I was told by someone on here that in order to be a Communist, I must "believe" in "Free Will." Somehow, I doubt this is truly a prerequisite, but if it really is the case, then so be it.
Before getting into "Free Will," there is no good evidence that human beings possess an immaterial “soul” that thinks, chooses, or survives bodily death. All available evidence indicates that what we have hitherto called a “person,” is an activity of a living brain in a living body. Mental states reliably track brain states; damage the brain and you damage memory, personality, judgment, and agency; destroy it entirely and the person disappears. No additional essence remains.
Human brains are biological systems governed by physical law. They are extraordinarily complex, adaptive, and self-modeling, which produces the powerful subjective experience and outward appearnce of "authorship" and "choice," but nothing in neuroscience suggests that brains initiate actions independently of prior physical causes. Also, introducing indeterminism or randomness does not rescue “free will” in the libertarian sense, since randomness adds noise, rather than control.
The popular notion of "Free Will" as an uncaused, self-originating power of the "soul" or of the brain, in more secular accounts of "Free Will," is therefore unsupported. What exists instead are constrained decision-making processes embedded in biology, development, and environment. Responsibility is not metaphysical; it is a social practice invented and enforced by humans to shape behavior while brains are still alive and responsive to incentives.
There is no evidence that accountability survives death. When the brain permanently ceases to function, the person is gone. What remains is matter, not an observing subject.
These conclusions are not radical inventions of modern science. The dependence of mind on the condition of the brain has been observable since antiquity through injury, disease, and degeneration, and has been progressively clarified by advances in biology, chemistry, and physics. What is new is not the insight itself, but the precision.
Resistance to these conclusions is understandable. They undermine comforting narratives of cosmic justice, personal exceptionality, and ultimate moral reckoning. Many cultures have developed religious and metaphysical systems that posit souls, absolute free will, and post-mortem reward or punishment. Whatever other functions these systems serve, they also operate as tools of behavioral regulation, offering meaning and order in exchange for compliance.
None of this "proves" that such metaphysical entities "cannot" exist, it merely establishes that we have no reason to believe they do, and that our best explanations of human behavior, morality, and identity do not require them. Nevertheless, those who make positive claims must provide evidence. If I propose ridiculous things without providing evidence, others are not obliged to "disprove" my claims, especially if they cannot be tested and/or concern alleged entities which exist beyond measurable matter and energy.
Believing you don't have free will is giving undue credit to the concept of free will in the first place.
How would having free will change your decision making habits and why do you not already simply do that if you can conceive of it?
>>2665559Penrose's idea is addressed (indirectly in the OP text.
His idea is (in short):
>Quantum processes happen inside microtubules>These quantum events influence neuron firing>Consciousness (and possibly free will) emerges from this quantum activity>Because quantum events are not fully deterministic, this allows “free will”But the OP text says:
<introducing indeterminism or randomness does not rescue “free will” in the libertarian sense, since randomness adds noise, rather than control.Even if physics were random rather than deterministic, that wouldn't imply free will, it would only imply unpredictability. Behavior is still downstream from physics.
Exercising my free will by not reading this retarded wall of text
>>2665563>Behavior is still downstream from physics.>ignores the part of physics that makes decisions non-deterministic.This just seems like religioncope that it has to be something external from physics.
>>2665579 (me)
Like I believe in souls for pagan reasons but I see no reason why a soul would be the sole (heh) mechanism that would give free will. Why would the soul not be just as downstream from physics as non-ghosty things? It interacts with physics and is therefor physics.
>>2665533Why did animals evolve brains?
>>2665533>Mental states reliably track brain statesthat doesn't really mean anything wrt consciousness
>nothing in neuroscience suggests that brains initiate actions independently of prior physical causesirrelevant.
>in the libertarian senselibertarians are retards
>an observing subjectcockshautism detected?
>Before getting into "Free Will," there is no good evidence that human beings possess an immaterial “soul” that thinks, chooses, or survives bodily death.>The popular notion of "Free Will" as an uncaused, self-originating power of the "soul" or of the brain, in more secular accounts of "Free Will," is therefore unsupported.These arent related its just something classic philosophy forces itself into because of false premises due to rejecting dialectics. by critiquing "the popular notion" you are just sidestepping the person who told you, aka strawmanning
>in order to be a Communist, I must "believe" in "Free Will."is that because you dont understand what they are saying or you dont want to?
and what are your thoughts on dialectical materialism?
>>2665533There was once a paper that claimed people who don't believe in free will are selfish and short sighted, so us smart educated people (the audience of the paper) must tell a noble lie that we have free will so we can live in a nicer society. But uh, they weren't choosing anything of course, because you can't do that. We were gonna do it anyway.
>>2665579>ignores the part of physics that makes decisions non-deterministic.I already explained that non-deterministic does not imply Free will. It only implies random. The activities of the brain are still determined by physics, whether or not physics itself is predetermined or random. Physics being random does not imply an uncaused, self-originating power of the "soul" or of the brain, which is what "Free Will" is alleged to be.
>>2665605>anti communist bourgeois slopI don't see how Free Will, i.e. an uncaused, self-originating power of the "soul" or of the brain needs to be real in order for my brain to be incentivized or stimulated into materially and ideologically supporting the eradication of class society by the revolutionary proletariat.
>>2665577Your brain was stimulated by culturally-reinforced but ultimately involuntary feelings of disgust and rage into rejecting the text without reading it.
>>2665589Animals evolved brains for the same reason they evolved eyes or muscles: they’re useful machinery for staying alive and reproducing. A brain is a biological control system that processes information, learns from past outcomes, predicts what’s likely to happen next, and coordinates behavior in real time. None of that requires a mysterious inner chooser, Free Will, an uncaused, self-originating power of the "soul" or of the brain, just physics playing out in nervous tissue. As environments became more complicated, animals with better internal models of the world and faster, more flexible response systems survived and reproduced more often, so brains spread and got more sophisticated over time. Make sense?
>>2665619>I don't see how Free Will, i.e. an uncaused, self-originating power of the "soul"considering that is not what communists mean by free will im failing to see how that is relevant. insisting on the idea that this is what communists mean by free will is the very propagation of slop im referring to
>>2665605It sounds like you want to say the brain is useful for making decisions. I'm not sure how that's not free will. I dunno why you introduce all these spooky qualifiers. Why are you even making this post did you decide to do it or not? Can you not raise your arm whenever you want?
>>2665626>>2665634>that is not what communists mean by free will What is it that "communists" (which ones?) mean, then?
Also, my brain is involuntarily noticing that you neglected to quote the next 4 words:
>or of the brain >>2665637>I'm not sure how that's not free willI actually think (but am not 100% certain) that the Glownonymous you are quoting agrees with you and thinks Free will is real. Did you quote the wrong person by mistake?
>>2665638did you try asking the person who told you that before you made the thread? or using google?
you havent addressed the question of dialectics yet and keep referring to souls and subjects so im not really inclined to argue with a retard who already made up their mind and gets their opinions from youtube
what do you think is meant by the following
>Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please >>2665533What do you think is going on when it feels like we're more in control of our actions than other times, like when we're sober and well rested vs. drunk and tired? Do you ever regret your decisions? If so, are you incorrect to do so, since you didn't make them?
>>2665637>the brain is useful for making decisions. I'm not sure how that's not free will.the brain makes decisions based on unchosen input, environmental stimuli, past experiences, and evolutionary programming. What decision the brain makes, whether "smart" or "stupid" is more up to the peculiarities of a particular individual's neurochemistry, which is also beyond the control of the person themselves. There is no uncaused, self-originating power, be it of the brain or of the "soul", just complex neurochemistry downstream from physics.
>>2665655>There is no uncaused, self-originating powerno one suggested their was
>the brain makes decisions based on unchosen input, environmental stimulithe brain can direct the body to change its environment which changes the input which in turn changes the decisions
ironically your idealist conception of the brain as an isolated object separate from its environment seems to be the problem here. which of course stems from a lack of dialectical training
>>2665651>Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they pleaseThat's from Marx's 18th Brumaire, I am aware, and it doesn't sound at all like an argument in favor of free will. It seems like you don't know the answer to my question so you're stalling.
>you havent addressed the question of dialectics yetI wasn't aware of the question until now. Let me find it and respond below.
>>2665600>and what are your thoughts on dialectical materialism?As far as I understand, dialectical materialism doesn't explicitly posit free will. In Anti-Duhring, Engels writes the passage attached in my screenshot. Highlighting is mine. That seems less like "Free Will" and more like defining "Freedom" (ugh, I have my own thoughts on "Freedom" that I will disentangle only if you are interested) being defined as increasing with "knowledge of" natural laws. i.e. the more we know about the universe, the better we can anticipate what would otherwise be unexpected, and react to it in advance. But that is still a brain reacting to stimuli. It is not a self-originating power.
>>2665660>no one suggested their wasI have been told on numerous occasions by anons on this board that "Free Will" (which they neglect to define) must be "believed" in order to "be Communist." I was skeptical of this claim and conintue to be skeptical. Since they neglect to define it, I have defined it in the terms I most often run into: The proposition of a self-originating power of the soul (religious version) or of the brain (secular version). If you do not hold this proposition to be true, then you do not believe in "Free Will" as I have defined it and you are not my concern.
>the brain can direct the body to change its environment which changes the input which in turn changes the decisionsThat is the dialectical materialist understanding of Freedom, but not the metaphysical idealist "Free Will"
>>2665655Or you your brain, or just along for the ride? Do you ever agonize over making a decision? Weigh pros and cons, try to imagine different outcomes? What's going on there?
>>2665662>ironically your idealist conception of the brain as an isolated object separate from its environmentwhere did I once suggest that. It is Free WIll which posits that the brain (or in some versions, "soul") has a self-originating power free of all internal and external material influence, which allows it to "freely choose" options and have "accountability" and "responsibility" that exist outside of social relations. It is the entire basis of sending people to heaven/hell in religious eschatology, and it is the entire basis of torturing/imprisoning/enslaving/executing or otherwise "punishing" people in secular law.
