Let's assume a deterministic view of the world, where basically everything is set in a way that will determine the outcome of events from the onset, and continue to accept (Hawking describes this in brief history of time) that this set of inevitable events cannot be known. Let's also assume, for the sake of this little article that there are no Theological implications to prevent this (that any God or Deity either exists inside the same determinist structure, or that they do not set forth events that would upset this state of existence, or else are responsible for this structure operating inside the discussed limitations.)
We can accept that in this state, Free Will is largely an illusion. This article was in a sense predestined by who I am as a person, genetically and as shaped by the experiences that the universe has contrived to make happen. What I would like to propose is a structure for understanding the specifics of the various illusions of Free Will, and the way in which it may be rational to act in regard to this.
I would like to propose three types of Free Will.
Pragmatic, Counter-intuitive , and Deistic.
Pragmatic Free Will can be understood as Free Will, that we can accept as existing, in practical terms. For example, to pick up a pencil, or not. To order chicken or beef. Decisions which we feel, in practical terms, we are free to choose one option or another.
Counter-intuitive Free Will can be understood as choices made in opposition to our disposition. I will propose two other elements here, that this type of Free Will must be caused in part by an event, and with effort. For example, a homosexual who develops a heterosexual lifestyle must be influenced by an event (ie, a religious experience) and with effort.
Deistic Free Will is not proposed as actual Free Will but as the closest imitation to what we may consider actual, or God-like Free Will, where one may make counter-intuitive decisions as though they were Pragmatic. A person who can decide rationally to live or die, love or not love another person, support one candidate or another be one type of person or another, as they choose, as easily as picking up a pencil, or ordering beef or chicken could be said to have (Psudo)Desitic Free Will.
The basic proposal is that while we may not be able to have 'Free Will' in the traditional sense, through broadening our knowledge and range of experience, it may be possible to manifest greater types of Free Will in areas where it would seem to most matter.
What if we could theoretically have no Free Will because of determinism and such, but we have it ANYWAY because we WANT TO have it?
That may not make much sense, but neither does Quantum.
Fuck Will. That guy was a total jerkoff.
Even if everything is totally deterministic, from the point of view of any given person (who is, of course, determined in this context) their will is free. Free will is only an illusion if the perspective of determinism is the truth, and determinism can likewise be considered to be an illusion caused by free will (determinism is what free will looks like when you watch it in rewind). The two are mutually exclusive if you assume one of them is right, but they both describe the 'real' situation equally well. Even if one is an illusion, both are useful as beliefs. For instance, even if everything is predetermined, it kinda sucks to assume you have no control over your life (plus, imagine the potential effects on politics!).
This whole free will thing is so much mental fappery.
Okay, so we don't have free will, whatever that might be. How does that change anything about reality, how should that dictate my actions?
It seems to me to fall into nihilism, or to be otherwise meaningless. What is the opposite of free will?
I always dislike conversations about Free-Will...
I suppose OP ideas are different ... but lets avoid the Free-will vs Pre-determinism :lulz:
Quote from: Placid Dingo on March 19, 2010, 01:10:01 PM
Let's assume a deterministic view of the world, where basically everything is set in a way that will determine the outcome of events from the onset, and continue to accept (Hawking describes this in brief history of time) that this set of inevitable events cannot be known. Let's also assume, for the sake of this little article that there are no Theological implications to prevent this (that any God or Deity either exists inside the same determinist structure, or that they do not set forth events that would upset this state of existence, or else are responsible for this structure operating inside the discussed limitations.)
We can accept that in this state, Free Will is largely an illusion. This article was in a sense predestined by who I am as a person, genetically and as shaped by the experiences that the universe has contrived to make happen. What I would like to propose is a structure for understanding the specifics of the various illusions of Free Will, and the way in which it may be rational to act in regard to this.
I would like to propose three types of Free Will.
Pragmatic, Counter-intuitive , and Deistic.
Pragmatic Free Will can be understood as Free Will, that we can accept as existing, in practical terms. For example, to pick up a pencil, or not. To order chicken or beef. Decisions which we feel, in practical terms, we are free to choose one option or another.
Counter-intuitive Free Will can be understood as choices made in opposition to our disposition. I will propose two other elements here, that this type of Free Will must be caused in part by an event, and with effort. For example, a homosexual who develops a heterosexual lifestyle must be influenced by an event (ie, a religious experience) and with effort.
Deistic Free Will is not proposed as actual Free Will but as the closest imitation to what we may consider actual, or God-like Free Will, where one may make counter-intuitive decisions as though they were Pragmatic. A person who can decide rationally to live or die, love or not love another person, support one candidate or another be one type of person or another, as they choose, as easily as picking up a pencil, or ordering beef or chicken could be said to have (Psudo)Desitic Free Will.
The basic proposal is that while we may not be able to have 'Free Will' in the traditional sense, through broadening our knowledge and range of experience, it may be possible to manifest greater types of Free Will in areas where it would seem to most matter.
I have to take an enormous crap. I can feel my sphincter buckling. It's getting beyond free will, or even rational thought.
So do you think this enormous Christmas log waiting to be born is counter-intuitive? Because it's definitely going to be an event.
I think the entirety of the North American Plumbers Guild would agree that your feces are always counter intuitive, Dok. Many a sewer worker has gone bald dealing with your unnatural evacuations, and their resultant catastrophes.
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on March 20, 2010, 09:30:54 PM
Even if everything is totally deterministic, from the point of view of any given person (who is, of course, determined in this context) their will is free. Free will is only an illusion if the perspective of determinism is the truth, and determinism can likewise be considered to be an illusion caused by free will (determinism is what free will looks like when you watch it in rewind). The two are mutually exclusive if you assume one of them is right, but they both describe the 'real' situation equally well. Even if one is an illusion, both are useful as beliefs. For instance, even if everything is predetermined, it kinda sucks to assume you have no control over your life (plus, imagine the potential effects on politics!).
Useful's kind of what I'm going with here; Looking at what could provide a useful frame of reference for people (me) who get caught up in playing with these kinds of ideas.
Do subatomic particles have free will? (http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/35391/title/Math_Trek__Do_subatomic_particles_have_free_will%3F)
Apparently they do.
I think there is something missing from this though.
The thing that's missing is the IMPLICATIONS either way. What does it MEAN? How does it effect my life?
Quote from: Kai on March 21, 2010, 08:35:01 PM
I think there is something missing from this though.
The thing that's missing is the IMPLICATIONS either way. What does it MEAN? How does it effect my life?
For me, lack of free will seems like a strong argument for wu-wei.
