Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 14:59:28 UTC No. 16207877
>>16207863
Free will is doing fine without your help.
Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 15:03:10 UTC No. 16207881
>>16207863
Saved from what?
Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 15:07:52 UTC No. 16207887
>>16207881
Saved from me
Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 15:28:13 UTC No. 16207904
>>16207863
Free will can be saved if epiphenomenalism is false and consciousness collapses the wave function.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8E
Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 15:30:12 UTC No. 16207909
>>16207881
Saved in the sense of whether it exists or not. I haven't found any convincing arguments for it actually being possible.
Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 15:39:21 UTC No. 16207919
>>16207863
Absolutely not, it's fundamentally a religious idea.
Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 15:54:54 UTC No. 16207932
>>16207863
>Can free will be saved
No:
If things are random, there is no "will"
If things are deterministic, there is no "will"
Also, no point in thinking about the unanswerable. Newton's Flaming Laser Sword.
Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 16:12:10 UTC No. 16207949
https://nintil.com/consciousness-an
>While he argues against telekinesis, one could extend the argument to consciousness. If consciousness causes stuff, then we should be able to detect that force. According to a handy chart at wikipedia, gravity is extremely weak compared to other forces to begin with at small scales, and so something even weaker would have a negligible effect on the brain, swamped by other forces. But still, this doesn't rule out that possibility. A minuscule force, or a consciousness-field might be all that is required! Implausible is not impossible!
Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 18:46:49 UTC No. 16208191
>>16207863
free will requires the ability to have done otherwise. this requires the existence of counterfactual worlds. thus proving free will would require proving the existing of counterfactual worlds. additionally, it would also require proving idealism. i personally believe that free will does NOT exist.
Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 19:10:54 UTC No. 16208219
>>16208191
Not you again. You show up in every thread about free will which should be properly named agency anyway. At least you've added idealism as a condition since you're finally aware that your view requires some sort of duality to be true. It remains remarkable though that you hold on to some sort of duality as the default because to many of us it seems so obvious that a clear distinction between me and the world is indefensible since even a physicalist must admit that we only know the world as it appears to us.
Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 19:51:57 UTC No. 16208285
>>16208219
>which should be properly named agency anyway
no, it should be named free will.
>your view requires some sort of duality to be true
determinism doesn't require duality, no.
>a clear distinction between me and the world is indefensible
that is not obviously true, and that (the problem of identity) is a different issue from both determinism/free will and materialism/idealism.
Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 19:54:57 UTC No. 16208290
>>16207863
It's already saved by quantum randomness