>>2665668>[Are] you your brain, or just along for the ride? I already answer this in the OP text:
<Mental states reliably track brain states; damage the brain and you damage memory, personality, judgment, and agency; destroy it entirely and the person disappears. No additional essence remains.
>Do you ever agonize over making a decision? Weigh pros and cons, try to imagine different outcomes? What's going on there?What’s happening there is your brain running internal simulations. Instead of acting right away, it’s comparing possible actions by predicting their consequences based on memory, emotion, and learned patterns. Different brain systems push different priorities (safety, reward, social approval, effort), and when those systems disagree or the outcome is uncertain, you experience that as “agonizing.” It feels like deliberation from the inside, but mechanically it’s just a biological system doing extra computation before committing resources to an action, because mistakes can be costly.
A computer taking extra time to calculate does not make it more free than it would be if it calculated more quickly.
From what I understand, free will is necessary for a theist worldview.
What point is there to doing good things or bad things if you don't choose which to do, and then what is the point in believing in your placement in the afterlife based on such decisions?
The materialist view is that free will is a tool for control, ironically making use of the absence of freewill.
You can make yourself do something you don't want to, but you can't make yourself want to do something. You either like a piece of media or you don't, it's impossible to force yourself to do like something one way or the other.
>>2665672>What point is there to doing good things or bad things if you don't choose which to doignoring that we have to define "good" and "bad" here, obviously most people are going to "go along to get along" in society. They will obey established norms because it results in acceptance and rewards, rather than alienation and punishment. Also they prefer order and predictability to chaos. They would rather every (including themselves) behave predictably rather than unpredictably, so they go along with established cultural norms. That is the basis of "morality" or "law" in social relations, rather than some objective "good."
>>2665674The idea that morality is a social construct and not ordained by God is a hit towards the notion of free will, which would indicate that free will is also a social construct.
Down to your base instincts, of hunger and thirst, you don't choose this. You choose when to eat and and how you skin the animal, but you cannot choose to simply not be hungry.
>>26656161. Define what free will offers to a being.
2. What would free will do that would make it behave significantly different?
3. What advantage is something going to be missing out on by not having free will?
>uncaused, self-originating4. How would this differ from randomness?
5. How would an uncaused output that originates from the self be any different than uncaused output from pure randomness?
6. Why would a soul be exempt from this?
Being a response to something is what makes something not perfectly random, because something being a response to something else makes it predictable.
This all makes it seem like the premise of free will isn't defined enough to say something can have or lack it.
>>2665691>This all makes it seem like the premise of free will isn't defined enough to say something can have or lack it.This is agnosticism on the question which, fine, is harmless imo, but, as I already said in the OP:
<those who make positive claims must provide evidence. If I propose ridiculous things without providing evidence, others are not obliged to "disprove" my claims, especially if they cannot be tested and/or concern alleged entities which exist beyond measurable matter and energy.So if Free-Will believers cannot provide evidence of free will, then we are not obliged to believe in it. Disbelief isn't the opposite of belief but absence of belief, which agnosticism objectively is a hesitant expression of.
>>2665663>It seems like you don't know the answer to my question so you're stalling. no i just really have no interest in explaining to you because im 99% sure we have had this conversation before
>As far as I understand, dialectical materialism doesn't explicitly posit free will. and that isn't what i asked. your obsession with souls suggests that you have a position on the validity of it philosophically
>>2665666>Since they neglect to define it, I have defined it in the terms I most often run intodo you not see how that is a problem. you are most often going to run into liberal conceptions of everything
>>2665669>where did I once suggest thatits implicit
>It is the entire basis of sending people to heaven/hell in religious eschatologywhy do you keep going on about this stuff? do you really think anyone here is defending free will on the basis of religion
you are also completely neglecting the role of consciousness in revolutionary practice. back up from the free will debate a bit and think about how what you have said so far fits into the existence of consciousness and how that is or is not compatible with marx. if minds are brains and there is no free will then doesn't "what you most often run into" suggest the scientific truth is hard determinism?
if thats the case then how does communism fit into that, it would either be inevitable or not correct? so then then there is no point in organizing, but is that what marx says? so who is wrong? are marx and science at odds? is that because marx is wrong or because "science" as we "most often run into" is bourgeois slop that happens to conveniently precludes the possibility of revolution?
>>2665708That also seems to leave things undefined. Like the variable itself is still undefined, the value being null would still be having a value to the variable. Being null vs being 0 doesn't fix that.
>>2665533I made this image in 2014 and have posted it like a handful of times wtf lmao
>>2665715And it's provably non-deterministic, because chaos. Yet being 'uncaused, self-originated' is different from random somehow.
Like if I make a knife tentacle that uses perfect, chaotic randomness to decide where to flail the knife, and that is determined entirely on-board without wifi or cables and is therefore self-originated, how does that knife tentacle not have free will?
critical spelling mistake, flood >>2665715>It doesn't natter that human action is deterministic, you will never know what the results are going to beit kinda does matter, not for knowing what the results will be but for knowing whether reality is in principle rational, and therefore knowable.
>>2665757>And it's provably non-deterministic, because chaos.If that were the case then reality would be unintelligible.
>>2665757So causal relationships are caused by randomness?
>>2665761>>2665762No, because everything with more than one component that happens is N ± chaos. It's small, but compounds, and everything has it at more than one moving part. Literally the symbol of chaos is a pendulum attached to the end of another pendulum.
you can't not believe in free will and be a communist. Communism and Marx deep down is about preserving what they see as human agency against Capital which has taken a life of its own. This is the legacy Hegel bequathed Marx.
Furthermore, if you don't believe in free will then you don't believe in human agency. You don't believe in dialectics, which emphasized changes immanent to a subject. Your view of the world is more algorithmic: Random chaos being sorted by interaction between each other into becoming more complex systems. This worldview is closer to the Landian one, where human agency and free will is dethroned to make way for the cold, material process of complex systems which ultimately manifest itself in AI
>>2665757 (me)
>>2665773 (me)
Wait, is the idea that something with a single component is the thing doing something 'uncaused, self-originated'?
>determinism thread
<nondeterministic physics
>no mention of Bohemian mechanics
>>2665789 (me)
If that's what it is, then there has not yet been proven there is such thing as a thing that is a single component. We have no reason to believe quarks are the smallest thing in the same way we didn't have reason to believe atoms were. The only reason we settle on the smallest known thing being the smallest thing for all intents and purposes is because we lack the technology to determine if there's a smaller thing yet.
>>2665533>brains are still alive and responsive to incentives>>2665619>my brain to be incentivized<"incentives"this neoliberal PMC reddit slop is why Jeffery Epstein funded the Edge Foundation
>In 2002, the leading scientists Steven Pinker, Richard Dawkins, and Daniel Dennett were pictured on Epstein’s jet flying to a TED conference https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/peteraldhous/jeffrey-epstein-john-brockman-edge-foundationPinker and Dennett, two cognitive scientists that probably sound as useless and bourgeois as this thread btw
and this article mentioning the Epstein class's support of neoliberal "incentives" ideology:
https://america2.news/part-three-what-was-epsteins-edge-agenda>In July 2008, Edge convened a three day class on the topic of behavioral economics led by professor Richard Thaler of Harvard. Thaler (with co-author Cass Sunstein of the University of Chicago) had just published the book Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness, which explored the idea that simple design changes could have big impact on the world. The book was an expansion on an earlier 2003 paper by Thaler and Sunstein titled ‘Libertarian Paternalism Is Not an Oxymoron.’>The course was led by Thaler and two other giants in the emerging field of behavioral economics, Nobel Laureate Daniel Kahneman and his former student Sendhil Mullainathan. But most remarkable about this course was who was in attendance as students. The all-star list included Elon Musk (Tesla), Jeff Bezos (Amazon), Nathan Myhrvold (Microsoft), Sean Parker (Facebook), Evan Williams (Twitter), along with several other tech and science luminaries. Many participants (Myhrvold, George Dyson, Danny Hillis) were also affiliates of Epstein. Free will as indeterminism is such a useless concept, completely anti-materialist and basically based on Christian theology. I don't understand why people will fight so fiercely about this useless metaphysics. Free will obviously does exist in day to day life, we make decisions constantly by ourselves, it exists because we can't travel through time to see the results of our actions. Indeterminism and everything built on it is just pure idealism and should only be ridiculed.
>>2665806base superstructure is not determinism. Do people forgot that Marx believed that superstructure affect base in turn? And it's not a feedback loop sort of mechanistic logic, but that humans can actually and actively take agency (read excercise free will) upon the conditions imposed upon them. Blah blah blah philosophers change society. This is the point of the Parmenides vs Heraclitus debate.
>>2665714>i just really have no interest in explaining to you ok then why respond at all?
>its implicitI neither explicitly stated nor implied that
In the OP I said:
>damage the brain and you damage memory, personality, judgment, and agencywhich is completely at odds with what you are claiming that I have asserted (quoting you):
<your idealist conception of the brain as an isolated object separate from its environmentIn fact those who believe in Free Will, which I define as an uncaused, self-originating power of the "soul" or of the brain
are the ones who have the above-quoted idealist conception.
>do you not see how that is a problem. you are most often going to run into liberal conceptions of everythingyou have refused to provide the "communist" or non-"liberal" definition of free will.
>do you really think anyone here is defending free will on the basis of religionyou have refused to provide the "communist" or non-"religious" definition of free will.
>you are also completely neglecting the role of consciousness in revolutionary practice. consciousness is not the same as Free Will and I do not neglect it or reject it. You are just making assertions.
