Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Tuorom t1_j9fz01d wrote

Reply to comment by HurricaneAlpha in Often mischaracterized as a rather debaucherous, hedonistic philosophy, Epicureanism actually focuses on the removal of pain and anxiety from our lives, and champions a calm ‘philosophy as therapy’ approach in pursuit of life’s highest pleasure: mental tranquility. by philosophybreak

He also got rid of 'fate' which to me always seemed to be another cop out and appeal to a higher power rather than people engaging with the extent of their autonomy.

"it is my fate"/"it's god's will", some bullshit lol

39

JeanVicquemare t1_j9ghrov wrote

Yes, Epicurus was unusual in his era for putting forth a mechanistic, deterministic theory of the universe, governed by natural laws, not functioning pursuant to teleological "final causes" in the Aristotelian sense. The Aristotelian desire to describe the universe in terms of purposes and telos would persist in Europe until the early modern period.

15

[deleted] t1_j9g94as wrote

[deleted]

3

Tuorom t1_j9glsx3 wrote

I don't think fate is the same as determinism. Doesn't fate imply some divine plan that has been set for you?

6

Dumas_Vuk t1_j9hb5ld wrote

"the development of events beyond a person's control, regarded as determined by a supernatural power."

Going by Google I'd have to agree with you. However, supernatural power is by definition unfalsifiable. We have no idea and we can never know.

It doesn't really matter though, as long as you don't claim to know the future.

Edit: "atoms may deviate from their expected course, thus permitting humans to possess free will" this is a logical leap into the supernatural. The idea that we somehow have the ability to influence matter from outside it's causal structure.

4

mojoegojoe t1_j9hk2fl wrote

Possible through QM with GR no?

3

Socile t1_j9i33sd wrote

How? Neither describes anything but deterministic or probabilistic physics.

2

mojoegojoe t1_j9i4ecb wrote

But if QM is interfered with external to the universal set its non-deterministic [big if]

2

Socile t1_j9i5524 wrote

How would that happen?

2

mojoegojoe t1_j9i7lnr wrote

Within plank definition

2

Socile t1_j9i9tpn wrote

Sorry, you lost me.

3

mojoegojoe t1_j9icu2a wrote

Take a snoop at this. https://youtu.be/_Y8HgmOoLCM

2

Socile t1_j9n1nk6 wrote

This doesn’t say anything about free will. Are you trying to surmise that there are free-will-endowing agents at scales smaller than we can currently examine?

1

mojoegojoe t1_j9n5dk3 wrote

Not necessarily, just that that's the interface at which they would act iif that were the case. But by definition its not what we can currently examine - it's what our model of physics defines elementary by the energy mass defintion.

1

QiPowerIsTheBest t1_j9kvsdb wrote

I wouldn’t think so. QM is probabilistic but things don’t randomly swerve like in Epicurean physics.

2

mojoegojoe t1_j9l8hi3 wrote

Right but the probability is based on the observer structure within the universal set, which could mean 'observation' within the probably include variances outside the universal set by some nonenergy defined process

1

Tuorom t1_j9kdigj wrote

Tangent but I was thinking about it last night lol

The thing that interests me right now is the isolation of the consciousness from outside causes. You could argue that there is no barrier such that outside stimuli influence the brain and the chemicals it creates and thus how we choose. But it's this idea of consideration, of thinking. A pause to consider pathways. We can be influenced but does this ever determine the outcome? Does a time of deliberation within the mind ever create a break in causality, and thus free will? Or is deliberation equally something with a direct cause?

Like have you ever thought of something and been set on a certain understanding, thought about it, and a new understanding upends your perspective? Was that determined to happen? What was the influence upon this sudden intuition? Could it be that this change is not from a causal chain but emergent from the mind?

What's been on my mind is energy. We can imagine possibility. How does the mind have this creativity if it is set in stone? Is the ability to imagine myself in a lego castle determined? Is it possible to imagine something we have not perceived? If a mind creates an alien species like in Peter Watts Blindsight, did he achieve this from causes influencing him or was it the potential of his brain to create new ideas? Even if his creature is made of things he has seen, how can this lead to him combining patterns, thoughts, and ideas into something that is not real? Is there a break from one thing to another such that free will exists and that we choose our path through consideration of possibilities that do not yet exist but are imagined?

Random idea: in the show Dark (all the spoilers) >!the loop is destroyed through a loophole where time is completely stopped, and so cause and effect is effectively stopped. A break. Does time exist within the mind, and therefore does cause and effect exist there?!<

1

Dumas_Vuk t1_j9kiksi wrote

I believe most of what goes on is unconscious, so to claim you know yourself completely is like knowing the future. You can make predictions and be good at it but only the future can tell you what it holds. Only after death can your entire story be told.

The mind is an emergent property of brain stuff. It's like a game that emerges from a rule set. Can the game break the rules? Even when one of the rules is to follow the causal chain? I don't think the chain can be broken. It's my assumption.

I think the only reason anyone would assume the chain can be broken is a feeling. The feeling of agency, the feeling of self. Things that we absolutely unconsciously construct in our minds to be able to make decisions. It's decision making machinery.

Imo. I'll always assume that the causal chain cannot be broken. I guess until I don't

3