/lit/ - Literature

>>14242323
My diary, desu.

>>12562843
It's like you're not even bothering to think, which is ironic coming from a proponent of free will (but not surprising). If that's how you want to define those terms, then fine. But understand, those assumptions are not evidence of free will... Rather you have already embedded the conclusion you want in your definitions. So you point to a person and an action and say "Behold, an agent, a choice -- therefore free will!" It's silly.

No one knows the future, and you have to take actions or cease to exist. Part of acting as a sophisticated conscious being is the capacity to abstract -- to have thoughts about sensory inputs so that you can simulate and plan ahead. Whether the micro-events that lead to your thoughts or anything else are fundamentally deterministic OR random, none the above is contingent upon a supposed phenomenon of 'free will' (which you have yet to define).

I am some kind of localization of matter/energy that can receive sensory input, abstract it, encode my abstractions in various ways, and output in various kinetic ways. So are you. Like all life, we exist in a feedback loop with our environment. Call us whatever you want.

You literally cannot escape taking action, it is essential to your nature. No alternative to action is possible... Call that whatever you want. It doesn't matter if there's no alternative to how things play out; it is pointless to second-guess about a future you can't possibly know. You are part of the causal chain, so might as well do the best you can.

Honestly, the biggest practical difference in admitting to no free will is that I am much more sensitive to how people are products. They get programmed by society and by their genes, and in thinking they have free will they relinquish what little critical perspective they could have -- they are all the more enslaved. If anything, I'm more self-aware and discriminating about what influences I expose myself to. It may not be true 'freedom' (whatever that's supposed to mean), but I am more critically aware of my participation in the feedback loop.

>>12369439
Objectivity isn't the issue... Objectively, meaning/values/preferences can't be universal, because we're all different. Shocker! That doesn't mean there isn't significant overlap between biologically similar beings. who need to serve similar utility lest they become maladaptive and prefer themselves out of existence.

This strawman of universality is a frustrating cop-out, distraction and entirely unreasonable standard. There is plenty of overlap, we can work with that. Nothing is perfect.

"Le meglio è l'inimico del bene"