>back up from the free will debate a bit and think about how what you have said so far fits into the existence of consciousness and how that is or is not compatible with marx. I already said ITT:
<I don't see how Free Will, i.e. an uncaused, self-originating power of the "soul" or of the brain needs to be real in order for my brain to be incentivized or stimulated into materially and ideologically supporting the eradication of class society by the revolutionary proletariat.but you responded
<considering that is not what communists mean by free will im failing to see how that is relevant.and have not explained what "communists" mean by free will. I even showed a passage from anti-duhring where Engels calls free will "so-called free will" (which seems derisive of the concept) and later invokes a more vague "freedom" which he explains in terms of humans being more free the better they understand the universe. Personally I find most people never clarify whether they're speaking of freedom to do things or freedom from things done. Engels in that particular passage Anti-Duhring seems to be discussing freedom from ignorance and the consequences of it.
> if minds are brains and there is no free will then doesn't "what you most often run into" suggest the scientific truth is hard determinism?Well people question hard determinism because of quantum randomness, but whether the universe is "random" or "deterministic" does not suggest Free Will, which is a self-originating uncaused autonomy.
>if thats the case then how does communism fit into that, it would either be inevitable or not correct?False dilemma. because again, whether the universe is "random" (communism may or may not happen) or "deterministic" (communism inevitable) does not imply Free Will (uncaused self originating autonomy).
>so then then there is no point in organizingpeople organize because it's in their class interests to organize, not because they have "free will." They don't chose to be born working class and they are compelled by oppression to organize. There's no free will, they are just stimulated by the coercive environment.
> but is that what marx says?no and it's not what I say either
> so who is wrong?neither
>are marx and science at odds?no, but your loaded questions are sounding more and more like a test of ideological loyalty than a proof of free will.
>is that because marx is wrong or because "science" as we "most often run into" is bourgeois slop that happens to conveniently precludes the possibility of revolution?free will not existing does not preclude the possibility of revolution. that's just an assumption you're adding to this conversation repeatedly.
>>2665812>base superstructure is not determinism.Of course it isn't, because it's an accurate model of material things, and material things are provably non-deterministic, since there is no proof that there is such thing as something with a single component, nor would interactions between multiple single component things be deterministic.
Literally everything has free will as OP has managed to describe it. We've convergently reinvented animism.
one might say something like it doesn't matter if reality is knowable because it cant be known in its entirety so you cant know if what you think you know actually corresponds to the whole because its only a partial truth. and this is parallel to the op inquiry re free will and how dialectics answers it. hegels system actually does show how you can prove the intelligibility of the whole from the part, thats essentially one of the main purposes of dialectics via the ontological argument for god funneled through the athiest spinoza, ironically pictured in the op.
absolute being is not a personal noun it is a verb. a holograph or fractal can be determined in total from very little information but this obviously isn't intelligible to classic cartesian conceptions that smuggle in an assumption of mind/brain dualism imagining the brain as a discrete physical organ located within the confines of a body. were doing calculus and you are stuck in one dimension confused how velocity relates to acceleration.
consciously changing your environment changes your available degrees for capacity of action. outside of dialectics this looks like literal magic because the average person can only concieve of (A→B) not even (A→B→C) which isn't even how a retroactively deterministic emergent feedback loop works (A→¬A→A'). it actually does make it look like human choices fundamentally change what reality is when its actually the engels quote you posted about knowledge. this is sorta like an inversion of will to power, where initially only a select few are aware that they can just do things and while everyone else is NPCs, except these select few are trapped in their capacity being historically determined by the society they exist in. but revolutionary class consciousness actually drives history forward and can qualitatively change the foundations of social existence.
if you understand "Freedom is the recognition of necessity" you recognize free will is not the ability to directly act an effect and create a cause but an indirect roundabout way of doing it. lets think about it as some ancient person wondering about having the free will to choose to fly and being unable vs the invention of the airplane redefining what it means for a person to fly and the social relations historically necessary for the industry of aviation, and how this changes the grounds in which we walk.
>>2665811"human will do predictable things if they know the consequences" is not an argument against free will. There is a massive difference between humans weighing decisions (in a semantic way) vs AI weighing decisions (in a syntactic way). A lot of people here stick with determinism because its le based fedora tipper atheist one without realizing its deeper philosophical implications
>I was told by someone on here that in order to be a Communist, I must "believe" in "Free Will."
And you believed them???? What, are you fukkin new?
No, free will doesn't exist. It's liberalist pseudoscience. Material is deterministic, everything is ultimately material. Therefore all future is a predetermined result of present conditions.
>>2665805incentives are just reflections of material interests. it is in the material interests of the proletariat to overthrow the bourgeoisie. To say that the proletariat is incentivized to overthrow the bourgeoisie is to basically say the same thing.
>this neoliberal PMC reddit slop buzzword salad deployed to appear Channier Than Thou.
>>2665821Do you agree with this part of the OP text:
>damage the brain and you damage memory, personality, judgment, and agency???
If so, would you say that, for example, a person who will spend the rest of their life in a coma, or a brain dead person, for example, has "Free Will?"
>>2665834if you mutilate someone and put them in a stasis chamber they'd virtually have no free will too because they can't apply their will on anything. This is such a stupid gotcha.It is like saying that natural rights does not exist because slavery existed
>>2665821>consciously changing your environment changes your available degrees for capacity of actionThat's not Free Will. That's just a brain responding to environmental stimuli by building an environment that is more predictable and less chaotic. To make your environment safer and less chaotic is a behavior stimulated by your environment. You do it to survive. It is not Free Will. it is not an uncaused autonomy.
>>2665840your "choices" are the machinations of your brain responding to its internal and external stimuli. It is a caused reaction not an uncaused autonomy.
>>2665823I don't give a fuck about philosophy.
>>2665844Not giving a fuck about philosophy is your philosophy.
>>2665811>Free will as indeterminismWhether the universe is deterministic or random, there is no evidence of uncaused self-originating autonomy, i.e. free will, so it should be discarded altogether in favor of understanding how so-called "choices" are made in response to various stimuli, incentives, coercions, pressures, and other environmental factors.
>>2665843It is that but its not just that. If human consciousness is just an algorithmic system that reacts to external chaos and sort for a more orderly system what the hell is the difference between me and an AI. What is the difference between you and Chatgpt? Why do we even insist on communism at this point and not just entrust AI to build posthuman communism?
>>2665817>ok then why respond at all?for the lurkers
>you have refused to provide the "communist" or non-"liberal" definition of free will.you can just look it up
>consciousness is not the same as Free Willthey are deeply related.
>I do not neglect it or reject itagain you do implicitly. your comments about the brain are of a reductive physicalist nature that if consistent denies the existence of consciousness. maybe you havent thought it through or are inconsistent, but thats even worse
>but whether the universe is "random" or "deterministic" does not suggest Free Will,it does
>which is a self-originating uncaused autonomy. i already told you that is not the case for communists. you are posting on a communist board so you shouldn't impose liberal definitions
at this point your confusion about how consciousness free will randomness and determinism exposes an even further lack of understanding of the basics. that you dont even know the classical positions on free will and their arguments only a vague notion that free will is something self originating and uncaused. maybe you should read up on why people keep invoking those terms and how they are actually related instead of whatever you think "the popular notion" is
>interests where do you think those come from?
>but your loaded questions are sounding more and more like a test of ideological loyalty than a proof of free will.it might sound that way but what im testing is your understanding and you really are not giving me any reason to indicate you are asking anything in good faith and only want me to make a definition so you can pick it apart because you have already made up your mind and im really not in the mood to make a formal argument and cite my sources(again) about a debate that has happened here multiple times or to defend an off hand comment from someone who clearly wont engage with it charitably since the obvious point of this thread is some kind of fedora tipping grandstand and not to actually learn about the nuances of question posed. again you could just look it up but you are more interested in telling people how heckin awesome science is
you are being really cagey about your opinion on dialectical materialism so instead of asking a third time ill just tell you that you are wrong because you dont understand dialectics. thats the answer, yes, you have to believe in free will to be a communist but to understand free will you need dialectics. and no im not going to explain something that takes a fucking multi year course to an incredulous retard over a basket weaving forum.
>>2665842>it is not an uncaused autonomy.did the person who told you that you have to believe in free will to be a communist also say that free will is uncaused autonomy or is that just an assumption on your part?
>>2665856>It is that but its not just that. If human consciousness is just an algorithmic system that reacts to external chaos and sort for a more orderly system what the hell is the difference between me and an AI.Ain't no AI ever called me radlib. The difference between you and an AI comes down to subjective experience and self-awareness. While both humans and AI might process inputs and adapt, human consciousness involves personal experience, emotions, feeling pain and suffering, and having a sense of "being." This goes beyond mere algorithmic responses. AI lacks the inner life that humans have: the ability to reflect on your own existence, form intentions, or feel joy, pain, or meaning. You’re not just reacting to chaos you’re experiencing it, interpreting it, and assigning significance to it, which AI doesn't do.
>>2665871Yes, we process things semantically by
assigning meanings to things that is in constant flux instead of merely passive receiver of a Parmidean algo
>>2665869>you can just look it upNo because the concept of free will in the sense of uncaused autonomy is not a central tenet of communism. Communism focuses more on material conditions, social relations, and the collective organization of labor rather than an abstract notion of individual autonomy as a self-caused or uncaused free will.
>they are deeply related. a brain being aware of its environment and responding to environmental stimul is not the same as an uncaused autonomy.
>you shouldn't impose liberal definitionsyou refuse to provide the "communist" definition of free will. you put more effort into dodging that request than anything. You say I can "just look it up" but I can't find anything. The closest thing I found was Engels saying "so-called free will" derisively in anti-duhring before appealing to knowledge as a form of freedom. I have already commented on that.
>again you do implicitly.Incorrect. You insist repeatedly I have a quote "idealist conception of the brain as an isolated object separate from its environment" but In the OP I said "damage the brain and you damage memory, personality, judgment, and agency." You are putting far more effort into making up things I didn't say than supplying a "Communist" definition of "Free Will" as requested.
