An I right in saying that life is a phenomenon like weather, there is no abstract reason for it?
On Jupiter anticyclonic storms give rise to giant red spots and on Earth strands of protein give rise to biological organisms.
Like local weather is shaped by complex weather systems, our thoughts and emotions are just as mechanical.
To ask if we have free will is like asking if the rain chose to fall when and where it did.
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
youtube.com
twitter.com
Yes, in the God is the reason for both.
Bump
>be OP
>point out how amazing and complex stochastic systems can be
>the whole is more than the sum of its parts
>cite a stochastic system (weather) we still can't accurately predict well
>still insist that even more complex stochastic systems (life) is "just mechanical"
OP, free will is a question of philosophy, theology and semantics.
There are no absolute answers an any of these fields.
Just stop trying to fit the ineffable into your narrow, pedantic worldview.
>asking if the rain chose to fall when and where it did.
Not even close.
No matter how much you hate the idea that some questions might not have answers, humans DO make decisions while rain does not.
The depths of your denial are staggering.
not even op, but you are clearly missing the rain drop analogy. it isnt implied, that the rain makes decisions. the rain drop is the decision
>narrow, pedantic worldview
oh, the irony
Nah, I'm pretty sure "the rain" is meant to be analogous to a human.
More importantly, OP is trying to claim that humans don't really make decisions, which is clearly false, no matter how you feel about free will.
Is a decision really a decision if it's the only one you can make?
>Is a decision really a decision if it's the only one you can make?
Yes.
The rain doesn't weigh it's options, and fall in a place/time/way that will grant it some benefit, or minimize some downside.
...and of course:
>the only one you can make?
[citation needed]
There's only one future (assuming the many-worlds interpretation is wrong), but that doesn't necessarily mean there's only one POSSIBLE future.
You're only going to make one decision about what to have for lunch, but that doesn't mean you were pre-destined to choose that particular thing.
Here, read this:
en.wikipedia.org
> Laplace's demon met its end with early 19th century developments of the concepts of irreversibility, entropy, and the second law of thermodynamics.
Your existentialist *philosophy* isn't applicable to physics, not even classical mechanics.
A rain drop (and where and when it falls) is the product of an extremely complex chain of events the same way a human "decision" is
>There's only one future
>but that doesn't mean you were pre-destined to choose that particular thing
I know, you dont think you are contradicting yourself. But you do
>the same way a human "decision" is
No, it clearly isn't the same.
Please address:
>The rain doesn't weigh it's options, and fall in a place/time/way that will grant it some benefit, or minimize some downside.
I did adressed this
>it isnt implied, that the rain makes decisions. the rain drop is the decision
>A rain drop (and where and when it falls) is the product of an extremely complex chain of events the same way a human "decision" is
In this analogy the brain weighing opinions is the cloud/ air turbulences
>I did adressed this
No, you didn't.
Your insistence that both rain and humans are the result of stochastic systems doesn't address the difference in the nature of these systems.
Human brains accept information as input, comprehend the meaning of that input, and make decisions based on that knowledge, past knowledge and their own desires.
Rain gets pushed in a particular direction without comprehension, knowledge or self-interest.
This SHOULD be self-evident.
>the difference in the nature of these systems
well, it is an analogy after all. They are not identical but share certain characteristics to show a point. They are both chaotic systems that are deterministic
>Rain gets pushed in a particular direction without comprehension, knowledge or self-interest.
Exactly like your thoughts get pushed around. It doesnt matter, that it feels like you have free will or that you aware of your choices.
>They are both chaotic systems that are deterministic
So you still haven't bothered to read:
>Here, read this:
>en.wikipedia.org
>> Laplace's demon met its end with early 19th century developments of the concepts of irreversibility, entropy, and the second law of thermodynamics.
>Your existentialist *philosophy* isn't applicable to physics, not even classical mechanics.
...and even if the universe were deterministic (and it isn't), you STILL haven't addressed my point.
Humans make decisions based on their knowledge and self-interest, two things rain does not posses.
>two things rain does not posses
at this point I have to assume you are obtuse on purpose. Just forget the whole rain analogy if you arent
If I'm the one being obtuse, why am I addressing your points while you aren't addressing mine.
Does the rain posses self-interest?
Do humans not posses self-interest?
Does it influence their decisions?
>Just forget the whole rain analogy
OK, what else do you have?
The whole point of this thread was "humans are kind of like weather, so we don't have free will".
See, I already pointed out that the rain doesnt have these features and that this isnt relevant in this analogy. You keep pointing out that the rain doesnt have knowledge. But this is besides the point. The rain drop is forced to land on a certain spot by variables it cant control the same way a human decision is made according to variables it cant consciously process.
>variables it cant control
And humans are pushed by variables they can control.
Perception is subjective.
So now we've found another way your analogy fails.
>cant consciously process.
That would only be important if all aspects of the human mind qualified as "consciously processing".
>And humans are pushed by variables they can control
no
You mind is a product of processes in your brain. Not the other way around.
What exactly can you control? You look into your fridge and now can control that you like [x], although you hated it all your life?
Pro tip: Before you're even consciously aware of your decision, your subconsciousnes has already decided
aww shit
Sorry for my horrible spelling/grammar mistakes. I am a tired german
>The depths of your denial are staggering.
Top Irony
>You mind is a product of processes in your brain. Not the other way around.
So you have no control over your life experiences?
Perception isn't subjective?
Your decisions don't have an impact on your future?
Your decisions aren't the product of self interest?
You haven't addressed any of these besides your unsubstantiated insistence that similarity to weather means we don't posses free will.
>So you have no control over your life experiences?
No. not really. There are tons of things oviously out of your control
>Perception isn't subjective?
Well, it is. But whats your point here?
>Your decisions don't have an impact on your future?
They do. I never denied this nor has this any relation to the fact that we dont have free will.
>Your decisions aren't the product of self interest?
They are. But this is a point against free will
Bump
You have free will because you wanted it, and you won't appreciate it until you lose it
might i recommend?:
youtube.com
Can you give a summary?