New answers tagged

1

I think you may have partitioned the causeless causes, which is why you find so few. The first causeless cause is, naturally, the first cause. In science, this is "the big bang," though there is plenty of philosophy on other first causes. So far it seems unpopular to consider concepts of time which don't have a cause. You might be able to find some ...


0

the physics of the universe are infinitely and densely divisible In physics at least, that question is still a matter of some debate. In fact, it is at the heart of the conflict between general relativity and quantum mechanics. In my personal opinion, Loop Quantum Gravity is the way forward (and by that I mean, the best path toward unifying GR and QM), and ...


6

There are several questions here and there are several different domains of philosophy involved. One major question is about ontology: is what we call 'free will' a 'real' experience and what's the difference between that and it being 'only a perception'? There's a broad range of thoughts on this, some of which veer into theology, but also things like "...


2

In my answer to the original question, I started with the observation that thoughts consist of nerve impulses. While it is true that the physiological processes that form nerve impulses involve electrical currents and chemistry, and that these in turn could be described by (deterministic) equations, the human brain consists of a staggeringly large number of ...


1

eKGWB In the next sentence Nietzsche wrote: To take an example: the good Malvida has incited nothing but mischief throughout her life, thanks to that same impudence.


2

The quote appears in Walter Kauffman's The Portable Nietzsche, and is attributed to a letter to his sister dated March 1885. It is hard to say without the context of the letter who it refers to, if anyone in particular, but it is unlikely to be directed at psychologists. They were not on his mind at the time, in between writing the two parts of Zarathustra. ...


0

What would be the (biological(or other)) advantage? Given that consciousness is a product of biological evolution, I think this framing of the question in terms of biological advantage is key. An article "The biological function of consciousness" by Brian Earl is freely available. It argues first that executive functioning (essentially, "will") does not ...


0

In this answer, I interpret the OP's "assuming we don't have free will" as assuming we believe that we don't have free will. Then the question is "Why do we still have the guess ("illusion") of free will counter our stance". The idea that we don't possess free will (or freedom of consciousness, to be more precise) and that our actions are pre-determined ...


1

Spinoza, a non believer in free will, argued in Ethics that people feel they are free because they ignore the causes that determine their actions. It makes sense, considering the overwhelming number of parameters in action when we make decisions, that we can't be aware of all of them. In particular, if we consider our desires, the motivation behind our ...


1

I will attempt to make your argument more concise: P1: Free will exists. P2: The theory of infinite universes is true. C1: (From P2) Therefore, there exist an infinite number of unique universes. C2: (From C1) Therefore, in at least one of those universes I must freely commit a specific self-deprecating irrational action (e.g. cutting my leg off). C3: (...


Top 50 recent answers are included