Quote from: Kai on March 20, 2010, 11:44:42 PM
What is the opposite of free will?
The expensive kind, that can only be bought at quality distributors of designer goods, or stolen, from disreputable street vendors.
And you're right--whether you got it free, or cheap at good will, or paid so much for it that you gave up your financial autonomy, it doesn't really matter.
We take the stance that we have free will. If we could somehow find and specify a mechanistic process underlying our choices, surely the awareness of that process would present us with a new set of choices.
Quote from: Kai on March 21, 2010, 08:35:01 PM
I think there is something missing from this though.
The thing that's missing is the IMPLICATIONS either way. What does it MEAN? How does it effect my life?
Nada. If we could test it, we'd KNOW (or at least have good evidence for one over the other coming from proper studies), and it wouldn't still be argued. Since its repercussions are totally invisible to us, knowing which it is cannot impact your life.
However, thinking you know which it is can have reasonably big impacts. Like becoming a thelemite or naming a city Providence.
So, at the essential level it's completely meaningless....
I guess thats the end of the thread then.
Quote from: Kai on March 22, 2010, 12:36:02 AM
So, at the essential level it's completely meaningless....
I guess thats the end of the thread then.
NO.
STILL POOPING.
Quote from: Kai on March 22, 2010, 12:36:02 AM
So, at the essential level it's completely meaningless....
I guess thats the end of the thread then.
A lot of this stuff is essentially meaningless. That's one of its upsides. For anything that is essentially meaningless, you can get your flame on with someone else and it won't matter because neither of you can win. For things like this, being right or even making sense is not necessary. It's like daytime television.
lol free will.
Quote from: Placid Dingo on March 19, 2010, 01:10:01 PM
Let's assume a deterministic view of the world
I happen to disagree with your premise. Sorry about that.
Also, what Kai said. Even if there is determinism, it's at a level so detailed that we cannot see it, and cannot act on it, much in the same way that we know that smoke from a lit cigarette follows Newtonian laws of motion, yet cannot pre-determine it's dissolution.
So, in either situation, the only pragmatic answer is to act as if Free Will exists.
Only if we assume a unitary mind.
If we accept, say, a quasi-Nietzschean view that there are several potential or proto-personalities (at least in some people) you could have several conflicting free wills.
Also, there are some serious logic problems with positing free will, because it essentially suggests a mind that is free from the processes of the rest of the Universe. If anyone could make that convincing, I'd be interested, but I doubt anyone could do it.
And, like Kai says, does it really matter?
Quote from: LMNO on March 22, 2010, 04:46:47 PM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on March 19, 2010, 01:10:01 PM
Let's assume a deterministic view of the world
I happen to disagree with your premise. Sorry about that.
Also, what Kai said. Even if there is determinism, it's at a level so detailed that we cannot see it, and cannot act on it, much in the same way that we know that smoke from a lit cigarette follows Newtonian laws of motion, yet cannot pre-determine it's dissolution.
So, in either situation, the only pragmatic answer is to act as if Free Will exists.
further, like Wolfram showed with his cellular automata, you can have a system with terribly simple rules operating and an entirely visible and deterministic level that yields infinite complexity, and yet is not able to be predicted (determine a future state) by any other means that actually running the system.
Just because something is non-deterministic doesn't mean free will exists. Lack of predictability does not necessarily imply lack of determinism. Limitations on predictability could alternatively be caused by factors such as a lack of information or excessive complexity. It doesn't mean your actions weren't pre-determined through a causal chain of events.
I'M STILL POOMPING!
Quote from: Cain on March 22, 2010, 04:55:31 PM
Only if we assume a unitary mind.
If we accept, say, a quasi-Nietzschean view that there are several potential or proto-personalities (at least in some people) you could have several conflicting free wills.
If you model it in terms of agency, only those actions taken by the agent indicate its will. The only difference between free will and determinism in such a model is whether or not, given the precise circumstances in which some action was taken, the set of all potential actions is bigger than the set of all taken actions. In a fully deterministic universe, the answer would be 'no'. In a nondeterministic universe, the exact same circumstances (far beyond the best possible measurements), we could have entirely different outcomes, without even a hidden variable.
The stopping problem does not indicate free will per-se, but it indicates the type of entity for which in of itself it could not (if capable of sentience and sapience) determine whether or not it had free will, because it could not simulate its actions with fewer steps than actually doing them.
Cain that's interesting. Cause my personal "solution" to Free Will has always been this complexity thing.
Like in the Illuminatus Trilogy, one explanation on the symbology of the Eye in the Pyramid is "the universe looking at itself", as a metaphor for self-consciousness.
Because of complexity, it can be shown that certain systems (like smoke, fluid dynamics and of course life itself) are beyond any imaginable or theoretical information processing system, save the system itself. So, perfect simulation and/or prediction is impossible.
There is a theoretical upper bound on information processing capability/speed, and it's to do with the energy required to twiddle just one bit of information. Turns out that these chaotic systems are so explosively exponential in required computing power that soon you'll need amounts of energy on the scale of supernovae or matter-energy conversion of solar systems and such.
In other words, yes there are some hard limits to predictability, and no this is not a case of "but maybe in 100 years we can build computers powerful enough".
However, Cain, you are right in the sense that the correlation or implication between lack of predictability and Free Will may not really be there. Usually my discussions on Free Will didnt get as far :)
But even if it's not a clear argument for free will, lack of predictability even in the light of determinism, is a somewhat comforting thought to me :)
Quote from: Triple Zero on March 22, 2010, 05:23:03 PM
But even if it's not a clear argument for free will, lack of predictability even in the light of determinism, is a somewhat comforting thought to me :)
This!
that's where i found peace and stopped thinking about it....
:)
I think the argument is a misnomer.
It really boils down to the most basic question "If I have a choice between X and Y, can I make any choice other than the one I make?" Obviously the answer is "That's stupid, quit smoking so much pot." Of course, if we call it Free Will then its a legitimate line of inquiry.
In my opinion, human make decisions based on a whole complex system of interacting processes.
First, you have their initial hardware state... does their brain function or malfunction in some way that will impact their decision making process.
Second, you have the programming/training/experiences that they have growing up, as perceived through their neurological system. Which of course, is modified by the hardware.
Third, you have whatever training/experiences etc that they have once they've grown up... again modified by the first and second bits.
And all of that is getting real time feedback from the rest of the observable/interactive bits of the Universe
Do humans have choices? Of course, and they will make the choice that mostly closely aligns with their ((education* training*experiences*perceptions*programming)* external influences)*hardware
When people make decisions that are not in line with their training/education/social programming etc... we generally send them to see a doctor because we think that something is wrong with their head.