>it doesa declaration! how convincing!
>your comments about the brain are of a reductive physicalist naturethat is a different claim than "idealist conception of the brain as an isolated object separate from its environment" and so you are moving the goalposts but let's address this by asking a simple question. Do you agree or disagree that if you damage the brain you damage memory, personality, judgment, and agency?
>at this point your confusion about how consciousness free will randomness and determinism exposes an even further lack of understanding of the basics. that you dont even know the classical positions on free will and their arguments only a vague notion that free will is something self originating and uncaused. maybe you should read up on why people keep invoking those terms and how they are actually related instead of whatever you think "the popular notion" is you keep telling me "just look it up" but you won't say what it is. You are putting so much effort into dodging a simple question because you are sending me on a wild goose chase after a "Communist definition of free will".
>where do you think those come from?the environment
>it might sound that way but what im testing is your understanding and I'm asking you to provide the "Communist" definition of free will as opposed to the "liberal" or "religious" definition and so far you have failed that test.
>did the person who told you that you have to believe in free will to be a communist also say that free will is uncaused autonomy or is that just an assumption on your part?It's the only definition of free will I'm aware of. I'm waiting for you to say what the "communist" definition and I will laugh because either it doesn't exist or it is not actually free will but just some basic acknowledgement that the brain responds to the environment but also shapes the environment in a dialectical feedback loop, which, OK, yeah, great, that happens, but for centuries religoids used "free will" to mean uncaused autonomy and you have yet to use your "communist free will" to reprogram the multitudes to understand "communist free will" as opposed to metaphysical idealist notion.
>>2665878cool but we don't do it in an uncaused autonomous way. instead we assign meanings that are in line with our past experiences and present stimuli and cultural programming.
>>2665851Well I probably agree but this is too metaphysical. But the universe is certainly deterministic. Determinism vs indeterminism is the real important debate.
>>2665886>Determinism vs indeterminism is the real important debate.quantum physicists insist quantum physics proves indeterminism but I don't really know enough about quantum physics to argue. I suppose I could just do what many anons on here do which is insist that everything I don't understand is "bourgeois pseudoscience" as opposed to "real proletarian science" but I think that's a weird form of cope and I should hold myself to a higher standard than that.
>>2665885Nobody can do it in an uncaused way. Only God/First Mover is uncaused. We do it in an
autonomous way however, this is what semantic is, if we have no free will we will just assign meaning based on algorithmic probability between a thing and the other thing, which is how AI do things, because they are not the dialectical subject. The difference is not in just difference in quantity of inputs but how we process them in the first place
>>2665883>Incorrect. you literally are not even aware of what you are saying. the example of you give of brain damage proves me correct to any competent observer.
>You are putting far more effort into making up things I didn't sayno i just apparently have far more of an understanding of the things you say than you do
>that is a different claim than it is definitively not meaningfully different. if you are not providing a dialectical materialist understanding then you are necessarily falling into an idealist one, and the other things you say narrow it further into the mainstream liberal bourgeois camp represented by the vast majority of self important stemlords
>putting so much effort into dodgingits not a dodge at all. if you care drop the free will debate and go read your lenin stalin and mao. you obviously dont have the requisite vocabulary to understand an explanation. are you even a communist lmao
>>2665899IIRC physics is indeterministic on the quantum scale but not on the macro scale. Quantum scale events are chaotic and unpredictable(maybe they're not truly random and indeterministic and our instruments just can't observe such small things very well, IDK) but as you move to larger and larger scales they average out. Think about flipping a tiny coin, it could be heads or tails, you don't know. Now think about 100000 tiny coins being flipped, you can say with certainty that it's going to be 50000 heads 50000 tails, or at least something so close to that that the difference is insignificant.
>>2665910We are algorithmic too, it's just that the algorithm differs from one brain to the next and it would take more time than we have to figure out what that algorithm is. That level of complexity is what creates the
appearance of free will, but not the genuine article.
Mods permaban all these voluntarists NOW!
>>2665915>Think about flipping a tiny coin, it could be heads or tails, you don't know. Now think about 100000 tiny coins being flipped, you can say with certainty that it's going to be 50000 heads 50000 tails, or at least something so close to that that the difference is insignificant.That makes sense. Weird that the whole would be less random than the parts but when you put it that way, it makes sense.
>Quantum scale events are chaotic and unpredictable(maybe they're not truly random and indeterministic and our instruments just can't observe such small things very well, IDK) your parenthetical seems more likely to me but IDK either.
>>2665910Of course we are autonomous, I don't think you are using the same definition of free will as OP. But we are all the products of our environment.
>>2665916What would having free will change in a being that lacked it? Like what is being insisted to be lacked here? What would the free will gland actually do?
>>2665913idk what your chatgpt screenshot is supposed to prove but please provide the "communist" definition of free will if you can.
I keep saying the brain is influenced by the environment over and over and you keep saying I "implicitly" deny that over and over so it seems like you are just making things up. Make sense? Like I explicitly say in the OP:
>damage the brain and you damage memory, personality, judgment, and agencythis implies the brain is not separate from but part of its environment. Yet you sat I have a:
>idealist conception of the brain as an isolated object separate from its environment You say you do this "for the lurkers" but any lurker can read this exchange and see
1. you refuse to provide the "communist" definition of free will
2. you pretend I am "implicitly" saying that the brain is not influenced by its environment when I am
explicitly saying otherwise.
>>2665920That is for people who believe in Free Will to explain, but if I had to guess, it would provide some kind of metaphysical "accountability."
As a society we have "accountability" and "responsibility" as social rituals. Like if someone has a shitty brain that produces socially undesirable behaviors we punish them for it in various ways. But that's socially constructed rather than a reflection of them actually having "Free Will" that they used to make "Bad choices"
>>2665915>IIRC physics is indeterministic on the quantum scale but this isn't proven by the way. its an interpretation of the data that posits the wave function as reality instead of as math. extremely idealist. no one has ever observed the wave
>le soyciety is indeterminate
Mods, permaban all who are quoting bourgeois scince here
>>2665927yeah you cant change things they just are the way they are
as god intended so just stop trying
capitalism is human nature stupid commies
>>2665926Why would it be deterministic at quantum scale when it's non-deterministic at the "pendulum at the end of another pendulum" scale?
>>2665931Monsieur Glownonymous ignores that all history is nothing but a continuous transformation of human nature
>>2665931Only le party can do things. You cant
>Responsibility is not metaphysical; it is a social practice invented and enforced by humans to shape behavior while brains are still alive and responsive to incentives.
Le icp agrees. It says
>regardless of the fiction of the coherent stable individual self, it is a social reality exploited laborers are violently coerced into accepting and conforming themselves to causing immeasurable social anguish and misery
>>2665931(You) cant change things
>>2665921to say the brain not separate from but part of its environment is incoherent, to be a part is to be separate, its undialectical. its a mechanistic framing that treats the brain and the environment as discrete objects that interact, not a continual process of the same material substance in motion.
>>2665951ok fine. they're the same material substance in motion. Now where's the Communist definition of "Free Will"
>>2665926Ah, so it's probably just a case of instruments not advanced enough yet.
>>2665953Free Will is the recognition of necessity and the capacity to act collectively upon that knowledge to transform material conditions. It is not a metaphysical property of individual choice, but a historical and social achievement realized through revolutionary practice.
>>2665958ok but that is not the definition of free will I am attacking. I am attacking the religious and liberal conception of free will, which is the far more common one that people use. If you want people to use your definition of free will instead, we must begin by attacking the liberal and religious conception of free will which is metaphysical and idealist rather than dialectical and materialist.
>I have been told on numerous occasions by anons on this board that "Free Will" (which they neglect to define) must be "believed" in order to "be Communist."
Really? All i see is ultroid bordiggers spamming "voluntarism".
>>2665960>ok but that is not the definition of free will I am attacking.>>2665533>I was told by someone on here that in order to be a Communist, I must "believe" in "Free Will." so the whole thread was pointless and
>>2665883>It's the only definition of free will I'm aware of. you started out having no idea what you are talking about?
>>2665958Trvke. Le party has will and consciousness
>>2665958>Free Will is the recognition of necessity and the capacity to act collectively upon that knowledgeThat's not free will, if anything that's simply recognizing that everyone is a slave to material conditions. "Recognition of necessity" is neither "Free" nor "Will."
It's like saying the definition of Up is Down.
>>2665964that sounds almost … religious, metaphysical, and idealist.
>>2665964le party is interimperialist war, according to engels chapter on phase d of capitalism in anti-duhring
>>2665958Bruh go out on the street and ask a random prole what the definition of free will is and 90% will repeat some idealist shit they learned in sunday school and not your super special secret vanguard party boy's club password definition.
>>2665966>It's like saying the definition of Up is Down.well in dialectics everything is defined by its opposite (it's not intuitive and kinda pedantic but it makes sense when you think about it).
>>2665970>Bruh go out on the street and ask a random prole what the definition of free will is and 90% will repeat some idealist shitbut we are not on the street or talking to random proles. op specifically said he got this idea from a communist
>>2665973>>2665971So the definition of dialectical materialism is metaphysical idealism by that logic.
The definition of communism is anticommunism by that logic.
>>2665974and it only took them 100 posts to provide a random prole what the super secret special communist definition of Free Will was (Recognition of necessity, 3 words). not very good at re-educating the proletariat if you ask me.
>>2665978You still havent told us yet if you are already a communist or just a polyp who wandered in here trying to dunk on leftypol with your half baked free will debate. If you wanted to learn about the communist position on free will you could have started that thread but instead you started a thread on "why goommies r rong"
>>2665579>>2665691NTA but the logic is very simple.
Let's say that there's a machine that generates a random number from 1 to 100. For every number, there is a specific action that the machine will perform.
This machine is incapable of "willingly" performing an action. It will only perform designated actions as a result of random inputs.
