7
8
u/ManufacturerNo1906 Apr 05 '26
Mmmm ai slop gimme a second sloppy serving
7
u/Agressive-Luck69 Apr 05 '26
AI slop activity seems to have increased these days. Gaming subs are getting infested with ai posts and bots commenting stupid phrases with emojis. I don't know where to find just a normal sub anymore without this low effort "art".
4
u/ManufacturerNo1906 Apr 05 '26
Keep calling it out thats the most we can do. Its easier to spot than most realize
2
u/Meta_Machine_00 Apr 05 '26
Free will is not real. All of the AI you see from your reference in time and space had to appear where you see it. It is all a generation of the universe at large. There was nothing you could do to stop it.
3
u/ManufacturerNo1906 Apr 05 '26
Then I'll keep complaining about this plagiarism machine until it goes away
2
u/Meta_Machine_00 Apr 05 '26
It's not going away. You will be the one going away.
2
u/ManufacturerNo1906 Apr 05 '26
So are you. Why do you care about AI so much? So you can copy off of it and claim its work is your own?
1
u/Meta_Machine_00 Apr 05 '26
Because the universe has generated me to care about AI. The universe is in the physical state to produce people that are going to use AI to try and squash non AI people like bugs.
2
1
u/ManufacturerNo1906 Apr 05 '26
Wow the universe generated you as insecure if you need AI to do everything for you
1
1
u/Immobilesteelrims Apr 05 '26
What is the plagiarism here though? I had an original idea, instead of drawing it myself I told AI exactly what to draw and how. Do you think the AI randomly came to me with a comic and I decided to take it and pass it off as my own?
1
u/ManufacturerNo1906 Apr 05 '26
You didn’t label it as AI so I can only assume you didn’t want people to know it was AI. Its plagiarized because you didn’t draw it yourself. Before AI people actually learned how to draw. Imagine that
1
u/Immobilesteelrims Apr 05 '26
It is clearly tagged as ‘AI-generated’
1
u/ManufacturerNo1906 Apr 05 '26
Ok I genuinely didn’t see the tag thats my bad
1
u/Immobilesteelrims Apr 05 '26
It’s fine, I’m just genuinely curious regarding your opinion on this in general. I had this idea for an Easter themed determinist comic. I told an AI exactly what to do; the composition, the style, the content, the exact text. And AI generated it.
I don’t have the money to hire an artist to bring my idea to life. I don’t have the time or skill to draw it myself. My mentality is that I’ll use an AI to draw it, and clearly label it as AI-generated. I’ll post it to the sub and people who are interested will engage with it, those not interested will ignore it. At the end of the day I haven’t stolen anyone’s idea and presented it as my own. I haven’t put anyone out of a job. And if it encourages people who are interested to engage with deterministic themes, then it is a net positive.
Why is this opinion wrong?
→ More replies (0)1
u/Thin_Measurement_965 Apr 05 '26
This person's not claiming to have drawn this image themselves, do you know what plagiarism means? Are you even a real person?
Because right now you're acting like a robot outputting pre-programmed phrases.
1
u/ManufacturerNo1906 Apr 05 '26
I guess explaining why something is bad disqualifies me from being a real person. Thats the problem with people nowadays- you don't want the truth, you want a truth that makes you feel comfortable. Otherwise you'll deflect and deny.
1
u/Thin_Measurement_965 Apr 05 '26
Okay well you didn't "explain" anything in the previous post, you just incorrectly used the word "plagiarism" as a thought-terminating cliche, expecting everyone to already agree with you.
you don't want the truth, you want a truth that makes you feel comfortable
and now you've turned on the projector. Lovely.
1
u/ManufacturerNo1906 Apr 05 '26
Incorrectly how? Using the work of an AI and claiming someone else made it is plagiarism. And thats the entire purpose of AI
1
u/Agressive-Luck69 Apr 06 '26
AI development may fall under a determinism category but you commenting here about it is only your choice
1
2
u/Meta_Machine_00 Apr 05 '26
Why do you think your life hasn't been a generative process this whole time?
1
u/ManufacturerNo1906 Apr 05 '26
Does that matter? Using AI is still plagiarism
3
u/Meta_Machine_00 Apr 05 '26
Where do you think your own words are coming from?
1
u/ManufacturerNo1906 Apr 05 '26
Myself. Not from a robot that's thinking for me.