The argument of Free Will is just a load of Theistic bullshit.
The argument of determinism is likewise bullshit... because we cannot determine how all that shit is gonna work together until it does... if quantum mechanics are anything other than a fairy tale, then repeating the exact moment of the decision might result in some different decision. Doesn't make it Free Will... doesn't make it determinism....
its just Life.
I think a much more interesting question is:
DO PEOPLE MAKE EASILY PREDICTABLE DECISIONS?
Quote from: LMNO on March 22, 2010, 06:23:44 PM
I think a much more interesting question is:
DO PEOPLE MAKE EASILY PREDICTABLE DECISIONS?
I agree...
and I think, given enough data points and historic information, they probably do make easily predictable decisions... most, but not all, of the time.
Quote from: LMNO on March 22, 2010, 06:23:44 PM
I think a much more interesting question is:
DO PEOPLE MAKE EASILY PREDICTABLE DECISIONS?
(http://elvicities.com/~ananames/eightball.php?predictable)
SEE? WASN'T THAT MORE INTERESTING?
LMNO
-KNEW YOU WERE GOING TO DO THAT.
That's not really a more interesting question. The more interesting question is, how can we reliably predict the decisions people will make faster than they can make them if we know the circumstances (their upbringing, the situation at hand, their age/sex/weight/hair color/favourite member of the monkees). That's a hard question, though, and although we have some tricks that will work some of the time, it's easier to put people in circumstances where their responses are far more predictable (say, hold a gun to their head) than to predict their responses in less predictable situations (say, when posting on an internet forum full of discordians).
I think I've been down this road already
like here The Determinism of Physical Matter (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=15387.msg487783#msg487783)
or here: Power (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=23052.msg783266#msg783266)
and I know there's a few more
so I'm going to summarize my stance on the matter
I do think that the universe is deterministic. It is made of matter, and matter has predictable properties.
I do not believe in free will if free will means some decision making apparatus outside of a deterministic physical system.
Quote from: Cramulus on January 04, 2007, 06:16:35 PM
[free will vs determinism] has interested / bugged me for years.
The melioration principle is a property of animal behavior. It basically says that an organism will engage in a behavior until there are greater rewards for engaging in a different behavior. To me, this crystalizes the whole issue. Animal behavior is incredibly predictable when you look at it in terms of rewards. People are just trying to maximize their rewards.
So my take on all this is that the only real way to demonstrate independence from this principle, (aka free will) is to do something that you honestly don't want to do, something that won't give you a good reward. Are you getting a better reward for defying the system than you were for trying to live within its confines? Is that defiance in itself just a function of the melioration principle?
I mean, all that squishy human stuff (choices, emotions, brain chemistry, etc) is just a product of basic physical systems and governed by basic physical laws. You can't escape it!
sorry to ramble, this is one of those topics that I get really frustrated about.
I would also argue that its probably not ALWAYS a case of either/or:
It may be deterministic that I hold the philosophy I hold, based on my life experiences, programming, education etc.
But I don't think its deterministic that I ordered a strawberry milkshake instead of a Vanilla or Cookie Dough one over the weekend. After all I like all three equally, and often prefer cookie dough.
I think sometimes philosophy argues a big picture Is/Is Not view, without realizing that at a smaller scale our decisions may behave differently (kinda like Newtonin vs Quantum)
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 22, 2010, 07:25:27 PM
I would also argue that its probably not ALWAYS a case of either/or:
It may be deterministic that I hold the philosophy I hold, based on my life experiences, programming, education etc.
But I don't think its deterministic that I ordered a strawberry milkshake instead of a Vanilla or Cookie Dough one over the weekend. After all I like all three equally, and often prefer cookie dough.
I think sometimes philosophy argues a big picture Is/Is Not view, without realizing that at a smaller scale our decisions may behave differently (kinda like Newtonin vs Quantum)
I would disagree - although I have no way of proving it, I think your ice cream choice was probably influenced by factors outside of your consciousness, such as your bloodsugar / nutrient levels, and operant conditioning (reward/punishment associations established throughout your lifetime).
I don't think our brains' inherent decision making processes function differently at different scales. At the neurochemical level, choosing vanilla over chocolate isn't much different than choosing a career or a mate.
Quote from: Cramulus on March 22, 2010, 07:40:48 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 22, 2010, 07:25:27 PM
I would also argue that its probably not ALWAYS a case of either/or:
It may be deterministic that I hold the philosophy I hold, based on my life experiences, programming, education etc.
But I don't think its deterministic that I ordered a strawberry milkshake instead of a Vanilla or Cookie Dough one over the weekend. After all I like all three equally, and often prefer cookie dough.
I think sometimes philosophy argues a big picture Is/Is Not view, without realizing that at a smaller scale our decisions may behave differently (kinda like Newtonin vs Quantum)
I would disagree - although I have no way of proving it, I think your ice cream choice was probably influenced by factors outside of your consciousness, such as your bloodsugar / nutrient levels, and operant conditioning (reward/punishment associations established throughout your lifetime).
I don't think our brains' inherent decision making processes function differently at different scales. At the neurochemical level, choosing vanilla over chocolate isn't much different than choosing a career or a mate.
It seems to me that the less difference there is between choices, perhaps the less determined the choices may be. Of course, like you... I got no evidence (nor will any of us until we can measure outside the system).
So if we're discussing major career choice (computer science vs lawyer vs doctor) it's probably very deterministic... but if you're selecting between Milkshake Flavor A, B and C... maybe its less deterministic... more room for a 'coin flip' somewhere in the process... specifically IF you like the three flavors equally. Obviously if you hate strawberry, then its deterministic that you won't pick that flavor... but then if you hate strawberry milkshakes, you aren't human and should be sent back to your home planet as soon as possible.
I find that to be an unsatisfying compromise. You assert that whether or not we have free will is itself determined* on a case by case basis according to how easy of a choice it is. I think that if you were to rewind this weekend, events would play out exactly like they did the first time, including your choice of flavor. Furthermore if you rewound your life until infancy and played it again, with the same exact set of stimuli and sequence of events, you'd produce the exact same person you are today.
As an interesting aside, I just learned that your position is called Compatibilism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism).