This is why quantum "randomness" does not solve the free-will problem. Even if you have an infinite number of random numbers that can be rolled, you are still performing actions not because you chose them, but because the randomness of your brain states dictated that you must perform that action.
That said, I personally find that the entire debate regarding whether Free Will exists to be materially pointless because your actual lived experience makes whether free will is real or not an indiscernible question. If it feels like you have free will, I believe it is in your best interest to behave as if you have free will.
never once responded with curiosity to clarify if your understanding of corrections, just incorrectly restating your original botched thinking
>>2665977I'm archiving this thread because I did learn something from it and I hope mods don't remove it. By the way, once you provided the words "recognition of necessity" I was able to actually look that up on Marxists.org and find more stuff about free will than I was able to find by simply searching "free will"
Such as this:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1921/histmat/2.htm
>Engels wrote that humanity, in its transition to communism, makes a "leap" from the realm of necessity into the realm of freedom. Some bourgeois scholars inferred that Engels meant that determinism would lose its validity in communist society. This view is based on a crude distortion of Marxism. Engels meant - and rightly that in the communist society evolution would assume a consciously organized character, as opposed to the unconscious, blind, elemental stage. Men will know what they are doing and how they must operate under the given circumstances. "Freedom is the recognition of necessity."That is more about "Freedom" than "Free Will."
But I have NOTICED in MANY CONVERSATIONS that people aren't clear on what they mean about "freedom" either. Communists tend to talk about
collective freedom from oppression and exploitation which is different from the bourgeois
individual freedom to own property and exploit.So it's another one of those things that are differently defined based on who you're talking to, leading to confusion when people refuse to elaborate.
It's interesting that Engels (according to Bukharin) says that "in the communist society evolution would assume a consciously organized character"
because we have been consciously organizing the evolution of plants since the invention of agriculture. It's called Artificial Selection.
>>2665981>never once responded with curiosity to clarify if your understanding I asked what the communist definition of Free Will was many times and you took almost 100 posts to provide "recognition of necessity." That's expressing curiosity.
>>2665979>You still havent told us yet if you are already a communistI don't deserve to call myself a communist because I'm not in a communist party but I am a communist sympathizer in the sense that I agree with the basic political program of communism which is the revolutionary proletariat overthrowing the bourgeoisie and ending class society. I just don't see how "Free Will" in the religious/liberal sense needs to exist in order for someone to be Communist. Now that I know that Communism has its own special definition of Free Will that almost nobody uses I am less confused, so thank you for that.
OP is a fatalist.
>>2665997well apparently it's not irrelevant because one anon very heavily insisted that communism has its own dialectical materialist defintion of free will (recongition of necessity) which is completely different from the religious/liberal definition of free will (uncaused self-originating autonomy) which has led to a lot of confusion. All we need to do now is make the proletariat recognize necessity and they will have free will!
>>2665992>Fatalism is a belief and philosophical doctrine which considers the entire universe as a deterministic system and stresses the subjugation of all events, actions, and behaviors to fate or destiny,Nah, it's not a matter of "fate" or "destiny" but of physics.
Also Free Will (in the liberal/religious sense of uncaused self-originating autonomy) is not real regardless of whether the universe is deterministic or random.
TL;DR of the thread:
Marxism uses a different concept of free will than religion or secular liberal philosophy. Instead of “free will” meaning an uncaused, self-originating choice, dialectical materialism treats humans as fully determined by material, social, and historical causes. There’s no mystical autonomy outside causation. Freedom is therefore not the absence of causes, but acting with understanding of those causes, what Engels called “the recognition of necessity.” In this view, agency is real but conditioned, and the idea of an uncaused will is seen as idealist and confusing.
Because of that, Marxist freedom isn’t about metaphysical choice but about practical power. People are more free when they aren’t blindly constrained or dominated and when they have the material capacity to act meaningfully. This can look “computer-like,” and Marxists are fine with that: freedom increases not by escaping determinism, but by gaining knowledge, control, and collective ability to reshape the conditions that determine us. In short, it’s less “freedom to choose anything” and more freedom from domination plus real ability to do something. This comes from the collective organization of labor rather than an abstract notion of individual autonomy as a self-caused or uncaused free will.
>>2665984damn okay sorry for being mean about it i guess the autism beams got crossed and i didn't notice until i saw we had different definitions of "separate from environment". also you really sound like someone who watched to much paul cockshott and wanted to shit on dialectics
>that people aren't clear on what they mean about "freedom" either. Communists tend to talk about collective freedom from oppression and exploitation which is different from the bourgeois individual freedom to own property and exploit.its the same thing but not in those words. like for hegel freedom is duty, in the sense that a person who has a job in a society that has division of labor does one little task and gets money and then they have free time and can do lots of things cause all the other people are divided into different labors. so even tho it seems like having to work is an arbitrary imposition it actually gives you more capacity for action, but only if everyone participates in the social contract.
so freedom is necessity means like recognition of structural barriers for capacity for action and conscious progress towards building the infrastructure to increase the capacity for free action.
the positive/negative freedom from/to sorta misses the mark but positive freedom is closer, except its usual in the liberal framework of something like access to affordable healthcare is freedom of choice to have healthcare or something.
with communists what they actually mean by by freedom is something that doesn't really exist yet, like a "nobody's free until everybody's free" but not in the sense that you arent metaphysically free until people are out of prisons but in the sense that none of us are free under capitalism because the profit motive turns us or rather keeps us as animalistic brutes incapable of rationally planning our future as a collective. freedom comes after the higher phase when.. well yeah thats the engels quote you are looking at. theres also more in hegels philosophy of right and marxs critique of it
and thats sorta separate from free will but because will and even desire is determined by freedom, eg socially, historically, etc. they are deeply intertwined
and i said
>>2665821>"Freedom is the recognition of necessity" way back btw. which is why i dont like so much posting these stream of consciousness things in a hostile environment where someone nitpicks something i didn't proofread with no charity except that i hope lurkers who are interested might pick up on a phrase and it will help them like it helped me in the past. the actual definition i pasted was just chatgpt because i thought you were trying to trick me into putting it in my own words so you could tear it down and i cbf to find and post a quote to make you directly argue against marx instead of me
>>2666017>damn okay sorry for being mean about it i guess the autism beams got crossed and i didn't notice until i saw we had different definitions of "separate from environment". also you really sound like someone who watched to much paul cockshott and wanted to shit on dialecticsno worries anon, thanks for being patient with me
>i guess the autism beams got crossedlol
>>2666025i just want to know where the voluntarism meme comes from
>>2666027Khrushev was criticized for voluntarism
>>2666027Leftcommunist mechanicist idealist meme
Do the people who don't believe they have free will have aphantasia? Do you struggle with fiction? Do you not have an inner monologue? What does it feel like when you make decisions, do you go over pros/cons/hypotheticals or does your choice just arrive in your head out of the blue?
>>2666017By this standard we wouldn't be free under communism either because no free people would work 8 hours a day in a factory making batteries or cornflakes unless they were coerced and living off the land was rendered impossible. Every industrial society is an unhappy Mr. Peel waiting to happen. We might be freer than under capitalism, though, if you're lucky. Although I guess everyone becomes less free when the environment is dead and poisoned.
>>2665761>therefore knowableIt's not, you can't calculate it.
>>2666117You dont need free will to do things.
>>2665533>there is no good evidence that human beings possess an immaterial “soul” that thinks, chooses, or survives bodily death.it's quite likely that this was the original view of all abrahamic religions. For example jews around year 0 would have thought it odd to say that the person or soul survived after death, this applies to Jesus and his disciples too. To them mind was part of the body and that is a materialistic view. Resurrection was just recreation of the body by god. "Soul" really is just greek pagan metaphysics brought into Christianity.
>I was told by someone on here that in order to be a Communist, I must "believe" in "Free Will."
One sentence in and I'm already laughing.
We had a discussion about Sartre and free will recently.
>>2666163Yeah, sartre was a stalinist voluntarist.
Not reading this long ass thread. OP is right.
That said I will make a long ass post myself.
Physics, biology, neuroscience already proves that with the possible exception of certain quantum events which potentially have truly random outcomes, all things that occur can be perfectly determined and predicted if you can look back in time and have a full picture of their prior states.
Building on this, with perfect knowledge of the state of the universe as of the time of the big bang or shortly thereafter, we could theoretically perfectly predict all future events via calculation.
This eliminates the possibility of traditional free will, allowing only for a universe of either determinism or compatiblism.
While neither of these two theories are disprovable, compatiblism implies necessarily some form of soul or essence which decides actions and therefore bends the course of reality and those deterministic outcomes decided at the start of time towards it's own will.
This introduces a lot of new and unnecessary complexities just to make space for a kind of free will, in a system which works totally fine without such additional elements.
Therefore it is reasonable to assume that a fully deterministic universe is by far the most likely possibility since it reaches the conclusions with less convolution and no spare parts shoehorned just to justify the existence of free will.
Further supporting the deterministic universe theory is also the biological discovery that your nerves and brain transmit electrical and chemical signals to determine actions before you become consciously aware of choosing to do something.
For example if you choose to drink a glass of water, your brain works on physically doing so before deciding to make the conscious thought of "I'll drink this water". The brain works in the reverse order of what we would expect from free will.
This last part leads me onto a pretty terrifying conclusion.
Why does the brain bother with justifying it's actions via conscious thoughts after the act has already been initiated? It's entirely redundant.
Hypothetically you could do away with such inner self-justification and illusions altogether and still have a fully functioning person devoid of inner experience, and externally they would appear and act the same as anyone else.
This begs the question, is our unique consciousness - our subjective sentient experience - an emergent property of how our brains function, or is something that persists purely because it benefited survival at one stage in evolution and doesn't (yet) hinder further survival?
If acting without subjectivity and the conscious self-justification of actions - an intelligence without sentience - were both more efficient (which it would be from an energy stand point) and had better outcomes (presumably without emotions introducing "irrational" action this would also be true) then surely we would eventually evolve to lose our inner experience?