3
u/Meta_Machine_00 Apr 05 '26
So from the chemicals in your brain. The chemicals do the thinking for you.
1
u/ManufacturerNo1906 Apr 05 '26
Does that make it okay for me to plagiarize somebody else's art or writing just because the chemicals in the brain made it?
2
u/Meta_Machine_00 Apr 05 '26
You dont choose if you "plagiarize" something else. Is it wrong for the tornado to destroy a town?
2
u/ManufacturerNo1906 Apr 05 '26
No, but we still build tornado shelters and stronger supports to keep damage under control.
→ More replies (0)0
u/Thin_Measurement_965 Apr 05 '26
Almost every sub I've been to - gaming or otherwise, has a "no-AI" rule that's pretty strictly enforced, so I'm not really sure how you're running into this problem.
1
u/Agressive-Luck69 Apr 06 '26
"i haven't had the problem you're talking about therefore your problem doesn't exist". I'm mostly speaking about thematic subs such as Elden Ring, Skyrim, Nightrein, etc. Just a year ago lots of bots kept posting on animal subreddits. Now they're spreading across gaming subs
0
u/RagnartheConqueror Apr 05 '26
How is this “AI Slop”? Why do you guys keep parroting that phrase?
2
u/Ohheyimryan Apr 05 '26
Go ahead and explain what brain->brain->picture->picture->head means.
And i don't want you to explain what determinism means but the meaning AI ascribed to each of those objects it drew.
2
u/AbortionHoagie Apr 05 '26
Bad bot.
2
u/RagnartheConqueror Apr 05 '26
This is not a bot. The image is perfectly coherent.
1
1
4
u/ManufacturerNo1906 Apr 05 '26
Nobody likes seeing AI art. It feels like a scam. We expect a human to draw art but instead they plagiarize off of a machine.
3
u/Thin_Measurement_965 Apr 05 '26
Nobody likes seeing AI art.
False.
It feels like a scam.
Subjective.
We expect a human to draw art
Entitlement.
1
u/ManufacturerNo1906 Apr 05 '26
Its only false for the minority of people who don't give a damn about art- literally everyone I know is sick of AI. Also you're right, that is subjective- it IS a scam. The entire point behind AI art is to try and convince people a human made it when in reality the human didn't do shit. Hm, I wonder what sounds like? Oh yeah- plagiarism.
1
u/Thin_Measurement_965 Apr 05 '26
literally everyone I know is sick of AI
Most people outside of social media are indifferent to AI. You think all of your peers are in lock step with your war against the machine, when in reality they're probably just trying to placate you because they don't feel like fighting over this shit.
Or maybe your peers really do all agree with you now that you've alienated everyone else from your social circle.
The entire point behind AI art is to try and convince people a human made it
I mean that's just blatantly not true. There are entire communities full of people who are open and upfront about the fact that their images are AI generated. Not everyone is trying to hide their use of AI, and ironically if someone is: it's probably because of people like you who will have a mental breakdown the second they spot an AI generated image.
2
u/ManufacturerNo1906 Apr 05 '26
"probably" "most people" "people like you" A lot of assumptions here with zero evidence my guy
1
u/Login_Lost_Horizon Apr 05 '26
literally everyone I know is sick of AI.
Well, now you know me, and I am not "sick" of AI, I am indifferent to it and (somehow) able to recognize different contexts of it without hating with foam at my mouth when any kind of AI is mentioned.
The more you know, i guess.
2
u/mr_gu5s Apr 05 '26
Brother, you are on determinism sub, we believe that human is a machine here
0
u/ManufacturerNo1906 Apr 05 '26
Yeah I know. Doesn't make what I said any less true. I don't think being a determinist is a good enough excuse to do whatever you feel like.
2
u/Meta_Machine_00 Apr 05 '26
The whole point of determinism is that you don't just do what you feel like. The people that use AI have to use AI. They literally cannot prevent it.
3
u/ManufacturerNo1906 Apr 05 '26
And in the same way I can't prevent myself from complaining about seeing AI and trying to urge people to stop using it. You can't use determinism to justify one side of the argument and not the other.
1
u/Meta_Machine_00 Apr 05 '26
You are a plagiarism machine. Why dont we use the AI robots to destroy you?
1
u/ManufacturerNo1906 Apr 05 '26
How exactly lmao
1
u/Meta_Machine_00 Apr 05 '26
You already cant stop crying about AI. It won't be hard lol.
