Three Seas Forum

the archives

dusted off in read-only

  •  

I am a devout follower of Kellhus posted 19 May 2011 in The Judging EyeI am a devout follower of Kellhus by Callan S., Auditor

Quote: "Thorsten":27w4osqe
And in terms of free will the question I raise is 'Free of what?'. If your causally linked to things you care about - do you want to be free of things you care about? I address this more on my blog: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://philosophergamer.blogspot.com/20">http://philosophergamer.blogspot.com/20</a><!-- m --> ... rther.html


Well, this goes to the heart of the free will issue - what does it actually mean to exercise free will? Can you (or anyone) think of an experiment (even a thought experiment) that could in principle prove the existence of free will in contrast to determinism? I've been trying to come up with something for years, and I think it's just not possible.[/quote:27w4osqe]
I'd just see it the other way around - any presumed grasp of determinism is BS. If anyone really grasped determinism, they could describe how the universe came about/why there was a big bang. To know what will come is to know what came before.

The very lack of understanding of determinism is what defines free will. It's part of what makes Kellhus so frightening, even with his still relatively mortal understanding of determinism.

We would not call a person who throws dice for decisionmaking free-willed.

Now you come to mention it, I am not sure I wouldn't. To let go of so very much? Certainly I don't feel free to do that.

The keyword would be something like self-determination - but what does that mean? Obviously, you are determined by what you want because if it were different, you wouldn't want it. Of course, the neuroscientists go on claiming that self is an illusion (which does not prevent them from feeling pissed when their papers are rejected - that seems real enough for them). But as I wrote elsewhere, there is a blatant contradiction that if there is no self, the whole scientific method which is validated by the experience of the self, the conscious observer, is as illusionary as the self, and so it can't be used to disprove any self.

Just on a side note decades ago, in terms of science, I read that the theory of it is that it never tried to prove anything. It could test something and get result B a million times and yet still admit result a might happen on the million and first try. I don't see alot of scientists on TV stand by this today. Actually I see none, particularly in terms of climate debate - they all insist it's real. This seems to betray that primary principle of science (BTW, I think climate change is real - I'm not trying to argue against it - I'm just injecting doubt into what I'm certain of).

Anyway, onto 'self'. Pretty ambiguous term. I'm pretty certain though that if I die, those scientists hearts keep going and they keep doing things I would have wanted to do, like eat nice food, drink wine, have sex, bask in warm sunlight, etc. What, is it an illusion that my corpse doesn't appear to be doing those things? Or am I some miraculous super special snowflake that if I were to die, so will they by default somehow!? Ha! No, there will be one less organism. I think it'd be better if they tried to suggest the universe is one absolute whole and the sense of individual objects is an illusion.

Maybe you summerised them rather briskly and there is more detail to what the neuroscientists claim? view post


  •  

The Three Seas Forum archives are hosted and maintained courtesy of Jack Brown