometimes, why should I have any faith in what I believe? Haven't you had moments where you thought you knew something but it turned out later to be false?

What of the influence you can have on habits that constitute the 30-70% of our daily unconscious behavior ?

DNA is not conciouss, first molecule that replicated itself was not DNA, we know it couldnt be DNA but we still dont know which one was. that molecule was formed by chance in a situation where millions of millions of ramdom chemical reactions where happening, then the replication continued and evolved by a blindly, its loo long to explain here mate, read about evolution and you will undersand why it happens blindly

What exactly do you mean by preservation? In a biological sense, I would disagree with you. Animals (including humans) have the urge to self-preserve because it's evolutionary beneficial. Animals who want to survive are more likely to survive, cells and RNA reproduce for that same reason. Not because there is a god or because it's the meaning of the universe but simply because of natural selection.
"The universe preserves itself just by being itself"
How is that the case? Just because something exists, it doesn't mean it preserves.

Let's assume that we have freedom of choice, the freedom to act according to our will. If that is the case, if our conscious decisions are based on our will - what's determining that will? One thing is for sure: It cannot be ourselves. If decisions are based on will, then deciding what your will is, would be a decision based on your will - a circular argument.

Thats where the statistical probability of an event happening comes into play. just cos there is a 1 in 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 chance that the sun won't rise tomorrow doesn't mean that I am wrong to belive it will rise tomorrow with virtual certainty.

Humans, individually, cannot make any real impact. All change in the social world and environment is due to the choices made collectively as a species.

So then there is an absolute truth as you said. The truth of never knowing for sure if our assumptions are true...

There are some cases where humans can have a huge imapct. I think the one who had most impact in history was Muhammed, the inventor of Islam. Had he not lived, society would be radically different in many countries.

Mathematical truths are absolute truths, for example, "square root of 2 cant be obtained by dividing 2 natural numbers" that is an absolute truth.

I guess apart from math truths, and the fact that you exist there arent other absolute truths. but there are other truths that even if not absolute, the evidence supporting them is overwhelming.

"why should I have any faith in what I believe?" You shouldn't have faith, you should just follow the evidence wherever it leads, and you should be aware of the evidence that is supporting the things you think are true.

"Haven't you had moments where you thought you knew something but it turned out later to be false?" happens to all of us, one very common is realizing the religion we were indoctrinated into is false, or realizing many political or historical assumptions that many people holds are wrong, also we get dissapointed from some people, all of that is totally normal.

I never said that. I just said that we rely on perception to decide what is true and what is not. "I know X" is an interpretation that may be right. Every claim of knowledge is an interpretation.

What I'm thinking of is the Münchhausen trilemma.

Thank You

Ur right, thank you

I think get your point, however, to say it’s ‘evolutionarily beneficial’, implies there is a driving force, whether you want to call it God or Meaning, you’ve provided a driving force. It’s like saying natural selections goal is to survive. Natural selection makes better survivors survive, but doesn’t make things survive.

What I was trying to say was more a recognition of a pattern and a hopeful attempt at extrapolating the pattern to all things. Maybe incorrect, but hopeful, that the universe would perpetuate itself by means of its very being. Foolish, but hopeful.

How I came to this was via stating that humans preserve themselves by living. A human who decides to live, makes the conscious decisions that extend their life. They arnt trying to extend it, it’s simply a bi-product of them living. Choosing to find shelter and food is to satisfy hunger and comfort but I don’t think people shop with “yes this will extend my life” in mind.

So the claim I was making, is that if humans and animals and cells, and maybe DNA and RNA, extend their lives not by trying to, but just by existing in their own ways, that possibly, all things extend their own existence as a byproduct of their existence. Maybe, just maybe, all things further their existence not by choosing to, but as a side effect of existence. For if not, then you would simply cease to exist whenever you weren’t trying to exist.

Thoughts?

Hope,

Hope makes you weak, it gives you a false belief that one-day, something good will happen.

The society has made us fool. We were never meant to accomplish greatness in our life. Our purpose was to born-live-die.

But how can you make humans live, there would be chaos if they know that most of them doesn’t even matter. Its hope, always this hope, it’s a drug, a drug which this society forces you to consume, because if you don’t, you will start to see things what you were never meant to see.

The more you give humans this drug, the more they become addicted to it, the more they chase it.

We have consumed this drug so much, that we think, we can’t live without it. We believe we will simply die, or go mad if we don’t have hope.

But that’s not true, it was never meant to be true.

Hope shatters you from within, the moment your hope breaks, you simply fall and you will be at your lowest which you could have never imagined. During that moment you will start to question yourselves, all of your beliefs begins to shatter, the only question that comes to your mind is- Why, Why Me?

Hope is like devil's apple, we eat it because we believe it makes us strong, but what we don’t realise that at its core, the presence of its poisonous seeds. But we still eat it till we start to consume that seed too and it starts to poison us, choke us. But do we stop, NO, we still keep eating it, because that’s what devil wants, that’s what society wants. And we keep on eating it till the poison consumes you, and now even we can’t save yourself.

How is the life without hope, one may ask. It’s not beautiful, it’s not heaven. But what it really is, it’s the Reality, the world that humans were meant to be in. The world where you live only to fulfil your duties without asking for something in return, where you are at least live in peace because you know, in the end you don’t matter to this world, and this world was never obliged to give something to you in return.

Do, humans will ever live without hope, Never, because that’s what makes us humans. We would rather live a beautiful lie rather than live a harsh reality.

But now I will not cling to this Hope. I once had hope, but after it has always betrayed me, I have realized how evil it is.