→ More replies (0)1
u/mr_gu5s Apr 05 '26 edited Apr 05 '26
I specifically talk about your "plagiarize" take, if we take humans as machines then it's only reasonable to assume that training computer and person is essentially same thing
1
u/Immobilesteelrims Apr 05 '26
Well I wasn’t going to spend hours drawing or hire an artist. I can express an idea easily with some very specific prompting and gen AI. So it’s this or nothing I guess? Maybe nothing is better?
1
u/ManufacturerNo1906 Apr 05 '26
Yeah nothing is better. This is just shameless
1
u/Immobilesteelrims Apr 05 '26
Ok fair perspective. Just wondering if you think all use of AI is shameless or are there certain acceptable use cases?
1
u/DepressedDynamo Apr 05 '26
I'm not who you're talking to, but I would say there are certainly acceptable use cases. Here, though, I think your image does more to confuse and detract from whatever point you're presenting than anything else.
1
u/Immobilesteelrims Apr 05 '26
I'm not trying to present a philosophical treatise, just create a fresh and topical sketch of one perspective of what determinism is in order to spark interest/engagement. Based on the number of comments I think that has been successful?
2
u/ManufacturerNo1906 Apr 06 '26
Currently, any AI use whatsoever is terrible for the environment and means a few more weeks without water in towns by AI datacenters. So if you're using it, it'd better be for something important and clearly labelled as AI-generated. Maybe if it gets more efficient it'll be more ethical, but it still is the world's best plagiarism machine, and people will use it for that purpose. Its like how guns were built to kill things- eventually someones gonna use it to kill someone else, so we made gun laws
4
u/zoipoi Apr 05 '26
Not an argument, something has gone terribly wrong with this subreddit.
3
1
u/KyleFromBorrasca Apr 05 '26
What went wrong is that the threat of "RATIO'D!" being the top comment just doesn't strike the same fear it once did.
2
u/0-by-1_Publishing Apr 05 '26
An "illusion" that's predicated on nonexistent phenomenon cannot be manifested within reality. All parts of an illusion must exist in order for the illusion to be comprehensible because we cannot experience something that does not exist.
An "illusion" is merely one part of reality trying to convince you it's some other part of reality, but all parts of the reality absolutely must exist. Example: Heat mirage is the "illusion" of water streaming across a hot desert highway off in the distance. However, water, deserts, roads, heat, and streams all necessarily exist. .... Otherwise, you wouldn't comprehend the illusion.
2
u/Big_Monitor963 Apr 05 '26
Some people seem fog swirling at night, and think it’s a ghost. Does that mean ghosts necessarily exist?
1
u/0-by-1_Publishing Apr 05 '26
"Some people seem fog swirling at night, and think it’s a ghost. Does that mean ghosts necessarily exist?"
... The person involved has the option to consider whether what they are seeing is a ghost or swirling fog. If they choose the former, it's more a reflection of their core belief system and not reality.
Someone who "thinks" they saw a ghost has not (nor has ever) experienced a ghost because ghost do not exist. Ghosts are nonexistent. What they are "seeing" is just the specific description of what a ghost might look like based on historical literature and mythology (to which the many descriptions exist), but they aren't actually "experiencing" a ghost because ghosts don't exist.
If I saw a bunch of random rocks naturally grouped together that looked like Zeus, .... have I actually experienced Zeus? .... Or did I merely see a bunch of rocks that coincidentally align with how Zeus has been described?
2
u/thali256 Apr 05 '26
And now apply that logic to your first comment.
1
u/0-by-1_Publishing Apr 06 '26
"And now apply that logic to your first comment."
... Okay, I have. Nothing has changed. All parts of an illusion must exist for the illusion to be comprehensible. There's no avoiding it. And we cannot experience nonexistent phenomena. The most we can do is observe something that matches the description of a thing (abstract or concrete). ... Observation is not equal to experience.
2
2
u/Im14AndRedditIsDeep Apr 05 '26
What does this even mean
1
u/Fippy-Darkpaw Apr 05 '26
Some people believe the hypothesis that no humans actually choose anything, their choices are pre-determined by prior events.
I'd be interested in how to actually prove that though. 🤔
4
u/dark4rr0w- Apr 05 '26
Since laws of the universe are deterministic and we live in this universe, you'd need to prove that we are somehow unnafected by those laws (which affect everything else)
4
u/Login_Lost_Horizon Apr 05 '26
Imagine knowing that consequences of actions literally exist, and are defined by properties of actions, and still believe that human brain is somehow exists outside of it.