Of course this is just a purely hypothetical arguement which rests entirely on the question of whether consciousness is emergent or not. In which case I really fucking hope it is.
>Responsibility is not metaphysical; it is a social practice invented and enforced by humans to shape behavior while brains are still alive and responsive to incentives.
This goes hard.
>>2666277Consciousness plays an inhibitory role more than a stimulatory one, so that's one reason for monitoring actions and forming narratives about them. Also we can engage in summation, where we elevate actions to principles
>>2665577>>2665533Gay ass attempt to deny my own agency. Not today demiurge.
>I was told by someone on here that in order to be a Communist, I must believe in Free Will.Yes you should. You are your own self. Stop denying it.
The fundamental problem is not even free will as a concept but the Proto Indo European Languages.
For example in Chinese, free will makes more sense like a phenomenon:
自由意志 = Free will
自 = oneself
由 = depended on
意 = purpose (with 志 (mark) combined to form: motivation)
Conceptually, free will is inseparable from agency, being, existence, sentience and other words we use to describe the EXPERIENCE of consciousness. Hence the Matrix movies, MMORPG theory of consciousness, Penrose's quantum mumbo jumbo (quantum mechanics as it is pushed in the masses is actually bullshit and not this magic power bs, it's statistical mechanics applied to the atomic scale specifically the Born Rule and how it related to Schrodinger's wave based equations which were incompatible with Bohr's discreet models etc.) and other manifestations of this THING we try to describe but that we cannot. Of course some go extra far and start taking drugs to mess up their minds in search for these answers but we know that such people usually end up fried and broken. A good way to measure one's free will is to do things we don't want to do but should and not doing the things we want to that we shouldn't. You will experience a limited out-of-body experience when you catch yourself from doing the latter in the nick of time. Usually people resisting addictions experience this. Also free will is connected to one's coefficient of schizo and autism. One must have a healthy blend of both.
>>2666829you didn't debunk a single thing OP said.
>>2666117nobody said anything about spirit.
>>2666023didn't engels lay the groundwork for dialectical materialism in socialism: utopian and scientific, and anti-duhring? didn't dietzgen come to similar conclusions around the same time as marx and engels, in much the same way that newton and leibniz both "invented" (were put in the right circumstances to discover) calculus?
I will use my free will to ignore ops argument
>>2668560sorry, "the universe".
thats the new age way to say "God", right?
>>2668571trvke
>>2668571Uncomfortable truths.
>>2665533>free will dont realyup
Free will tends to be ill defined, and people engage in wordplay to defend it, because it is a central concept on which the dominan moral systems rest.
The concept of free will is either used to mean just the trivial act of evaluating sensory inputs and generating outputs based on a conscious process, which is trivially true but does not carry any of the metaphysical implications.
The spiritual, indefensible concept of free will argues that one could have decided differently under the same conditions, that one is the ultimate origin of actions, from which moral responsibility is derived, distinguishing humans from animals and objects.
This rests on a some spiritual quality of human thought that religious people tend to quite explicitly arue that humans posess.
liberal moralism rests on religious dogma
>>2668561>ok but that's not free willonly if you accept that the liberal definition of free will is the only one that exists. dunno why you would cede that to liberals but ok
>>2668819apparently there are communists ITT who insist Engels define free will as "recognition of necessity" but IIRC this is how he defines "freedom." Still redefining it away from what the vast majority of people mean when they use that term in the original theological sense.
>>2670020words can have multiple definitions and it's the "liberal" (christian) definition OP refutes. why are you pretending to be retarded?
If I were talking about a bank, the kind you put money in, and you got confused and thought I meant riverbank, and then I was like "no, I mean the bank you put money in" am I "ceding" to "liberals" because "money banks are liberal while riverbanks are not"? fucking semantics!
>>2670025>it's the "liberal" (christian) definition OP refutesthey dont say that though. they just say "free will" in general
>riverbankits closer to a bank vs credit union not completely different concepts. why are you pretending to be retarded?
>>2670028>they dont say that though. they just say "free will" in general are they refuting the idea that it's possible to recognize necessity? no. then they aren't refuting the marxist definition of free will. Are they refuting the idea of an uncaused, self-originating power of the "soul" or of the brain? yes. then they are refuting the "liberal" (Christian) definition of free will.
>>2670030>then they aren't refuting the marxist definition of free will. they didnt even know there was a marxist definition of free will till over a hundred posts in. please read the thread before participating thanks
>>2670030Noooooooooo you don't understand!!!1! by refuting the Christian definition of free will you are "ceding ground to it!!!!" while at the same time rejecting the marxist definition of it!!!! why??? I don't fucking know!!!! I'm just an argumentative troll who feels the need to show off how "not liberal" he is in every conversation!!!!
>>2670031>they didnt even know there was a marxist definition of free will till over a hundred posts in. please read the thread before participating thanksthen you admit they weren't trying to refute the marxist definition of free will. checkmate you fuckin idiot
>>2670032>then you admit they weren't trying to refute the marxist definition of free will.they certainly tried for an extended time. again, read the thread
>>2670033I did read the thread, they rejected the liberal definition of free will and then got told there was a marxist definition. all that is besides the point. refuting the liberal definition doesn't mean "ceding ground" to it. nor does it mean "recognition of necessity" (what engels for some fucking reason gave the same name as a retarded theological concept) is wrong. you're retarded.
>>2670034yeah that's true, engels shouldn't have called "recognition of necessity" by the name "free will" unless he wanted it to get confused with the retarded (and unfortunately much more popular) theological concept of the same name. these anons want to have it both ways.
>>2670033>they certainly tried for an extended time.they asked for nearly 100 posts what the definition was and the anon kept saying "look it up". they weren't trying to refute it, they were trying to find out what it is in the first place. damn you're dishonest.
>>2670034>nor does it mean "recognition of necessity" (what engels for some fucking reason gave the same name as a retarded theological concept)actually it does, thats the contention. free will in the broadest means the ability to make choices between different outcomes, and this applies to both conceptions of free will. in denying that free will exists you deny freedom from recognition of necessity, because that is what it means.
>>2670040does the brain have an uncaused self-originating power? Or is it a complex biological computer behaving in a difficult to predict but nevertheless deterministic way based on natural laws?
>>2670044those are not the only two options
>>2670040a brain behaving deterministically as a biological computer is able to recognize necessity (like its own body's need to eat food to survive) without having an uncaused self-originating metaphysical power, which is the definition of "free will" that is being refuted, and by far the most common one, and by far the most often used one, throughout the world.
>>2670046>a brain behaving deterministically as a biological computeris mind reducible to brain?
>>2670045whether physics is "random" or "deterministic", the brain is still downstream, and not in control of itself. It is capable of "learning" and "choosing" but that is not "free" it's determined upon biological integrity (lack of accumulated damage) as well as the quality of the conditioning it receives.
>>2670051>it's determined upon biological integrity no its not. biological integrity being a precondition for function does not make it determinative
How do free will believers explain the fact that literally 100s of peer reviewed studies have proven beyond any doubt that your neurons make you to do whatever you are doing up to half a second before you have any conscious sensation of "choosing" to do said action?
The electical pulses and chemicals determining your actions and thoughts have passed looong before you feel like you are making any conscious decision.
>>2670059>can a baby born without a brain recognize necessity?how is this related to the discussion?
is mind reducible to brain?
what is consciousness?
where is the will located? which brain region?
>>2670064>How do free will believers explain the fact that literally 100s of peer reviewed studies have proven beyond any doubt that your neurons make you to do whatever you are doing up to half a second before you have any conscious sensation of "choosing" to do said action?by asking quesitons like this:
>>2670065>how is this related to the discussion?>is mind reducible to brain?>what is consciousness? >where is the will located? which brain region?which necessarily reveal that they believe in some metaphysical entity beyond matter and energy which provides the person with "free will" compltely independent of their internal and external environment.
>>2670064>muh peer reviooooImaging beliving "soyence" in 2026.
Not sarcasm.
You don't know shit about complex systems you did not create. Plus those studies were probably paid by big pharma. Did you take your vaccine yet? You should be on your 20th booster by now you little slave.
Sage this luciferian thread.
(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) >>2670064same q's to you. why do you think physics or biology is related to the question?
if you want to attack free will on this basis i dont see a consistent way to do this without rejecting will in general by equating will consciousness and mind and dismissing them all as fiction and claiming only the brain exists.
this sort of physical reductionism is incompatible with a dialectical understanding
>>2670067>which necessarily reveal that they believe in some metaphysical entityincorrect. please asnwer the questions so we can move forward
>compltely independent of their internal and external environment.double incorrect this is specifically what dialectics retains
>>2670045>those are not the only two optionsi thought we made it past this, but you still lack dialectics
>>2670065>is mind reducible to brain?The mind is not a separate substance or non-physical entity. Mental states (thoughts, feelings, intentions, consciousness) are entirely the result of physical processes in the brain: neurons firing, neurotransmitters releasing, networks interacting.
>what is consciousness? Consciousness is a property of highly organized matter, arising from the brain in active relation to the natural and social world.
>where is the will located? which brain region?it's an emergent product of the entire brain functioning as a whole.
Dialectical materialism rejects the idea that complex functions map one-to-one onto anatomical spots. Asking where the will is, as if it were an object, is a mechanical-materialist mistake.
The will is the capacity for conscious, goal-directed, self-regulated activity, arising from neural activity in the brain,t he organism’s practical engagement with the world, and socially learned goals, norms, and meanings (none of which are "free" in the theological sense of uncaused and self-originating)
>>2670073I accept your consneeding.