* :rimshot:
Quote from: Cramulus on March 22, 2010, 08:08:53 PM
I find that to be an unsatisfying compromise. You assert that whether or not we have free will is itself determined* on a case by case basis according to how easy of a choice it is. I think that if you were to rewind this weekend, events would play out exactly like they did the first time, including your choice of flavor. Furthermore if you rewound your life until infancy and played it again, with the same exact set of stimuli and sequence of events, you'd produce the exact same person you are today.
As an interesting aside, I just learned that your position is called Compatibilism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism).
* :rimshot:
Of course, we could both be wrong... if the Many Worlds theory is correct, perhaps all possible outcomes ALL happen and we experience all of them, which would mean that determinism and free will were both crackpot concepts... :lulz: :horrormirth: :lulz:
but this thread, and all the others like it occur in every fucking world....
:)
It's almost like we got no free will about it ...
I find this thread to be very interesting. Don't stop now!
Quote from: dimo on March 22, 2010, 08:42:14 PM
I find this thread to be very interesting. Don't stop now!
we couldn't even if we wanted too...
besides, Dok is still poomping...
Meh. If the choice in question is something for which you cannot generate a good rationalization and whose solution space consists of essentially similar items, and whose outcome does nothing to change the big picture, that's not much of an argument for free will -- in fact, that'd just be low level incomputability, like switch jitter, in a deterministic universe. No one would claim that switch jitter is an argument for free will, so why should switch jitter in your head (or, say, a PRNG that uses a lava lamp, or the difficulty of aiming true in a game of billiards) be an argument for it?
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on March 22, 2010, 09:08:41 PM
Meh. If the choice in question is something for which you cannot generate a good rationalization and whose solution space consists of essentially similar items, and whose outcome does nothing to change the big picture, that's not much of an argument for free will -- in fact, that'd just be low level incomputability, like switch jitter, in a deterministic universe. No one would claim that switch jitter is an argument for free will, so why should switch jitter in your head (or, say, a PRNG that uses a lava lamp, or the difficulty of aiming true in a game of billiards) be an argument for it?
Well, then again, maybe its all the tiny inconsequential 'chooosable' options that eventually build up the big unstoppable deterministic ones.
I think the other problem with free will discussions is the assumption that the mind is somehow separate from the body and the rest of the universe...you know....Decartes style.
Like I said earlier, it either boils down to "I am part of the universe, the universe is part of me, and everything is connected, intertwined, interdependent",
OR
nihilism
OR
solipsism.
I prefer the first of those. That, and Emergence.
I think I like trying to figure out as many 'maybe' configurations as I can... because we're never gonna be able to prove any of them and it likely won't matter if we did! :lulz: :lulz:
I like the idea of Emergence too... but I dunno if thats juts because I was determined to like it or if I chose to like it :fap:
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 23, 2010, 12:19:55 AM
I think I like trying to figure out as many 'maybe' configurations as I can... because we're never gonna be able to prove any of them and it likely won't matter if we did! :lulz: :lulz:
I like the idea of Emergence too... but I dunno if thats juts because I was determined to like it or if I chose to like it :fap:
The best phrase I have found against the uselessness of pure mental fappery is from Biological Systematics by Schuh.
QuoteAs a way of providing a boundary of r what they believed to be the yet-unstated conditions implied in the application of parsimony, Swofford et al. went on to say that "At a minimum, acceptance of an optimal tree under the parsimony criterion requires one to assume that conditions that can cause parsimony to estimate an incorrect tree are unlikely to have occurred." The arguments of Sober and Swofford et al. seem to us to be no more compelling than Descartes' genius malignus--the idea that all of our "perceptions" might be figments placed in our heads by an evil demon. Yes, the evidence could be misleading in some absolute, metaphysical sense, and the hypothesis of relationships implied could be false with respect to the actual historical genealogy. But these are fundamentally untestable claims. The solipsist stands unassailable in his fortress, but neither can he sally forth, so we will pass him by.
I see the sky as blue although I know it isn't
I feel the earth is flat although I know it isn't
I understand my life is directed by my free-will although I know it isn't . . .
PS why do so many of you seem to think that "smaller" decisions are more amenable to "free-will" than "big picture" decisions . . .
WHY ARE WE STILL TALKING ABOUT THIS FUCKING USELESS MEANINGLESS CONCEPT??
No one in this thread has seriously explained to me the concept of free will and why it is meaningful. IT DOESN'T MEAN A DAMN THING! IT DOESN'T EVEN MAKE SENSE!
:argh!: :argh!: :argh!: :argh!: :argh!: :crankey: :crankey: :crankey:
Quote from: Kai on March 22, 2010, 10:08:15 PM
I think the other problem with free will discussions is the assumption that the mind is somehow separate from the body and the rest of the universe...you know....Decartes style.
Like I said earlier, it either boils down to "I am part of the universe, the universe is part of me, and everything is connected, intertwined, interdependent",
This.
If you feel like you have free will, then, as far as it effects you, you have it.
Similarly you could say to a Solipsist, it doesn't matter if you are a brain in a vat, you can't do anything about it.
Interestingly, at the moment I am taking a philosophy course on the mind and specifically looking at the extended mind, that you can separate the person from their environment, ie what Kai said. Last lecture we discussed caddisfly larvae, and how you can consider their self built home part of the organism, they are awesome.
That makes me happy. :D
I wish I could have been there. I would have expanded upon how the case is more than just a shield, its a respiratory organ that allows maximum siphoning of water along the cuticle, increasing oxygen uptake, an anchor or ballast, and a developmental chamber. In the net spinning caddisflies, its a stationary food collector.
Quote from: Kai on March 23, 2010, 01:10:12 AM
WHY ARE WE STILL TALKING ABOUT THIS FUCKING USELESS MEANINGLESS CONCEPT??
No one in this thread has seriously explained to me the concept of free will and why it is meaningful. IT DOESN'T MEAN A DAMN THING! IT DOESN'T EVEN MAKE SENSE!
:argh!: :argh!: :argh!: :argh!: :argh!: :crankey: :crankey: :crankey:
It makes PERFECT sense, Kai, because Free Will is what allowed Adam and Eve to disobey God's command and eat of the Fruit of Knowledge, which is why baby Jesus had to die on a cross to wash away the sins of humanity with his blood.
Of course. Everyone knows that.
Quote from: Rumckle on March 23, 2010, 01:47:16 AM
Quote from: Kai on March 22, 2010, 10:08:15 PM
Like I said earlier, it either boils down to "I am part of the universe, the universe is part of me, and everything is connected, intertwined, interdependent",
This.
If you feel like you have free will, then, as far as it effects you, you have it.
But now none of us can have free-will because Kai has said it is a meaningless concept
I am sad now - because it is kind of inevitable that I would be . . .