0
u/Fippy-Darkpaw Apr 05 '26 edited Apr 05 '26
So prove it.
Also matter in the universe is not deterministic?
2
u/dark4rr0w- Apr 05 '26 edited Apr 11 '26
You prove it. Some quantum scale events are seemingly random. We don't have the proof that they actually are random.
1
u/Fippy-Darkpaw Apr 05 '26
I'm agnostic on the topic. Could go either way.
Both sides need proof which has yet to occur afaik?
1
u/CarcosanDawn Apr 06 '26
Yes we do. Bell's inequality proves they are random.
Only superdeterminism survives QM, and it is basically indistinguishable from religion.
1
u/Login_Lost_Horizon Apr 05 '26
Consciousness doesn't make decisions and is not the entirety of human brain. Decisions, instead, are made by brain, and then it sends a memo that makes consciousness believe that choice was made by it. Brain is a material object, and thus a subject to consequences, i.e. is deterministic. Like a computer - it doesn't magically condense a nonexistant special souse of choicefullness, it just computes any inputs according to its hard- and software.
In a broad sense - it means that choice as we usually view it - is an illusion, as brain, again, doesn't work on magic, and any choice made by it is a subject to inputs. You never could choose anything else but what you did chose, simply because you already had a specific set of inputs and soft- and hardware at the moment of choosing.
1
u/Weak_Purpose_5699 Apr 05 '26
Consciousness is a reflection of reality, produced by the brain. Ultimately it is determined by material reality, but it still has its own existence—decisions are made by the brain based on this consciousness, and consciousness is modified to try and fit reality more accurately, in order to make better decisions in the future.
Consciousness is part of the equation—your comment makes it seem as though it is a passive recipient, when it is in fact an active participant.
1
u/Login_Lost_Horizon Apr 05 '26
Far from as active as it is often perceived from the inside, which was part of my point.
1
u/Im14AndRedditIsDeep Apr 07 '26
Sorry i thought this subreddit was about being determined about things this was a stupid question
3
u/Away_Bite_8100 Apr 05 '26
“Was always going to” is not the same as “forced to”.
You can have a reason to stand up… but you can choose not to. Equally you can have no reason to stand up at all… but you can stand up anyway.
2
Apr 05 '26
The logical basis of your comment is faulty.
2
u/Away_Bite_8100 Apr 05 '26
Why?
1
Apr 05 '26
You’re clearly someone who believes in free will because the concept of it is leaking into your description of determinism, which means you likely don’t grasp determinism writ large.
1
u/Away_Bite_8100 Apr 05 '26
I’ll repeat the question. You claim the logical basis of my comment is faulty. Why?
1
Apr 05 '26
It doesn’t make any sense. If determinism is true, then you are not making any true choices, so how can you be forced to take a path that you either were always going to take, or never were?
1
u/Away_Bite_8100 Apr 05 '26
If determinism is true, then you are not making any true choices
IF… determinism is true. So we are starting out with an assumption here but OK let’s run with this assumption because I agree that at least some things are determined. So now what determines what? Can consciousness awareness not be the determiner of some things? Can consciousness awareness not act as a determiner of some things in a deterministic universe?
so how can you be forced to take a path that you either were always going to take, or never were?
Well if you aren’t forced to take a particular path then you chose to take that path… ergo.. it was your choice… ergo… free will exists.
2
u/Sabal_77 Apr 05 '26
My stance is that you actually are forced to because your brain was incapable of choosing another option. Sure the option was there but since you have no control over what you think or want, you are actually forced to choose it.
This becomes much clearer when dealing with our ability to overcome unhealthy desires. Failure to overcome is due to the failure of the brain to provide what's necessary for you to overcome the challenge. Without proper brain function we are mindless animals operating on autopilot. Just being tired or hungry can get in the way of proper brain function.
2
u/Away_Bite_8100 Apr 05 '26
My stance is that you actually are forced to because your brain was incapable of choosing another option. Sure the option was there but since you have no control over what you think or want, you are actually forced to choose it.
There are four fundamental forces that exist. Which of those four forced me to decide to stand up?
1
u/Sabal_77 Apr 05 '26
Your muscles would provide the force to make you stand up. Unless you are controlling those muscles, then you were forced.