>>2670072>Mental states (thoughts, feelings, intentions, consciousness) are entirely the result of physical processes in the brainnot only is this incorrect, it is not proven by the science you appeal to
>the brain in active relation to the natural and social world>Asking where the will is, as if it were an object, is a mechanical-materialist mistake.if you understand this then you should be perfectly capable of understanding why proposing that will is determined by and reducible to biology or brain states is incorrect as well as how free will is not metaphysical or self-originating or uncaused
but instead you keep repeating mechanical-materialist mistakes seemingly without recognizing it
>>2665953>ok fine. they're the same material substance in motion. are they or arent they? is the mind/consciousness an emergent pattern of matter in motion that is not physically limited to the inside of the skull and determined by biology or isn't it?
>The mind is not a separate substance or non-physical entity.it does not have to be a separate substance(eg dualism, mind-matter) nor does it have to be a non-physical entity in order for it to be partially external to the physical organ called the brain.
you know it could be the relation
>>2670072>Consciousness is a property of highly organized matter, arising from the brainmatter in general or brain matter?
>it's an emergent product of the entire brain functioning as a whole.just the brain? what about the nervous system? what about the digestive system? are things that i see with my eyes inside my brain?
>>2670059why are adults capable of recognizing necessity and babies are not? do babies have minds? are they conscious? is consciousness a property of brains or a relation between bodies and environments, including social relations? how do monkeys raised on desert islands communicate? is language necessary for consciousness? where in the brain is language located? which genes put the language in the brain? how do they know to code for english?
>>2670081if I get tired of answering your questions, that means theological christian free will exists, right?
>>2670085idk man it just doesn't really seem like you thought this through at all. if everything is how you say it is then communist revolution is either inevitable or impossible so jacking off and stockpiling guns are equally revolutionary since its not a free choice anyway.
>>2670088> if everything is how you say it is then communist revolution is either inevitable or impossiblefree will not being real doesn't limit your future possibilities, you are still capable of realizing/doing anything, it's just a matter of how the universe plays out rather than you personally willing anything. there is no uncaused self-originating power. You are at the total mercy of physical processes, but those same physical processes have given you memory, and the illusion of choice. Communist revolution is inevitable even if humans completely fail because statistically there are billions of galaxies and it's bound to happen somewhere. Stop being so earth-centric and human-centric.
>>2670087>realize free will is fake and gaythis is what recognition of necessity really means
>>2670094This is all very incorrect, from a communist point of view, and with the previous discussion amounts to trolling or extreme ignorance. You have the tools in your hands now I cant force you to use them.
>>2670098>there is an uncaused self originating powermetaphysical idealism
>>2670099that isn't the only type of free will and you know it
>>2670102>recognition of necessityit's stupid to call that free will because you either recognize necessity or you don't. you don't use your free will to recognize necessity. In fact when you recognize you need to eat, it's because your body tells you you're hungry, not because you have free will.
>>2670106im starting to think you dont know what those words mean
there is no free will, only an autonomy of choices, you do not work independently, but within them, this however means you do make choices, albeit not ones that are "free" or independent
>>2670111being hungry isn't recognition of necessity
>>2670114realizing you are hungry is recognizing the necessity of eating
>>2670114you do not eat because you willingly choose to, but because you are compelled to, you can starve yourself to death but most cannot bring themselves to that position
>>2670113this is consistent with OP, there is no uncaused autonomy, only caused autonomy acting in accordance with material conditions
>>2670119and if you get rabies, you become hydrophobic, and can no longer swallow water, how matter how badly you want to.
>>2670121i stated that so that some people might be able to get what's being said instead of freaking out that their favorite idea was attacked for rightfully being idiotic, to believe in free will is to believe in an acausal force that allows humans to think regardless of conditions before, it is literally a supernatural assertion you have to believe in order to rescue free will
any form of "free will" thus requires it, some might call this extreme but it's the logical conclusion of the idea, for example, anyone with an intellectual disability should have the ability to simply become abled through the power of thought if they just try hard enough, since their thinking has to be acausal
>>2670125I mean it depends what disability, but yeah even if someone figures out how to be fully functioning, they're going to be operating differently due to structural difference. That's how neurotypes happen, I think.
Like you can't just cast "be normal" and be normal, you gotta work with the cards in your hand.
>>2670117recognizing the necessity of something is not the same thing as recognition of necessity. you have completely lost the plot. try actually reading the engels text you found
>>2670125you are deliberately confusing free will with omnipotence, i.e unconstrained will, This is the equivalence of saying that since you can't create atoms from thin air then there is a limitation to your range of action, which means to you dont have free will after all hue hue hue
this is the typical rhetorical device for determinists, they will raise the bar for what qualifies as 'free will' so high to the point of absurdity because they're trying to reconcile believing in the concept of agency and not believing in free will.
>>2670113>>2670121like look at the gaggle of imbeciles. They literally say that you can make choices but it dun mean they believe in free will cuz when u make choices you are influenced by other factors!!!!
That what free will advocates meant by free will dumbass. Nobody in our side thinks that free will means having the ability to make uncaused choice because that is an attribute that is literally avaliable to God only. You people believe in free will, but since free will is not epic materialism coded you deliberately change the definition of free will into absurd extremes so you can believe in agency without having to say that you believe in free will, its such a farce
>>2670140>recognizing the necessity of something is not the same thing as recognition of necessity. it is a particular instance of the general fact of recognizing necessity.
>you have completely lost the plot. try actually reading the engels text you foundEngels got that from Hegel anyway, and sometimes the "recognition of necessity in the chapter XI of Anti-Duhring is translated as "insight into necessity" which it is on Marxists.org.
You can look at the Hegel glossary
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/help/glossary.htmBut you can also look at this chapter of Anti-Duhring
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch09.htm
>Freedom does not consist in any dreamt-of independence from natural laws, […]i.e. it is not Christian "Free Will"
>[…] but in the knowledge of these laws, and in the possibility this gives of systematically making them work towards definite ends. Again, this is Hegel's (and Engels's…) "Freedom"
not "Free Will," which Engels calls
so-called Free Will mockingly:
>It is hard to deal with morality and law without coming up against the question of so-called free will, of man's mental responsibility, of the relation between necessity and freedom. And the philosophy of reality also has not only one but even two solutions of this problem.let alone Christian Free Will, which is an immaterial metaphysical self-driving entity inside the person's Mind or Soul. That doesn't exist. That is what OP refuted.
Why do we keep calling Hegelian "Freedom" by the name
Free Will? What does it add? It is neither Free nor Will. Reminds me of how Voltaire joked that the Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy nor Roman nor an Empire.
>>2670147it's not a confusion, it's explaining what free will actually is, what you see is autonomy that is dependendent, that is to say, it is a causal form of decision making, conflating this with "free will" is pretending they are the same positions, it's not a delusion of "being a heckin' epic materialist" either, nor is there a farce
>>2670149>That what free will advocates meant by free will dumbassno they do not, they implicitly reject the causal nature of thinking, pretending that erm askhsually they're all secular atheists who reasonably deduced free will when the common argument of free will, even ones uttered on this website implies exactly what i'm talking about while calling people like myself "imbeciles" is silly
>>2670152>it is a particular instance of the general fact of recognizing necessity.which is wholly different from recognition of necessity itself
>Engels got that from Hegel anywayyes which is why it has a super special poetic definition and not an arbitrary vulgar one where you can substitute "knowing stuff" with it
you are arguing a priori that actually free will is causal, and really is shaped by the naturalistic reality we live in, this is despite the fact that almost every advocate of a "free will" goes mostly like how i described it, it is acausal reasoning, your seemingly made up minority of real people who simply do not believe in that has not been shown or proven, humans have agency but they do not have a "free will", you can say "erm akshually you believe in a free will by virtue of stating this" but i don't, because it isn't free, you are not only shaped by everything around you, but your decisions are not entirely your own either, at best i argued this was autonomy, but that this is free is absurd, how you can argue this is actually the same thing but we're just renaming it to sound cool seems more or less like a declaration made without actually understanding why people like myself call it supernatural thinking
>>2670162It is absolutely a farce. You are attempting to shove an extreme incompatibilist position vis a vis free will and agency i e van Inwagen's strong thesis
>I am able to do something such that, if I did it, it would constitute a law of nature’s being broken or would cause a law of nature to be broken.This is an extremely contentious argument, no less because we have to define what natural law is, whether you choosing to not break natural when you cant do it constitutes as free will via tha categorical argument, etc, but what is happening here is that you are pushing the definition of free will into the realm of absurdity so retards like
>>2670165 or
>>2670170 can de facto believe in free will without calling it free will. Because for them its not really a debate about free will vs determinism but soyence vs "magical thinking".
>>2670170nah its pretty obvious you are a fedora tipper who got beat by nuns or something so you cant into dialectics
because you think its spooky and your ego is wrapped up in being a serious scientist that needs to appeal to mainstream liberal idealist norms to defend that. congrats on learning to mimic marxists but you obviously have no idea what a dialectic is
>>2665533>I was told by someone on here that in order to be a Communist, I must "believe" in "Free Will."Marxist "free will" is the capacity of a historically constituted social class to achieve consciousness of the objective laws of its own determination and, through collective revolutionary praxis, to transform those determining conditions, thereby becoming the conscious subject of history rather than its passive object. A rationally planned economy unleashing the forces of production would also enable this collective free will on the level of the individual for the first time. In a sense Communism is the realization of free will, which is something that currently does not exist but can exist in the future, so it would be wrong to not "believe" in it or rule it out in principle as an impossibility.
>>2670094>free will not being real doesn't limit your future possibilities, you are still capable of realizing/doing anything, it's just a matter of how the universe plays out rather than you personally willing anything. Do you not see how that is contradictory? You are not capably of realizing/doing anything if your choices are limited by "how the universe plays out".