Quote from: MMIX on March 23, 2010, 02:05:49 AM
Quote from: Rumckle on March 23, 2010, 01:47:16 AM
Quote from: Kai on March 22, 2010, 10:08:15 PM
Like I said earlier, it either boils down to "I am part of the universe, the universe is part of me, and everything is connected, intertwined, interdependent",
This.
If you feel like you have free will, then, as far as it effects you, you have it.
But now none of us can have free-will because Kai has said it is a meaningless concept
I am sad now - because it is kind of inevitable that I would be . . .
no one can /not/ have free will either.
Quote from: MMIX on March 23, 2010, 02:05:49 AM
But now none of us can have free-will because Kai has said it is a meaningless concept
I am sad now - because it is kind of inevitable that I would be . . .
Well, if you feel like you don't have free will, then don't worry about it, just enjoy the (meaningless) ride.
@Kai: Wow, caddisflies are cool. :)
(and now I can try and look smart in my tutorial, thanks)
Why are you so dead set against the utility of the concept of free-will? Or, to put it another way, - since you are pursuing an ongoing project to devise your own religion is it actually determinism which you find so unacceptable?
@Rumckle - WTF does free-will have to do with "meaning" . . . ?
I assumed you were sad because a lack of free will for some people indicates a meaningless life, if not then, whatever, my point still stands.
Quote from: MMIX on March 23, 2010, 02:30:30 AM
Why are you so dead set against the utility of the concept of free-will? Or, to put it another way, - since you are pursuing an ongoing project to devise your own religion is it actually determinism which you find so unacceptable?
@Rumckle - WTF does free-will have to do with "meaning" . . . ?
It's a meaningless concept derived from old religious arguments, and it only has one utility:
Getting into arguments about whether it exists or not.
It's stupid, REALLY stupid, mental fappery. "Like, lets sit around getting high and fap about completely unecessary metaphysical concepts."
@Rumckle
Quote from: MMIX on March 23, 2010, 01:04:51 AM
I understand my life is directed by my free-will although I know it isn't . . .
Cognitive dissonance FTW!
Maybe I should have said " I experience my behaviour as being self-directed even though I am fully aware that it isn't that simple"
And, yeah, since life is the only game in town, don't just live it - live the fuck out of it . . .
Quote from: LMNO on March 22, 2010, 06:23:44 PM
I think a much more interesting question is:
DO PEOPLE MAKE EASILY PREDICTABLE DECISIONS?
BETTER QUESTION: WHEN WILL DOK STOP POOMPING?
Hey, it beats the mental fappery in this fread.
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on March 21, 2010, 10:05:46 PM
Quote from: Kai on March 21, 2010, 08:35:01 PM
I think there is something missing from this though.
The thing that's missing is the IMPLICATIONS either way. What does it MEAN? How does it effect my life?
For me, lack of free will seems like a strong argument for wu-wei.
for me, wu-wei seems like a complicated way of saying "Don't sweat it."
Quote from: Kai on March 23, 2010, 01:10:12 AM
WHY ARE WE STILL TALKING ABOUT THIS FUCKING USELESS MEANINGLESS CONCEPT??
No one in this thread has seriously explained to me the concept of free will and why it is meaningful. IT DOESN'T MEAN A DAMN THING! IT DOESN'T EVEN MAKE SENSE!
:argh!: :argh!: :argh!: :argh!: :argh!: :crankey: :crankey: :crankey:
the presence or absence of free will impacts the degree of responsibility we have for all this
I think I am giving up on having rational discussions about stuff on this board because these threads get so emotional or judgmental at the drop of a hat
Quote from: Cramulus on March 23, 2010, 01:16:43 PM
the presence or absence of free will impacts the degree of responsibility we have for all this
does it?
:?
i mean, i know what you're saying, but... it seems to me that, just like the practical aspects of our lives are pretty well insulated from the question of whether or not we have free will, the degree of responsibility we bear for our actions is also unaffected by any implications of it.
Quote from: MMIX on March 23, 2010, 01:04:51 AM
PS why do so many of you seem to think that "smaller" decisions are more amenable to "free-will" than "big picture" decisions . . .
That's where this started; The idea that if we look at free will there are small things which as far as we are concerned we have free will in every practical sense (Eg, the conscious choice to ignore this thread or return to it to piss and moan). But then there's things that we have difficulty finding the ability to do becauser of our worldview/upbringing, whatever. For instance, a hetrosexual man, to sipmly choose to leave his wife for a gay lover, is not going to simply 'happen' if he hasn't the original inclination. Or a peaceful coward won't go on a killing spree, if you prefer. So there's degrees, really was the point.
Quote from: Cramulus on March 23, 2010, 01:16:43 PM
Quote from: Kai on March 23, 2010, 01:10:12 AM
WHY ARE WE STILL TALKING ABOUT THIS FUCKING USELESS MEANINGLESS CONCEPT??
No one in this thread has seriously explained to me the concept of free will and why it is meaningful. IT DOESN'T MEAN A DAMN THING! IT DOESN'T EVEN MAKE SENSE!
:argh!: :argh!: :argh!: :argh!: :argh!: :crankey: :crankey: :crankey:
the presence or absence of free will impacts the degree of responsibility we have for all this
No, no it doesn't.
while I'd like to respond to your well crafted point, I have better things to do than get screeched at
what'm I, chopped liver? :cry:
:lol:
Quote from: Cramulus on March 23, 2010, 01:56:28 PM
while I'd like to respond to your well crafted point, I have better things to do than get screeched at
:lulz: I think it's funny you think I'm screeching.
Quote from: Kai on March 23, 2010, 01:10:12 AM
WHY ARE WE STILL TALKING ABOUT THIS FUCKING USELESS MEANINGLESS CONCEPT??
ITS BECAUSE I HAVE NO SELF DETERMINATION, OKAY?!!!
:cry:
Quote from: Triple Zero on March 23, 2010, 02:11:50 PM
ITS BECAUSE I HAVE NO SELF DETERMINATION, OKAY?!!!
:cry:
I'm still holding you responsible. :evilmad:
Quote from: Kai on March 23, 2010, 02:04:32 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on March 23, 2010, 01:56:28 PM
while I'd like to respond to your well crafted point, I have better things to do than get screeched at
:lulz: I think it's funny you think I'm screeching.
Your post sounds like your screeching and you obviously don't want to discuss why some of us feel that the classic free-will v :fnord: s predestination debate is still significant . . . that would be because it underpins centuries of MEMES
TM on which our contemporary values, beliefs, views etc etc depend. It is your history and probably in the medium term its your future. You don't like it - tough
but that's just how my programming works YMObviouslyD . . .