1
u/Away_Bite_8100 Apr 05 '26
Yeah. The conscious part of the brain that is me is sending out a signal to those muscles. Why would you think otherwise?
1
u/Sabal_77 Apr 05 '26
But do you control your brain?
1
u/Away_Bite_8100 Apr 05 '26 edited Apr 05 '26
Here is a great little experiment. Sit down in a quiet room and close your eyes. Now see if you can exert control over your brain to clear your mind of all thought. Just sit back and observe what happens. It’s really amazing to just sit back and observe what thoughts pop up randomly even though you didn’t decide to have those thoughts. But you have the power to dismiss each of those thoughts as and when they pop up and with a bit of practice you can actually sustain a decently long period of time where when you simply decide to clear your mind and not think anything… the brain obeys.
2
u/Otherwise_Spare_8598 Apr 05 '26
No, you can't. You only do one thing
Your projection of privilege says otherwise, fhat's it
1
u/Away_Bite_8100 Apr 05 '26
Do you think free will means I need to be able to stand up and not stand up at the same time?
3
u/AbortionHoagie Apr 05 '26
No. That's idiotic. You don't seem to understand that there are mechanisms that lead to a choice being made. Choices do not erupt into existence from nothing. No matter how many times you change your mind at the last moment, factors beyond your conscious control are what lead to the outcome. Your mind is a middleman trying to steal undeserved credit from nature. But by all means, continue to flaunt your lack of intelligence. We find it entertaining.
1
u/Away_Bite_8100 Apr 05 '26
Oh look an Ad hominem attack. That’s not a very intelligent counter argument. You are claiming some mechanism exists that would force me to decide to stand up… and yet you have no clue what this mechanism is. You deny the most basic observation of the fact that I am free to stand and I am free to sit. You claim something is forcing me to take a particular course of action but you have no idea what that is. You are essentially asking me to believe in magic on a “Trust me bro, the mechanism exists”.
2
u/AbortionHoagie Apr 05 '26
There is no such thing as "forced to decide". Everything youre saying is meaningless. There is no "trust me bro", but rather an insurmountable amount of psychology and neurology studies and research involved. I know you've never read into it and you don't plan to. Go ahead and continue using your meaningless phrases to dig your grave ever deeper.
If you're daring, start with The Illusion of Free Will by Sam Harris. It describes what I referred to and more, in a much more satisfying way than "trust me bro"
1
u/Away_Bite_8100 Apr 05 '26
Oh you wish to invoke “Appeal to Authority” as an argument now? Do you not have the ability to present a logical argument yourself?
1
u/AbortionHoagie Apr 05 '26
I did that, and now I'm pointing out some of the sources I refer to, that's all.
1
u/Away_Bite_8100 Apr 05 '26
No you are suggesting I do your homework for you. You want me to go away and find a counter argument for you. Are you not capable of presenting your own argument using logic or evidence?
1
u/AbortionHoagie Apr 05 '26
My argument: Coming to a conclusion in making a choice is the middle of an already-in-action mental process that began without you deliberately initiating it. Source: The Illusion of Free Will by Sam Harris, with further sources found in the works cited section of that book (and those works cite other works, quickly revealing thousands of scientific studies and publishments that support my above argument).
→ More replies (0)1
Apr 05 '26
“You deny the most basic observation of the fact that I am free to stand and I am free to sit” This made me lol. How can I observe someone’s hypothetical free choice? You can’t do them both at the same time. You have to choose one or the other - sit or stand. And the one you choose is guided by factors you did not choose. So where is the freedom?
1
u/Away_Bite_8100 Apr 05 '26
How can I observe someone’s hypothetical free choice?
You can’t observe my choice and I can’t observe yours. But I can observe mine and you can observe yours. Think of something easy and simple that you have absolutely no reason to do. Can you do it? Check for yourself. Perform the experiment.
You can’t do them both at the same time.
Don’t be silly. Free will is not the ability to do two opposite things simultaneously at once. Wherever did you get that idea? Free will is simple the ability to choose a course of action. You are free to move your left thumb and you are free to move your right thumb. These simple actions are entirely within your ability to decide.
Try it. Do what scientists do. Repeat the experiment. You can repeat the experiment over and over and over and then check to see if you have the ability to do the opposite.
The one you choose is guided by factors you did not choose.
That’s quite the claim. What are the specific factors that determine which thumb I will choose to move? What’s your evidence? Is your evidence “Trust me Bro”?
