Free will exists, the conditions to have free will do not exist.
If I'm being manipulated from on-high by some otherworldy powerful, possibly eldritch abomination, then that's actually way more metal than just being some dude.
edit: I was supposed to criticise the relationship advice, got it... Yeah, I'm divorced.
My partner and I both understand that free will doesn't exist but it's better for everyone if we pretend it does. And yes, a lot of our conversations are a bit like that.
I think everyone needs to recalibrate what 'small talk' is.
Some people are acting so opposed to small talk, as if it requires writing an essay on why you love a list of pop culture influencers and reality stars.
Silence isn't a crime you know...it's actually pretty great.
"free will" is chemical process. Chemical processes are dictated by the laws of physics.
You don't have any more "free will" than an apple falling from a tree. Or a ball rolling.
The laws of physics are not deterministic at the fundamental level, we clearly experience some kind of agency, so doesn't it make sense to assume that it could be the origin of this indeterminism?
Rolling a Quantum dice is not freedom.
You're assuming quantum indeterminism is random in the sense that there is no agency behind it, but there is no evidence of that. If anything, the fact we feel like we have free will suggests there might be some agency somewhere, and if it manifests anywhere, that is as indeterminism at the fundamental level.
If there is an agent who is deciding it then that would show up in the statistics. Unless you're saying there exists an agent who decides the outcomes but always just so happens to very conveniently decide they should be entirely random. lol
My idea is that the agent is the particle itself, and the laws of physics are simply the statistics of what decisions it tends to make. I imagine that if a fundamental particle like an electron was phenomenally conscious and had some kind of agency, it wouldn't have any intention or self-awareness, so it would decide practically randomly, based on its quantum state, which would be some kind of rudimentary experience it has.
I feel like this is no different practically speaking than just saying its behavior is random, but anthropomorphizing it for some reason.
The reason is trying to work towards a model which could actually solve the hard problem, something which the physicalism prevalent in science has failed at completely. Consciousness is a fundamental aspect of reality, and it needs to be taken seriously, any model which doesn't include it is either inacurrate or incomplete. Yes, a single particle might act randomly, but that might not hold for a more complex entangled system, especially an orchestrated one inside a living being.
There is no "hard problem." It's made up. Nagel's paper that Chalmers bases all his premises on is just awful and assumes for no reason at all that physical reality is something that exists entirely independently of one's point of view within it, never justifies this bizarre claim and builds all of his arguments on top of it which then Chalmers cites as if they're proven. "Consciousness" as Chalmers defines it doesn't even exist and is just a fiction.
My line of thought is this: the most epistemically primary thing is subjective experience, because it can be known directly, thus it is undeniably real. Due to the principle of ontological parsimony, if everything can be explained in terms of experience, there is no reason to postulate something beyond it (the physical). So the way I would formulate the hard problem would be something more like "Why does our experience contain the appearance of a physical world at all, and how are they related?".
I guess this might not resonate with you either, if you don't believe in phenomenal consciousness as all. Personally I have a hard time understanding physicalist reductionism, how can you say that something like the experience of redness is the same thing as some pattern of neurons firing in the brain? These are clearly very different things, and even if one is entirely dependent on the other, it doesn't mean it's non-existent or illusory.
There's no such thing as "subjective experience," again the argument for this is derived from a claim that reality is entirely independent of one's point of view within it, which is just a wild claim and absolutely wrong. Our experience doesn't "contain" the physical world, experience is just a synonym for observation, and the physical sciences are driven entirely by observation, i.e. what we observe is the physical world. I also never claimed "the experience of redness is the same thing as some pattern of neurons firing in the brain," no idea where you are getting that from. Don't know why you are singling out "redness" either. What about the experience of a cat vs an actual cat?
What I mean by subjective experience is what you might refer to as what reality looks like from a specific viewpoint or what it appears like when observed. I'm not sure whether you're assuming a physicalist or idealist position when you say "what we observe is the physical world". My issue with this is that observation usually implies the existence of something which is being observed, the appearance upon observation, and possibly also an observer.