>there is no uncaused self-originating power. You are at the total mercy of physical processes, but those same physical processes have given you memory, and the illusion of choice. Tts not an illusion. Your thinking too mechanically. As if matter comes first and then brain and then "illusion of choice" so the matter determines the "choice", but this isn't how it works. Matter comes first and then brain and then real choice and that real choice effects matter and then that matter effects the brain and then it goes back around again. That means the choice is free because it is self-determined, not self originating. Your making a mistake by thinking you have to reduce back to the origin when the scope of the investigation of choice does not start at the origin nor does this linear mechanical structure accurately reflect the reality of how materialism operates.
>>2670113>there is no free will, only an autonomy of choices, you do not work independently, but within them, this however means you do make choices, albeit not ones that are "free" or independentBut the choices change the choices, which means you have the capacity to change the determinants of the choices, which means it is free.
>>2670121>there is no uncaused autonomy, only caused autonomy acting in accordance with material conditionsAnd that caused autonomy can change the material conditions giving itself a new set of causes that it freely chose.
>>2670051>whether physics is "random" or "deterministic",And what that means is that physics is neither "random" nor "deterministic" but capable of being directed by conscious free choice of will, and this is practice
or physics is neither random nor deterministic in its historical-social outcomes. It is a field of potentiality that is given specific, novel, and goal-directed form by the conscious, practical activity of humanity. The "free choice of will" is the initiating moment in a material chain of praxis that harnesses necessity to create new realities.
>>2670152>Again, this is Hegel's (and Engels's…) "Freedom" not "Free Will,"Freedom is a precondition for free will.
Free will is when there is your ideal perfect finalized self in a platonic dimension of thoughts that is making your physical body do things. It is dualism, or something. And dualism is le bad and everyone wanted to surpass dualized and get to monism, o algo
>>2670175*get over dualism
Marx was a monist, btw. Trust me bro
>>2670175If monism is true then there is no room for dialectical movement. This is why i am more indisposed to the qualified non-dualism of vishishtadvaita
>>2670152so like do you believe in predestination or what
Guys, dont marxoids say that action precedes consciousness?
>>2670180uygha if everything is one all along how come there is class conflict? How came Krishna chase after Radha? Why is there movement from A to B if A and B are the same thing?
>>2670181What is your issue with religion in its historical context? Religion is a form of knowledge like science is, all the gripes you have with religion are caused by idealist scholars. Believing in free will is just as much religgery if not more
>>2670186i meant predeterminism(from the second image in that post) but was making a pun about scientism being a religion
>>2670185I am not qualified to have this conversation and to answer this question. You are a voluntarist though
why r u pretending u rnt op?
>>2670185There is a class conflict and the world can be studied. Society and its history can be studied. Society, which is made of humans is determinate.
>>2670188Trve i have never hide my position as a spooked moralist and voluntarist thoughbeit i am just mad when leftoids believe in the same thing i do but then cover it up under a cloak of epic materialism instead of embracing the fact that you can and should believe in contradictory things
people really do be dumb as hell how do they get like that i wonder
>>2670191Voluntarism leads to many deviations. Commies care about that.
>>2670191Good luck on trying to force history though.
>>2665920Yes commies care about purging heresy and making sure that their beliefs are dogmatically sound more than winning things just like Catholics
>>2670197>commies care about purging the heresyLemme get le Lenin's text… Here!
>We are marching in a compact group along a precipitous and difficult path, firmly holding each other by the hand. We are surrounded on all sides by enemies, and we have to advance almost constantly under their fire. We have combined, by a freely adopted decision, for the purpose of fighting the enemy, and not of retreating into the neighbouring marsh, the inhabitants of which, from the very outset, have reproached us with having separated ourselves into an exclusive group and with having chosen the path of struggle instead of the path of conciliation. And now some among us begin to cry out: Let us go into the marsh! And when we begin to shame them, they retort: What backward people you are! Are you not ashamed to deny us the liberty to invite you to take a better road! Oh, yes, gentlemen! You are free not only to invite us, but to go yourselves wherever you will, even into the marsh. In fact, we think that the marsh is your proper place, and we are prepared to render you every assistance to get there. Only let go of our hands, don’t clutch at us and don’t besmirch the grand word freedom, for we too are ‘free’ to go where we please, free to fight not only against the marsh, but also against those who are turning towards the marsh! >>2670171i'm sorry but how is what you're arguing for a "free" will? because you are implicitly stating that "human thoughts and emotions rise out of natural phenomena", a position that implicitly denies a free will, exactly what is "free" there?
>>2670197i'm sorry that the evidence we have come to has infuriated you this much
>>2670166> which is why it has a super special poetic definition and not an arbitrary vulgar onenot him but why is everything in marxism like this? you read it, you think you understand it, then next thing you know everyone is yelling at you for vulgarizing some super hegelian concept and even if you go to a "hegelian glossary" or something and look it up it turns out its definition is dependent and interconnected with 50 other words Hegel hs super special poetic definitions for.
Lenin even says
<‘It is impossible completely to understand Marx’s Capital, and especially its first chapter, without having thoroughly studied and understood the whole of Hegel’s Logic.’… maybe 1% of proles (if you're lucky) read Volume 1 of Capital, and of that 1% maybe 0.1% of them have also "thoroughly studied and understood the whole of Hegel’s Logic."
But then you have anons on here who
insist that nearly every worker in the 1800s read Capital with massive ease and that you "think workers are dumb" if you find this stuff hard or confusing. It's a never ending "conversation" where it's supposedly "so easy" but you're always an "idiot who doesn't understand anything" no matter how much you read or how many times you read it.
>>2670503if you're asking why Marxists have their own jargon… it's for the same reason every other field of study has its own jargon.
If you're asking why they specifically use terms that already have "colloquial" definitions which are completely different and easily confused with their special poetic definitions inherited from Hegel? My advice is blame Hegel.
>>2670181Predestination is a religious form of determinism, that anon clearly is not religious.
>>2670149>that is an attribute that is literally avaliable to God only.but wasn't theological christian free will invented precisely as a theological device to explain away the problem of predestination? like calvinists and shit believe in predestination where god basically creates your soul on a railroad to heaven or hell, but other christians believe in an uncaused self-originating power of the soul (not the brain) that allows souls to influence the course of outcomes in the material world, specifically in the flesh they pilot, so that they can reasonably avoid mortal sins and repent and so on. So…. that's what "free will" usually means and that's what it originally comes from:
<"free will" (liberum arbitrium) was introduced by Christian philosophy (4th century CE). It has traditionally meant (until the Enlightenment proposed its own meanings) lack of necessity in human will, so that "the will is free" meant "the will does not have to be such as it is". This requirement was universally embraced by both incompatibilists and compatibilists.How did Hegelians manage to transform the original definition: "lack of necessity in human will" into the opposite "recognition of necessity" and then have the gall to act like everyone else is pseuds for not knowing their super secret handshake definition?
<oh but you don't understand, you need to read the entire science of logic and phenomenology of spirit to understand what "recognition" and "necessity" mean and you will still get it wrong because you are le pseudAt some point Feynman's principle of teaching needs to apply:
<true understanding comes from the ability to explain concepts clearly and simply, often as if teaching them to a child. He believed that if you cannot explain something in simple terms, it indicates a lack of understanding of the topic. >>2670149but even God lacks free will since he is bound to the Good.
>>2670528augustine spoke of predestination before luther and calvin. even paul discusses it where he says that we are either slaves to sin or slaves to righteousness. Christ also says that all things are known by the Father, including the day of judgement. prophecy also confirms that the future is written before it occurs. this was not an uncommon belief in antiquity, since astrology played a part in determining future events, like the magi ("wise men") using stars to find Christ.
the protestant purpose of presdestination is to prove their form of soteriology (salvation), since if man cannot save himself, then he is redeemed by sola fide (faith alone), since only God can forgive sin (not priests). so then, one's salvation lies in God, not himself. the latter belief is a form of pride.
>>2670513yes but they are subscribing to a hard determinism where everything is predetermined, so its just like a secular predestination without the heaven or hell part
>>2670503>not him but why is everything in marxism like this? thats how all of science and philosophy is because the enlightenment came out of religious scholars in the middle ages where the church was the center of education and everyone was bi-tri-lingual and studied latin and greek.
also when you have to distinguish between two closely related concepts. like knowing and understanding. they arent inventing technical differences they are just being precise
>But then you have anons on here who insist that nearly every worker in the 1800s read Capital with massive ease people do say that but they are wrong. workers werent reading capital they were reading pamphlets. you dont have to read it to participate but the leaders of the vanguard should know what they are talking about
>>2670509>If you're asking why they specifically use terms that already have "colloquial" definitions which are completely different and easily confused with their special poetic definitions inherited from Hegel?i think its the other way around. the words had specific definitions that get watered down by their popularization
>>2670528>How did Hegelians manage to transform the original definition: no its the other way around
><true understanding comes from the ability to explain concepts clearly and simply, often as if teaching them to a child.nah thats just anti-intellectualism. learning any science takes just as much work some things are just complex and dumbing it down loses the meaning such that the explanation does not map onto the subject
>but wasn't theological christian free will inventedpretty sure they got it from people who came before them
>>2670925free will isn't real whether or not the universe is "random" or "deterministic"
>>2670944>nah thats just anti-intellectualism. learning any science takes just as much work some things are just complex and dumbing it down loses the meaning such that the explanation does not map onto the subject it's hard to walk the tightrope between vulgarization, i.e. "watering stuff down" and obscurantism, i.e. "making it hard and confusing on purpose to limit who gets in."
both are anti-intellectualism imo
>>2671264>it's hard to walk the tightrope between vulgarization, i.e. "watering stuff down" and obscurantism, i.e. "making it hard and confusing on purpose to limit who gets in."
>both are anti-intellectualism imoAgreed. You see this a lot.
Vulgarization: “Quantum physics proves reality isn’t real, man.”
Obscurantism: “Nonlocal ontological indeterminacy arises from Hilbert space formalism.”
Tightrope: “At very small scales, particles don’t behave like everyday objects, and we need probability to describe them.”
Unique IPs: 62