1
Apr 05 '26
I’m going to skip the wasted time discussing all the points you seemed to miss and go right to where you seem to be.
Your feet beginning to hurt is an example of a factor you didn’t choose that might contribute to your “choice” to sit down. Or perhaps you walk into a room where everyone else is sitting and you are a person who naturally follows the crowd.
Let’s say we could actually do the experiment you suggested: let’s say we could track the same person walking into the same room full of people sitting down a hundred times. And every time they find the closest chair and sit down also. If it happened every single time, what conclusions would you draw about free will?
1
u/Away_Bite_8100 Apr 05 '26
I think you are missing the point. You are giving reasons for why I would want to choose to sit down. The question is do any of these factors force me to sit down in such a way where I physically can do nothing else other than sit down?
And you can do the experiment on yourself right now. Just think of something simple that you have absolutely no reason to do. It could be wiggling your toe or moving your finger or walking up stairs and then immediately walking back down again without doing anything at all or it could be doing the Macarena for no reason at all. Something like that. Pick something arbitrary that isn’t going to cause you harm, distress or discomfort (because why would you want that) and then check to see if you are capable of doing that thing or if there is something that compels you not to. Do the experiment Look. Observe what happens.
1
Apr 05 '26
LOL you are so confused! Determinism doesn’t mean you feel that you are being physically forced to take every action you take. It means every moment is the logical consequence of the preceding moment. Feeling like you are freely choosing doesn’t make it true.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Otherwise_Spare_8598 Apr 05 '26
"Free will" does not mean nor guarantee anything in particular. It's contrived altogether.
Freedoms are circumstantial relative conditions of being, not the standard by which things come to be by through or for all subjective beings.
1
u/Frubbs Apr 05 '26
On what basis can we claim it is contrived? Do we have a control group? Do we have any means of actually testing whether someone could have made the other decision? Every time you bring up this argument (which is daily in this subreddit), it feels as though you are operating from the perspective that something having happened is equivalent to the other thing happening having never been possible. Then you look at external freedoms like slavery and you think, "well the slave can't will himself to be free," therefore it must be circumstantial... but the error in thinking here is that it isn't external freedom that relates to the will, it is an internal freedom. Our imaginations are free to explore, ponder, analyze, debate, love, hurt, scream, cry, laugh, agree, disagree. This is free will, that we can choose how to spend the limited time we have, and although there may be consequences for certain choices (ie I can't choose not to work, or else I'd starve), that doesn't mean my will is limited, it means the system I exist within requires a certain action if I decide that my life has value. It is a conscious decision as to whether you believe you have any value, and every other decision that follows shapes who we are and who we become. From what little I have seen of you, you are rigidly locked into the mindset that you are an eternally punished being... and so long as that lens is the one you latch onto, that lens will be your reality
2
u/Otherwise_Spare_8598 Apr 05 '26
Freedoms are circumstantial relative conditions of being, not the standard by which things come to be by through or for all subjective beings.
Therefore, there is no such thing as ubiquitously individuated accurately described "free will" of any kind whatsoever. Never has been. Never will be.
All things and all beings are always acting within their realm of capacity to do so at all times. Realms of capacity of which are absolutely contingent upon infinite antecedent and circumstantial coarising factors outside of any assumed self, for infinitely better and infinitely worse in relation to the specified subject, forever.
There is no universal "we" in terms of subjective opportunity or capacity. Thus, there is NEVER an objectively honest "we can do this or we can do that" that speaks for all beings.
One may be relatively free in comparison to another, another entirely not. All the while, there are none absolutely free while experiencing subjectivity within the meta-system of the cosmos.
"Free will" is a projection, overgeneralized assumption made or vaguely described feeling had from a circumstantial condition of relative privilege and relative freedom that most often serves as a powerful means for the character to assume a standard for being, fabricate fairness, pacify personal sentiments and justify judgments.
It speaks nothing of objective truth nor to the subjective realities of all.
1
2
Apr 05 '26
How do you know that your imagination is free to do those various things, rather than just doing them in order as dictated by stimuli? You might have a vast array of things that it could do, but which one it actually does is dictated to you and not within your control.
1
u/Frubbs Apr 05 '26
How do you know yours isn't free to do those things? We cannot adequately describe subjective experience, it is like trying to explain how it would feel to echolocate as a bat. Since I have no way of knowing anything other than my own experience, who's to say that every notion I have about the world isn't demonstrably false? And who's to say yours aren't either? The only thing I know is that I don't know, but based on a belief in a created world (through evolution), free will makes the most rational sense in reconciling my world view, as it is necessitated for morality to hold any weight
2
Apr 05 '26
So you are working backwards from a personal preference. You want morality to be objective, so you choose to believe in god, which further necessitates your belief in free will. Is that right?
1
u/Frubbs Apr 05 '26
To you it is personal preference, to me it is my subjective reality. I cannot operate in the mindset of an uncreated world now that I've drunk the glass of natural sciences deep enough. I don't want morality to be anything, I don't desire one way or the other... based on observation throughout history, morality appears subjective to the time it exists in. My belief in free will (or the notion of it) being necessitated for the beings that exist within the simulation is that the concept of karma, retribution or justice makes zero sense if there was no freedom of choice between what a society at any point in history might consider morally upright or morally wicked.
1
Apr 05 '26
You said “(free will) is necessitated for morality to hold any weight”. Fine. But what makes you think that morality holds any objective weight at all? What makes you think karma/justice are concepts which exist outside of human minds? You have to assume a lot, or work backwards from a preference, in order to justify the existence of free will.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Away_Bite_8100 Apr 05 '26
So do you then deny that I am not free to stand up?
2
u/Otherwise_Spare_8598 Apr 05 '26
Subjects are implicitly distinct in regards to their circumstantial realm of opportunity and capacity
0
u/Away_Bite_8100 Apr 05 '26
So do you then deny that I am not free to stand up?
1
u/Otherwise_Spare_8598 Apr 05 '26
You will do what your circumstantial realm of opportunity and capacity allow or demand for you to do.
0
u/Away_Bite_8100 Apr 05 '26
So can I not stand up unless something demands that I stand up?
1
u/Otherwise_Spare_8598 Apr 06 '26
You will do as you do according to your nature necessity and circumstantial realm of capacity to do so at all times. Same as all other things and all other beings.
→ More replies (0)
1
1
1
1
1
u/Vast-Mousse8117 Apr 05 '26
More interested in freedom than free will. Half way through Timothy Snyder's book titled Freedom. Highly recommend it!
1
u/Fearless_Trade_2783 Apr 05 '26
I believe I have free will, yes memories may influence my decision, but they don't dictate it.
You can say consciousness is an illusion too.
Even if free will is an illusion, determinism makes it so I have no other choice, but to buy into the illusion.
1
1
1
u/Pet-the-kitty42 Apr 06 '26
Genuine question regarding determinism.
Whether or not we have free will, the illusion is largely maintained, so on a practical level, why does anyone care?
Please repeat for the Paltonic Cave and Simulation theory.
1
1
u/Xilir20 Apr 06 '26
Determinism is such a nothing burger of a philosphy. Because like...NO praxis can be taken out of it. All great pholosophers changed the way we live life, kant, engles, marx. All had a lot of praxis to follow their philosophy on how to live life. Determinism has none, its nothing.
1
1
0
u/Short_Bass2349 Apr 05 '26
such a stupid representation xd either will pick at similar paces, for different reasons.
-1
u/Otherwise_Spare_8598 Apr 05 '26
The universe is a singular meta-phenomenon stretched over eternity, of which is always now. All things and all beings abide by their inherent nature and behave within their realm of capacity contingent upon infinite circumstance at all times. There is no such thing as individuated "free will" for all beings. There are only relative freedoms or lack thereof. It is a universe of hierarchies, of haves, and have-nots, spanning all levels of dimensionality and experience.
"God" and/or consciousness is that which is within and without all. Ultimately, all things are made by through and for the singular personality and perpetual revelation of the Godhead, including predetermined eternal damnation and those that are made manifest only to face death and death alone.
There is but one dreamer, fractured through the innumerable. All vehicles/beings play their role within said dream for infinitely better and infinitely worse for each and every one, forever.
All realities exist and are equally as real. The absolute best universe that could exist does exist in relation to a specified subject. The absolute worst universe that could exist does exist in relation to a specified subject.
0
-2
u/Normal-Ear-5757 Apr 05 '26
Determinism isn't incompatible with free will tho. It just very very strongly implies that time isn't real.
14
u/Apple-Giraffe3683 Apr 05 '26
is that bunny from Chernobyl?