If you claim that the physical world doesn't exist independently of observation, and is thus nothing beyond the totality of observed appearances (seems to me like a form of idealism), then what is being observed? If there is no object being observed, and the fact it it apparent from multiple perspectives is simply a consequence of the coherence of observation, where do the qualities of those appearances originate from? How come things don't cease to exist when they're not being observed?
If you claim that the appearances don't exist independently of the physical world being observed (the physicalist interpretation), why does the world appear different from different perspectives? How do you explain things like hallucinations (there is no physical object being observed, but still some appearance is present)?
The reason I brought up that example is because physicalists usually deny the existence of qualia and claim they're nothing beyond the brain processes correlated with them.
Need for small talk suggests the contents of your thoughts revolves around topics and depth of thought suitable for small talk, I wish you the best in finding someone similar who can appreciate its value to your life. I'll be elsewhere and hope you wish me the same luck. Anything that is meaningfully impactful to my partner however, is never small talk.
I'm afraid you've missed the point. Smalltalk is about maintaining and strengthening relationship, which involves knowing about each others' lives and feelings. And it does double duty: taking the time to ask and listen is a way to express that the other person is important enough to you - i.e. to express love.
It's not the only way, and many of us don't do well at smalltalk, but it's a valuable way. And,
your thoughts revolves around topics and depth of thought suitable for small talk
Indeed! It means your thoughts have time for the other person's life and feelings.
For many, small talk does not strengthen or maintain a relationship. It is something that works for some people. Others endure it for the sake of the one who does but it doesn't hold the same role for them and is not a necessity to have a loving and healthy relationship for everyone. Just as we express and receive love differently, small talk doesn't serve the same role in everyone's life. If it does for you, that's great, hopefully you're getting what you need.
As for the double duty, that is true of all communication, whether small or not. As noted above, it may be an expression of love for some people, but it's far from universal.
Not everyone finds the smaller, and often repetitive, experiences of their day to be important or valuable and people are perfectly capable of having time for the other person's life and feelings without the focus being those smaller topics or experiences. Additionally, some people have more important/larger concerns in their day to day life than how the frappuccino from Starbucks was that morning.
It sounds like you value smalltalk in your life but may not accept that it isn't as widespread as you seem to imply. I don't doubt it does what you claim for yourself and others you know. Lastly, what one considers small talk varies greatly, topics of seeming low import may be more meaningful within the shared lives of the couple, depending on what going on.
You make a fair point. Perhaps it's just the cultures I've lived in, though, but my impression is that the vast majority of people value some amount of what might be considered small talk. So for those of us who don't take to it naturally (and I am also one who's had to learn small talk... I'm okay at it in many situations now but not all) it's probably worth having a feel for it for the sake of friendly relationships with many people around us.
how do people who like small talk plan on being in sustained meaningful relationships what are you gonna do "hi honey nice weather we're having huh?"
my plan is to be too busy kissing my partner at all times to say anything
How Shakespearian. "Stop his mouth with a kiss."
"And another kiss."
"Keep going! More kisses, least he open his mouth and opine on the weather."
a year in the horror dawns upon you
you have trained your partner to engage in small talk to get kissed
no ofc not
youve got the illusion of it, but you cant control if you will move away from a flame or when you feel sleepy
and the rest of your thoughts are just funky chemical
Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.
Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!
1. Be Respectful
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
...
2. No Illegal Content
Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.
That means:
-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals
-No CSA content or Revenge Porn
-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)
...
3. No Spam
Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.
-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.
-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.
-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers
-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.
...
4. No Porn/Explicit
Content
-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.
-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.
...
5. No Enciting Harassment,
Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts
-Do not Brigade other Communities
-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.
-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.
-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.
...
6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.
...
If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.
Also check out:
Partnered Communities:
1.Memes
10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)
Reach out to
All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker
