the-absolute-light
Region: US
Wednesday 19 August 2026 16:43:27 GMT
4259
346
46
18
Music
Download
Comments
Swooguth :
So is the realisation of the no self state determined by anything at all to do with the brain?
2026-08-23 13:31:59
0
Jazen :
Now you know why people create religion, because as a human you dont have capability to actually know the truth about everything, so its all involved some illusion anyway, so might as well create an illusion that control society to be kind to each other...which is the whole point of religion
2026-08-24 05:55:21
0
SandoMp :
even the concept of free will is contradictory, a being who has free will that means he's 100% unconditioned and such being is impossible to exist
2026-08-19 21:22:04
14
AeternusImmortalis25 :
This is when perspective matters more than truth seeking, someone who believes they have free will, will likely find more freedom and authority over they’re actions. Unless the person who believes in determinism has some insane God complex that beleives every action is divine willed, or both even, but someone who gets to that point will most likely believe in free will or both
2026-08-21 17:49:07
3
oddouts :
Admins instructions
2026-08-19 16:50:44
5
Planttiktoker :
A Sage once said… The only choice we have is to not react to the world, and instead turn our attention to the Self. To ask "To whom do these thoughts arise?" and trace the "I" back to its source.
2026-08-22 01:25:25
3
Da Baby :
You seem to be equating free will for absolute freedom and control over everything when no one defines it that way. Free will is simply conscious control of one’s action and the ability to do otherwise.
2026-08-20 07:22:55
0
Dee444 :
So criminals, murders, rapists, abusers have no free will - they’re not responsible for their behaviour?
2026-08-19 17:23:02
0
Movement of Thought :
what if u have free will but u dont realize it
2026-08-19 19:44:46
0
xiaojinyang 小金羊888 :
hi brother I love ur journey
2026-08-21 01:59:50
0
soothsayer :
I love your stuff man, do you have anither place where you post?
2026-08-21 15:09:05
0
sapiens.noeticus :
Agree. We need to kill to live. We have know control over that, but whether we kill and eat each other depends on free will. The only thing that separates free will from determinism is the illusion of being an individual, even among parts of our own bodies. But without that illusion we wouldn’t have evolved at all. Why would we?
2026-08-19 19:26:01
0
Luvo :
What you receive becomes what you offer. What is received asks for an answer. Expression is the answer becoming visible so maybe free will is the capacity to answer what has been given
2026-08-19 18:39:44
0
Bratwurstente :
ex employee decides to blow the wisthle
2026-08-20 14:23:30
1
Squart :
For your first point I don’t see how the delineation is arbitrary if there is a clear distinction which you describe yourself of having a feeling of volition which is clearly pertinant as we are discussing wether volition is real. And I also don’t see why there cannot be a spectrum of how much influence we have over our own actions for your example of raising your arm. For your point about the tumor my last point about a spectrum applies as well as the fact that nobody who seriously believes in free will thinks it is impossible for something to influence your actions. Finally for your point about a center of experience I don’t see why a center is necessary. As I would argue the self is an emergant phenomenon which comes out of the structure of the brain and we know this is possible because that is very similar to consciousness itself. Please correct me if I misunderstood any of your points also I am not actually sure of my position on free will I just wanted to provide an alternative perspective.
2026-08-19 17:16:32
1
dddono :
i look at time for this. where are the things you could’ve done? then you can also read a book. there’s only what’s written and no what could’ve been written.
2026-08-22 02:40:36
0
PaperDynamics :
im gonna be like hume for a second now.... . the determinist account of causality assumes that everything has a sufficient cause neccessitating such a cause, such account seems to work for physics but when agents are involved especially considering epistemic limits, there might not ontologicly exist a sufficient cause that neccessitates one action over the other and our choices might be semi arbitrary, since the subject has free will in their nature and they ought to fulfill such nature their semi arbitrary choices ultimately trace back to them exercising their free will hence everything has a reason but that reason might not go so far to neccessitate as such . heres the formal logic version P(a,x):=agent can possibly do x C(a,x):=agent a chooses to do x D(a,x):= agent a does x . for all a&x -> ◻️(P(a,x)&C(a,x) -> D(a,x)) |-/- ◻️D(a,x) . agent choosing and possibly being able to do an action neccessarily leads to agent doing such but that doesnt entail such was by neccessity as that would be a modal fallacy and risk modal collapse, as maybe the agent couldve chosen otherwise which would be the whole debate, hence to assume that someone couldnt choose otherwise or that every cause neccessitates the action would be question begging and circular
2026-08-22 10:56:58
0
To see more videos from user @the_absolute_light, please go to the Tikwm
homepage.
![editing mlb has been so fun lately [scp: sqnnynoir.ga] #adrienagreste #miraculousladybug #marinettedupainchengedit #adrienette #edits](/video/cover/7676538930472308000.webp)