@Cram Yes!
@Iptuous I hear you man
Quote from: Cramulus on March 22, 2010, 08:08:53 PM
I think that if you were to rewind this weekend, events would play out exactly like they did the first time, including your choice of flavor. Furthermore if you rewound your life until infancy and played it again, with the same exact set of stimuli and sequence of events, you'd produce the exact same person you are today.
Did you just say, "If things happened exactly the same as before, then things would happen exactly the same as before?"
CIRCULARREASONINGWORKSBECAUSECIRCULARREASONINGWORKSBECAUSECIRCULARREASONINGWORKSBECAUSECIRCULARREASONINGWORKSBECAUSECIRCULARREASONINGWORKSBECAUSECIRCULARREASONINGWORKSBECAUSECIRCULARREASONINGWORKS.
Quote from: Cramulus on March 23, 2010, 01:16:43 PM
I think I am giving up on having rational discussions about stuff on this board because these threads get so emotional or judgmental at the drop of a hat
(http://www.texasstartribune.com/files/image/Adios.jpg)
Cram has a point. If you're a determinist, it means you're just trying to duck out on responsibility.
Some here may view themselves as automatons just playing out a predetermined role. That's pretty fucking sad, and no way for a biped to live.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 23, 2010, 03:49:45 PM
Cram has a point. If you're a determinist, it means you're just trying to duck out on responsibility.
Some here may view themselves as automatons just playing out a predetermined role. That's pretty fucking sad, and no way for a biped to live.
why is it sad? since it doesn't make our actions predictable, then it doesn't remove any of the magic, beauty, horror, etc. of our lives, actions, and world.
further, i don't see any good reason why it would reduce responsibility...
ETA: are you done poomping?
Quote from: MMIX on March 23, 2010, 02:38:41 PM
Quote from: Kai on March 23, 2010, 02:04:32 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on March 23, 2010, 01:56:28 PM
while I'd like to respond to your well crafted point, I have better things to do than get screeched at
:lulz: I think it's funny you think I'm screeching.
Your post sounds like your screeching and you obviously don't want to discuss why some of us feel that the classic free-will v :fnord: s predestination debate is still significant . . . that would be because it underpins centuries of MEMESTM on which our contemporary values, beliefs, views etc etc depend. It is your history and probably in the medium term its your future. You don't like it - tough
:lulz: I don't care if you discuss "free will vs determinism". I just think it's a really stupid argument, sorta like "what is the square root of zucchini" and "how many licks does it take to get to the tootsie roll center of a tootsie pop". And I feel completely free to poke tones of fun at it.
If you were talking about "free will" in a historical context maybe it would be interesting, but in the modern era it belongs with those ideas such as the celestial spheres and the scala natura. It might have had meaning within the idea of Heaven and Hell, the great fall, and a sky creator deity which caused a separation of mind and body (lol cartesian duality), but in the context of educated humans in this time it's like talking about geography in the context of a flat earth.
And flat earthers are entertaining to poke at. :lulz:
I haven't bothered with MMIX's posts since she decided that everything, everywhere had to involve memes.
I sort of have her pegged as the latest version of Merlyn of Chaos.
The reason I find this so interesting is that I've never heard most of these arguments before or thought about it on the level you guys are. Where's a good place to look for information on some of the theories you guys are talking about? I'd like to check it out, I've never looked at physics (ie. science in general) or anything like that when concerning something like free-will. Also, the argument that free-will exists mainly due to religious arguments of free-will vs. predestination strikes me as interesting, and I'd like to catch up to the same level you guys are at. I want to understand this.
Quote from: Kai on March 23, 2010, 04:42:31 PM
And flat earthers are entertaining to poke at. :lulz:
:crankey:
FUCK YOU KAI, YOU'LL TAKE MY SCALA NATURAE FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS.
Clearly it makes sense to categorize the bald eagle as an "avian primate". Any argument otherwise is pernicious, superfluous nonsense.
Laplace's Demon think he so clever.
Could he outsmart me? Maybe. Maybe.
But could he outsmart BULLET?
[/TF2 "Heavy Weapons Guy"]
Quote from: dimo on March 23, 2010, 04:57:27 PM
Where's a good place to look for information on some of the theories you guys are talking about?
Oddly enough, PD.com. Do some thread diving.
also, WHAT'S THE SQUARE ROOT OF ZUCCHINI?
Quote from: LMNO on March 23, 2010, 07:01:13 PM
Quote from: dimo on March 23, 2010, 04:57:27 PM
Where's a good place to look for information on some of the theories you guys are talking about?
Oddly enough, PD.com. Do some thread diving.
also, WHAT'S THE SQUARE ROOT OF ZUCCHINI?
42 -
MMIX refuses to take such things seriously :wink:
after extensive google image searching, i have determined that zuchini's do not, in fact, have square roots.
they look just like any other roots....
i'm disappointed.
:cry:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 23, 2010, 04:57:20 PM
I haven't bothered with MMIX's posts since she decided that everything, everywhere had to involve memes.
I sort of have her pegged as the latest version of Merlyn of Chaos.
Thats only because you obviously can't remember Merlin of Chaos' posting style any better than you could Daruko's when you thought I was him . . . :wink:
Nice spot with the meme thing btw, I keep hoping someone will push back or engage with the meme thing because I can't quite focus my thinking on it . . .
Quote from: Kai on March 23, 2010, 02:54:31 AM"Like, lets sit around getting high and fap about completely unecessary metaphysical concepts."
This is my hobby.
It beats scrapbooking.
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on March 23, 2010, 09:58:30 PM
Quote from: Kai on March 23, 2010, 02:54:31 AM"Like, lets sit around getting high and fap about completely unecessary metaphysical concepts."
This is my hobby.
It beats scrapbooking.
You're OK by me, Enki
:)
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on March 23, 2010, 09:58:30 PM
Quote from: Kai on March 23, 2010, 02:54:31 AM"Like, lets sit around getting high and fap about completely unecessary metaphysical concepts."
This is my hobby.
It beats scrapbooking.
:spittake:
Quote from: Iptuous on March 23, 2010, 10:00:06 PM
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on March 23, 2010, 09:58:30 PM
Quote from: Kai on March 23, 2010, 02:54:31 AM"Like, lets sit around getting high and fap about completely unecessary metaphysical concepts."
This is my hobby.
It beats scrapbooking.
