8 Answers

  1. This question is a clear example of how the questioner can write any gibberish. The main thing is that there should be a lot of abstruse words, but then-at least the grass does not grow.

  2. If a scientist writes such an article, then this is not yet a reason to believe that this is the case, especially since questions of the philosophy of consciousness relate more to philosophy than to science (and in general, the connection between the brain and consciousness is an open question).

    But if we assume that there is no free will, then yes, this means that everything in the world is deterministic and any human action cannot be judged as right and wrong, as good and bad, and in general there is no sense in anything, because a person has no possibility of b y t, existentially speaking. And it is precisely to this conclusion that we are led, for example, by materialism, which not only considers the ideal to be a product of the material, but also asserts the dependence of the former on the latter (however, it must be admitted that not all materialists think so).�

    In such a situation, you can simply stop looking for meaning and call it a departure from logocentrism, since homosexual French philosophy has already developed a theoretical basis.

  3. A person has free will, the freedom to choose between good and evil. Therefore, there is no hard-coded unambiguous future. The future is more of a system of corridors diverging and converging again. Which corridor to choose is our free choice. So he chose to write an article on an issue that didn't boom-boom

  4. Well, in fact, it is not so difficult to answer this question only from a materialistic point of view.

    A scientist writes an article because he is full of dopamine. He always gets a dopamine rush when he comes up with some interesting hypothesis, and he's like, “Wow, I need to write an article about this.” Then he does some experiments, they confirm or refute his idea, he is either happy (some neurotransmitters), or goes depressed (other substances). As a result, something is formulated in this article that is more or less logical and structured, and the scientist sends this article to a journal with a high impact factor. He hopes that this article is good enough for reviewers to appreciate it.

    That is, in a broad sense: there is a scientist – that is, a person who is engaged in science and has developed neural connections in his brain to evaluate certain areas of reality. This scientist writes articles because it is part of his professional activity. He knows what can be published and what cannot be published (all this is also quite materially imprinted in his memory). Its concept may be correct or erroneous (we don't know this), but apparently it is good enough for publication and passed its internal filter. Whether free will has participated in this act or not, it is impossible to say, but it is not absolutely necessary here.

  5. The theory of predestination rests on one small but significant circumstance. One way or another, we can give an explanation for any of the past events. But only in hindsight. When we make a forecast for the future, there is always an area that we were not able to explain. Moreover, it explains us, but we don't explain it at all… To be more clear, I will put it another way: in the plane of causality, our thoughts and conclusions are mainly the result of past events, and only a tiny part of our human activity becomes the cause of future events. Relative to the universe, of course. After all, we are talking about some fundamental laws of being.�

    In order to be functional, a concept must be subject-based. That is, determinism must presuppose the subject of determinism. It is interesting to know who is such a subject in the view of modern science. Not a human being, really.

    The contradiction here is at the ideological, even, if you will, at the cultural level. The prevailing ideology (democracy, free personality) runs counter to the scientific explanation (determinism). And, surprisingly, this does not prevent many scientists from being both democrats and determinists at the same time.

  6. The question needs to be restated. If this scientist is right, then the laws of physics that determined the processes in his brain led him to this. �I like Carl Sagan's quote on this topic that man is the way the universe knows itself. This is the easiest way to understand the principle of determinism with respect to a person.

    Free will exists only within the framework of our consciousness, that is, people live with the feeling that they control their actions and cannot think otherwise. Nietzsche, in his reflections on metaphysics, said: “Thus, the belief in free will is the original error of the whole organic world, as old as the first awakenings of logical thought; the belief in unconditioned substances and in identical things is also the original error of the whole organic world, as old as the first awakenings of logical thought.” If you are interested in his more detailed conclusions, then this is from the book “Human, too human”.

    Stephen Hawking suggests that those who claim to have free will determine at what stage of evolution it appeared. Do bacteria or other mammals have it? I, in turn, propose to prove experimentally the existence of free will, because in order to assert a fact, you need to prove it empirically. Otherwise, all this is just another illusion based on a gigantic human conceit.

  7. In a way, he's right. If you take the average person, then his will is not awakened. Yes, he makes a choice, do this or that, eat this and not this. Like some kind of experimental animal that chooses an action, the consequence of which is some kind of nishtyak. A man is led like a donkey on a carrot. In a global sense, everything is much more complicated. It seems that you make a choice not for personal gain, but for example, for the state, for the people, but this is also a benefit for yourself, not directly. All the same, we are personally led. Our will lies within the limits, within the limits of the choice that we have and more often that we are comfortable with. Example. You sell your apartment, but something went wrong. Your forces are focused on protecting your property, your will is directed according to the standard algorithm. The will could be described, as it seems, as the commission of an act contrary to a logical decision that has a comfortable existence. But this is also not the case. In my opinion, the will allows a person to do the impossible: to win a battle when everyone understands that the battle is lost; when a terminally ill person recovers. Such strong-willed manifestations are extremely rare, as rare as a miracle. Therefore, we can say that there is no will. Our will is controlled by the progress of civilization. Civilization has replaced the will of man. We don't need to show our will, just push a button. Volya is about a monstrous desire to survive.

  8. At the particle level, the processes in consciousness follow the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. If we try to measure the particles of consciousness, it will be a different consciousness, not natural. Processes in consciousness can be described with an indefinite degree of accuracy, using probabilities. The probability can be calculated with absolute accuracy only if you know absolutely all the reasons. Macro-processes in consciousness at the level of clusters of particles can be described more accurately, knowing their causes. We can talk about the relative determinism of consciousness. At the macro level, the description of how consciousness works is more consistent with the deterministic model; at the particle-wave level, consciousness is more accurately described in the language of probabilities. To consider consciousness completely free, we must assume that it does not interact with anything. But we know that particles of consciousness interact with the outside world. Therefore, consciousness is no more free from the world than the world is from consciousness. Consciousness is a way of organizing a part of the world. If the movement of the whole world is described by some law, then why should its part, organized as consciousness, work according to some other laws?

Leave a Reply