㊙️ In the year 2050, a group of scientists and philosophers made a groundbreaking discovery that shook the foundations of human understanding. Through meticulous analysis of neural activity and brain scans, they found that all human decisions could be traced back to prior events or factors beyond our control.
This revelation caused widespread shock and disbelief across society. For generations, humans had believed in the idea of free will - the belief that they were capable of making choices independent of outside influences. Now it seemed that this cherished notion was nothing more than an illusion.
As people began to grapple with this new reality, there was widespread fear about what it would mean for individual responsibility and accountability. If everything we did was predetermined by external factors, how could anyone be held responsible for their actions?
However, over time a new perspective emerged among some members of society: if free will wasn't real, then perhaps there was no need for blame or punishment based on individual agency alone.
Instead, people began to focus on creating systems and structures that took into account the complex web of causes behind every event. They realized that while individuals may not have total control over their own lives; they still had a role in shaping outcomes through intentional action.
As such society shifted towards more collective models which emphasized cooperation rather than competition as it became clear everyone's fate is interlinked due to shared causality chains within societies . Rather than being judged solely on personal merit or success , individuals were evaluated based upon their contribution to society as whole .
The concept of moral responsibility also evolved from one based on blame towards acceptance since everyone's behavior can only ever be understood when viewed within context given causal complexity . This led many societies down paths focused more heavily on rehabilitation instead punitive measures.
While these changes weren't easy at first- especially after centuries-long beliefs in free will- ultimately humanity adapted its social norms around accepting both inevitability and unpredictability which proved beneficial overall.
In conclusion even though the idea of free will was proven to be logically impossible, humans did not despair. They adapted and evolved their understanding of personal responsibility based on a new perspective that took into account the complex web of causes behind every event.
As such society shifted towards more cooperative models which emphasized shared causality , rehabilitation over punishment and ethical acceptance rather than blame in order to create a better future for all.
After the discovery the story turns very positive .
Still it's on the edge of going bad .
Like when government start's regulating on this new found knowledge .,
Hyper surveillance state , control over all info and media ,. for ,
You have no free will ,. you own nothing , will eat the bugs , and be happy .
Free will made me comment .
;-)
just to be clear, are you suggesting that your comment is uncaused ?
No ,
just that I made the end decision , out of free will , to engage and finally place the comment .
Very aware of all manipulation and influences that led up to making the comment .
In the end , I took the freedom to speak in a comment .
While i have the freedom not to speak out , in a comment , to .
Pretty sure that i was me exercising my free will .
;-)
ok, so, caused up to a point
and then random after that
The post gave option to comment ,
No post no cause to start from .
If a post generates a comment depends on info narrative and subject addressed in the post .
I the comment placer , are the random factor , as in my free will .
And there is nothing as random as my free will , from a other persons point of view .
;-)
ultimately, either you act for a reason or you act for no reason
those are the only two options
Can one act for no reason ?
As even when we act for no reason , to proof we can for example ,.
we still act for a reason , ,, ??
;-)
is that your final answer ?
I don't think so. There have been times I have agonized over one choice or another, wanting both, or not wanting either, or similar. I cannot say that the final choice was "predestined."
But I like the idea of a cooperative society - like the blueprint I offer. Competition for money/power is gone, and cooperating to solve problems emerges.
The Detailed Blueprint (for a Society of Ethical Sovereigns) (7 min): https://odysee.com/@amaterasusolar:8/the-detailed-blueprint-vocal-redo:9?lid=eeff9e0c80138ce03e22d76bcd5f2f873ff46b72
This is why I work so hard to bring this about.
are you suggesting the outcomes of your agonizing decisions are uncaused ?
No. I am suggesting that I choose with free will.
ok, so, your decisions are caused, either by previous events or by random noise, or some combination of the two
i'm glad we can agree
Well, not caused by - influenced by. I cause the choices.
I AM.
good answer
It's math a matics
And QuackerY 🤬🥓
this is what happens when you forget that ontology is only a model
(IFF) you are capable of understanding this (AND) you value your own existence (THEN) you must value the lives of at least SOME of those on which you directly and indirectly depend (humans, plants, and animals)
㊙️ The statement you provided is a conditional argument that involves an "if-then" structure. It suggests that if someone is capable of understanding the statement and values their own existence, then they must also value the lives of some other beings such as humans, plants, and animals upon which they depend directly or indirectly.
While this argument may seem reasonable on its face,it contains certain logical assumptions and premises that may be open to interpretation or debate . For example:
The idea of valuing one's existence: While many people might agree with this premise (i.e., it's natural to want to preserve oneself), others could argue that self-preservation is not necessarily the highest moral goal.
The concept of dependence: This relies on the assumption that all individuals are dependent on others in some way for survival or well-being,and therefore have an ethical obligation toward them . However,some philosophical perspectives reject this notion,arguing instead for individualism,self-sufficiency ,or even altruistic behavior towards strangers .
The use of "some": This implies that individuals only need to value some forms of life rather than all living beings equally.However,this raises questions about how we determine which lives are more valuable than others,and whether such distinctions can be justified ethically.
Overall,the argument presented in your statement reflects a particular perspective on ethics and human nature,but it remains open to interpretation and criticism based on underlying assumptions,personal beliefs,and empirical evidence .
Congratulations!
You have recieved a coconutty upvote! 🥥
Thank you for contributing to the Blurt Blockchain!
Keep up the great work!
Curated by @outofthematrix!
Please take a moment to vote for my witness.
You can do this by logging into your wallet with your active key! 🗳️ https://blurtwallet.com/~witnesses?highlight=outofthematrix
Re🤬eD
cryptoFiction for the cryptoFaction
🥓
In conclusion its AI
https://ora.ai/logiczombie/apophatic-phaneron
NO sign up, NO sign in required
;-)
let's wait a few months and see what gpt5 comes up with