You're OK by me, Enki
:)
But it's also one of three reasons that he will never, ever kiss a girl.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 24, 2010, 12:47:58 AM
Quote from: Iptuous on March 23, 2010, 10:00:06 PM
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on March 23, 2010, 09:58:30 PM
Quote from: Kai on March 23, 2010, 02:54:31 AM"Like, lets sit around getting high and fap about completely unecessary metaphysical concepts."
This is my hobby.
It beats scrapbooking.
You're OK by me, Enki
:)
But it's also one of three reasons that he will never, ever kiss a girl.
I didn't know that girls were immune to fapping about completely unnecessary metaphysical concepts.
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on March 24, 2010, 01:36:36 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 24, 2010, 12:47:58 AM
Quote from: Iptuous on March 23, 2010, 10:00:06 PM
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on March 23, 2010, 09:58:30 PM
Quote from: Kai on March 23, 2010, 02:54:31 AM"Like, lets sit around getting high and fap about completely unecessary metaphysical concepts."
This is my hobby.
It beats scrapbooking.
You're OK by me, Enki
:)
But it's also one of three reasons that he will never, ever kiss a girl.
I didn't know that girls were immune to fapping about completely unnecessary metaphysical concepts.
Naw, like I said, it's only one of three reasons. The others are:
2. His grooming/dress choices.
3. His compulsive geekery. He simply HAS to interject completely unrelated shit into any conversation. Doesn't fly well with the womens.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 24, 2010, 01:49:55 AM
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on March 24, 2010, 01:36:36 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 24, 2010, 12:47:58 AM
Quote from: Iptuous on March 23, 2010, 10:00:06 PM
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on March 23, 2010, 09:58:30 PM
Quote from: Kai on March 23, 2010, 02:54:31 AM"Like, lets sit around getting high and fap about completely unecessary metaphysical concepts."
This is my hobby.
It beats scrapbooking.
You're OK by me, Enki
:)
But it's also one of three reasons that he will never, ever kiss a girl.
I didn't know that girls were immune to fapping about completely unnecessary metaphysical concepts.
Naw, like I said, it's only one of three reasons. The others are:
2. His grooming/dress choices.
3. His compulsive geekery. He simply HAS to interject completely unrelated shit into any conversation. Doesn't fly well with the womens.
Well, not any that
I'm attracted to.
However, there are plenty of hippie womens that would be a perfect fit.
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on March 24, 2010, 01:56:09 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 24, 2010, 01:49:55 AM
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on March 24, 2010, 01:36:36 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 24, 2010, 12:47:58 AM
Quote from: Iptuous on March 23, 2010, 10:00:06 PM
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on March 23, 2010, 09:58:30 PM
Quote from: Kai on March 23, 2010, 02:54:31 AM"Like, lets sit around getting high and fap about completely unecessary metaphysical concepts."
This is my hobby.
It beats scrapbooking.
You're OK by me, Enki
:)
But it's also one of three reasons that he will never, ever kiss a girl.
I didn't know that girls were immune to fapping about completely unnecessary metaphysical concepts.
Naw, like I said, it's only one of three reasons. The others are:
2. His grooming/dress choices.
3. His compulsive geekery. He simply HAS to interject completely unrelated shit into any conversation. Doesn't fly well with the womens.
Well, not any that I'm attracted to.
However, there are plenty of hippie womens that would be a perfect fit.
He dresses "filthy hippie", has hair that's "early street person", and is a tech geek. The hippies don't want him because of the tech, and the tech girls...there are none. Not that kind, anyway.
yer wrong, Dok.
in the halls of my engineering building at university, you could catch a glimpse of them every so often. they're huddled in dark crevasses of the CSE labs.
they'd be horrible to the likes of you.
but they actually do have romance in strange ways reminiscent of a Lovecraft story.
and Enki could find one of these creatures some day.
and BREED!
I'm gonna laugh my ass off when Enki gets hitched to some girl and she joins the board, pushing you over the edge, into the abyss! :D
Quote from: Kai on March 23, 2010, 01:10:12 AM
WHY ARE WE STILL TALKING ABOUT THIS FUCKING USELESS MEANINGLESS CONCEPT??
No one in this thread has seriously explained to me the concept of free will and why it is meaningful. IT DOESN'T MEAN A DAMN THING! IT DOESN'T EVEN MAKE SENSE!
Free will is an unobtainable goal. It is overcoming compelling nature, not to do the opposite but to allow yourself the choice in the matter. No one is a full master of their own mind and subconscious factors will always bias or sway a person, but striving to improve upon that is no different then trying to better yourself.
Quote from: Kai on March 23, 2010, 01:52:37 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on March 23, 2010, 01:16:43 PM
Quote from: Kai on March 23, 2010, 01:10:12 AM
WHY ARE WE STILL TALKING ABOUT THIS FUCKING USELESS MEANINGLESS CONCEPT??
No one in this thread has seriously explained to me the concept of free will and why it is meaningful. IT DOESN'T MEAN A DAMN THING! IT DOESN'T EVEN MAKE SENSE!
:argh!: :argh!: :argh!: :argh!: :argh!: :crankey: :crankey: :crankey:
the presence or absence of free will impacts the degree of responsibility we have for all this
No, no it doesn't.
In what sense? In that a person isn't responsible for an action at all unless they had some choice to perform or not perform that action?
Quote from: Iptuous on March 24, 2010, 02:22:26 AM
yer wrong, Dok.
in the halls of my engineering building at university, you could catch a glimpse of them every so often. they're huddled in dark crevasses of the CSE labs.
they'd be horrible to the likes of you.
but they actually do have romance in strange ways reminiscent of a Lovecraft story.
and Enki could find one of these creatures some day.
and BREED!
I'm gonna laugh my ass off when Enki gets hitched to some girl and she joins the board, pushing you over the edge, into the abyss! :D
Cybersex doesn't count.
Also, this thread killed my dog.
Faust,
You seem to have bundled your argument with the assumption that life is fair.
If your body, for whatever reason, has no will of its own, and kills people, "you" are responsible. Because it doesn't matter what you intend to do, what matters is what you end up doing anyway.
Quote from: Sigmatic on March 24, 2010, 03:07:45 AM
Faust,
You seem to have bundled your argument with the assumption that life is fair.
If your body, for whatever reason, has no will of its own, and kills people, "you" are responsible. Because it doesn't matter what you intend to do, what matters is what you end up doing anyway.
This thread gave my children rickets.
Quote from: Sigmatic on March 24, 2010, 03:07:45 AM
Faust,
You seem to have bundled your argument with the assumption that life is fair.
