coming up later today and tomorrow at 1500 CET, I and Streetli will be reading and discussing Bergson's laughter over Reddit Talk at Aristotlestudygroup

See you there.

Well, if we are mindless machines, as many people believe, why do we have a vague concept of free will?

I mean, the concept that before acheiving reason and knowledge humans were just AI

A higher being molding us?

And i can't really know if i am an evil clinically insane criminal that Is actually living an illusion and Is in reality making mafia business or terrorism, right?

I noticed that my concept of a human without free will is similar to the story of Prometheus

It sucks knowing that is not wrong. Hehe.

Mine too. I mean, i can't really know if you are a robot, an ai, an alien, a human or someone else.

I think you're not wrong in this. Can you link it to the idea of sonder? Because I for one can only perceive based on my own self.

:) it's really different that what we thought it to be.

It's a conscious don't. Versus a conscious do or automatic do.

Yeah, It could be. But i am sure that humans are not walking random generators: if free will isnt real, then we would see people randomly running pointlessly naked across the woods and doing pure nonsense.

So even in our limited view of reality our mathematics has proven infinity.

So since we are clearly in an individual universe of individuality within a reality of the true scope of infinity.

Us as an individual part of infinity revokes the idea of free will in my mind.

We are ghastly unaware of even all the factors that go on within oneself let alone all the external factors of the world that birthed us.

Is jumping up as hard as you can a true attempt at making it to the moon without knowledge of aerodynamics and gravity no it wasn’t a true attempt so the lack of arrival to the moon wasn’t a failure.

Us in this very limited and “relative” expirience and universe express a laughable demonstration of the concept of free will in my opinion

My guess is it's like this.

We exert will when we stop something. So when you buy x, and decide not to do it; will exercised. By those circumstances you decided to buy something new, that part may be a bit fully conscious act since it was fueled by the previous. It could be a combination.

Now i want to know your opinion about my discussion.

To sharpen the blade. I think you are not wrong.

Feels like a combination of conscious act and automatic acts working with each other and doing their part when needed.

Not philosophical but more physics inclined but I think I may be able to answer.

For every particle to be arranged in the exact way it were before yes it would literally be that day simple becsuse to do so you would have to reverse the expansion of the universe also so that along with everything being in the exact same place would be turning back the hands of time…

In my opinion, to become more self-aware and achieve free will, we have to sometimes change our routine and focus on our self-improvement and interests. For example: why would you always wear that clothing while you can buy other ones? Why do you always use the same browser while there are other options aviable? Why do you always eat the same meals while you can try new foods?

A blank canvas is every painting imaginable and not.

A canvas brushed with one stroke of paint is every painting imaginable minus every other one you can’t because of the mark.

No canvas but the air “nothingness” it relies on as a medium is every creation or piece of art that can and can’t be created.

That medium of nothingness is god.

That which spawned infinity.

That which is you.

That which is…

Which is also not…

That’s what I believe god is

That could make sense that could not it’s 3:30 in the morning and I’m stoney baloney lol

And to answer your question no I don’t believe god had quantity or form but within that lack of contains the true infinity of things.

Your idea isn't wrong. It's just it scares me the level of how we ought to be to exert free will. And what if that's our only option?

It's probably not easy. Or damning hard.

To be fully conscious, the automatic acts disappear. My best guess.

I mean, he could not control the muscles he controlled previously and had to spend more effort into speech, since he used that machine to speak and his disease made the movements of his tongue more difficult too. as a consequence he had to think more, becoming totally self aware.

Can quantity exist outside of space and time? I was thinking about Anselm's ontological argument for god where he defines god as "that which no greater can be conceived". This implies that god is omnipresent across space and time (to be constrained in space and time would be an imperfection). If god is omnipresent in these axes then can he be quantified in any real way?

A copypasta (with minor modifications) from elsewhere on Reddit:

>Immanent vs Transcendent Deity

> For me, the key issue is the distinction between a transcendent deity and an immanent deity. YHWH is a transcendent deity - He exists outside of the world, created it, rules over it, and judges us for the extent to which we obey him. For me Deity is immanent rather than transcendent - it is in and of the world, not an external creator, but rather a manifestation of Nature itself. In other words, it doesn't rule over the world, it is the world. It is certainly not judgemental. The only incentive to worship it is the joy and inner peace you can get from being close to nature.

Agreed. Dementia has wrecked havoc on my grandfather, as well as my grandmother whom still looks after him with very little outside assistance. This author is a disgusting piece of garbage.

Thanks for the thoughtful response. However, your interpretation of this article is misleading and unfocused on the point I am trying to convey. My study does not mention the lack of external influences proposed by Sartre's philosophy, in fact, it actually argues the opposite.

>The essence of Sartre’s philosophy, however, roots one’s own freedom in the midst of others...

Sartre claims that we cannot control what facticities we are born into - our family, prevailing cultures, or the moment of our conception. Nonetheless, the limitless freedom Sartre describes is our ability to control what we choose no matter the situation we find ourselves in - he states "freedom is what you do with what's been done to you." In what way does Sartre fail to speak on the absurdity of life? One of the tenants of his philosophy is the realization that life is in fact absurd. Still, this was not the focus nor point of this post.

Furthermore, you argue that Camus has a more direct response to the absurd in relation to situations regarding "drudgery and pointlessness". This response (I'm assuming) is through revolt, creating values and solidarity between individuals. This is where the focus of the article lies. Yet Camus' system of revolt doesn't give the individual the same drive and vigor toward a goal as existentialism. The values manifested by negating social norms is deconstructive, and as a result fails to provide a basis by which a society can function. While Camus may not be concerned with an ontological description of the universe, his philosophy is still less applicable on a broad scale when compared to Sartre's.

Interaction based on our senses causing chemicals in our brains causing us to do what we know by automatic or what's wired within us is true; then what you say is not wrong if you caused the environment or interaction prior to the moment you say you manipulated someone.

Scary as that is, it is possible and that's not wrong.