If your body, for whatever reason, has no will of its own, and kills people, "you" are responsible. Because it doesn't matter what you intend to do, what matters is what you end up doing anyway.
Ok but the physical act of killing is separate from responsibility weightings which are subjective. And that's where will and intent generally come in.
Okay, everyone that thinks we don't have free will, sound off.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 24, 2010, 03:24:57 AM
Okay, everyone that thinks we don't have free will, sound off.
I don't think we have complete free will, why do you ask?
I DONT OPERATE ON THE SAME LEVEL AS YOU PUNY TURDS
I SHIT YOU ALL FOR BREAKFAST.
I am operated by a complex series of Bladders that Deflate and/or Reflate when I wish to make a decision.
Me and my superior liquids shall pass judgement onto your hardwire circuitry brain.
Seriously though, if I am going to try question all the actions I peform when I very well want to do them on the basis that they make me happy - Call it an act of free will or an act of predeterminisn, it doesn't matter cause it still makes me happy in the end.
Quote from: Faust on March 24, 2010, 03:28:06 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 24, 2010, 03:24:57 AM
Okay, everyone that thinks we don't have free will, sound off.
I don't think we have complete free will, why do you ask?
Because it causes me to doubt your bipedal status.
Even that weird old fucker, Hemmingway, knew we had free will.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 24, 2010, 03:31:16 AM
Quote from: Faust on March 24, 2010, 03:28:06 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 24, 2010, 03:24:57 AM
Okay, everyone that thinks we don't have free will, sound off.
I don't think we have complete free will, why do you ask?
Because it causes me to doubt your bipedal status.
Even that weird old fucker, Hemmingway, knew we had free will.
I know I have had compulsions that I have managed to find the root cause of and eliminate. Theres still emotional/nervous stuff that I don't have complete control over and I would consider not having that control yet hampering the choices I can make and the things I can do, for now impeding my will.
Maybe some of you don't have free will. I feel bad, if that's the case. You'd be just a tiny cog in a huge universal machine that does nothing, if that were the case. You might as well kill yourself...I mean, if you were allowed to.
I'm a fucking human being. I may not always be able to control my condition or my surroundings, but I control what I do (at least when I'm well, but that's a whole different ball of wax). I am driving the meat. End of fucking story.
Quote from: Faust on March 24, 2010, 03:33:41 AM
I know I have had compulsions that I have managed to find the root cause of and eliminate. Theres still emotional/nervous stuff that I don't have complete control over and I would consider not having that control yet hampering the choices I can make and the things I can do, for now impeding my will.
Yeah, and I spent a month believing my family was trying to kill me. Illnesses of the brain are no different than illnesses of the body. They may effect you, but unless you are actually mentally incapacitated full time, you have free will.
We don't have instincts, we have drives. The difference is, we can ignore our drives.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 24, 2010, 03:36:12 AM
Quote from: Faust on March 24, 2010, 03:33:41 AM
I know I have had compulsions that I have managed to find the root cause of and eliminate. Theres still emotional/nervous stuff that I don't have complete control over and I would consider not having that control yet hampering the choices I can make and the things I can do, for now impeding my will.
Yeah, and I spent a month believing my family was trying to kill me. Illnesses of the brain are no different than illnesses of the body. They may effect you, but unless you are actually mentally incapacitated full time, you have free will.
We don't have instincts, we have drives. The difference is, we can ignore our drives.
And if you cant ignore or overcome one of your drives then it doesn't relate to free will? I think were I think we are just discussing where we draw the line on it.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 24, 2010, 03:24:57 AM
Okay, everyone that thinks we don't have free will, sound off.
Short answer: :vom:
Other short answer: It is dysfunctional to take that stance because the entire rule of law is based on the premise that people's actions are tacit signifiers of intent. The cliche being "Actions speak louder than words", or in this case, subjective states.
Quote from: Faust on March 24, 2010, 03:22:00 AM
Quote from: Sigmatic on March 24, 2010, 03:07:45 AM
Faust,
You seem to have bundled your argument with the assumption that life is fair.
If your body, for whatever reason, has no will of its own, and kills people, "you" are responsible. Because it doesn't matter what you intend to do, what matters is what you end up doing anyway.
Ok but the physical act of killing is separate from responsibility weightings which are subjective. And that's where will and intent generally come in.
What happens because of someones involvement, regardless of intent, may be their responsibility. It is important to realize that, if a being (possessed of free will or no) knows that they may be held responsible for what happens because of them, they are less likely to behave poorly.
Additionally, without even looking at the truth value of free will, it should be obvious that behaving as though actions are not tied to responsibilities is a very bad idea.
Also, I now have polio.
http://gizmodo.com/5496383/new-lipstick-changes-colors-when-ladies-are-horny
All your free will are belong to us.
Thread reminds me of a lot of issues raised in my "philosophy of action" class.
This is unacceptable.
Quote from: Telarus on March 24, 2010, 04:58:54 AM
http://gizmodo.com/5496383/new-lipstick-changes-colors-when-ladies-are-horny
All your free will are belong to us.
Better.
Quote from: Telarus on March 24, 2010, 04:58:54 AM
http://gizmodo.com/5496383/new-lipstick-changes-colors-when-ladies-are-horny
All your free will are belong to us.
This seems legit. :lulz:
Quote from: Sigmatic on March 24, 2010, 03:59:23 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 24, 2010, 03:24:57 AM
Okay, everyone that thinks we don't have free will, sound off.
Short answer: :vom:
Other short answer: It is dysfunctional to take that stance because the entire rule of law is based on the premise that people's actions are tacit signifiers of intent. The cliche being "Actions speak louder than words", or in this case, subjective states.
Quote from: Faust on March 24, 2010, 03:22:00 AM
Quote from: Sigmatic on March 24, 2010, 03:07:45 AM
Faust,
You seem to have bundled your argument with the assumption that life is fair.
If your body, for whatever reason, has no will of its own, and kills people, "you" are responsible. Because it doesn't matter what you intend to do, what matters is what you end up doing anyway.
Ok but the physical act of killing is separate from responsibility weightings which are subjective. And that's where will and intent generally come in.
What happens because of someones involvement, regardless of intent, may be their responsibility. It is important to realize that, if a being (possessed of free will or no) knows that they may be held responsible for what happens because of them, they are less likely to behave poorly.
Additionally, without even looking at the truth value of free will, it should be obvious that behaving as though actions are not tied to responsibilities is a very bad idea.
Also, I now have polio.
I like this post.
I'd like someone who is smarter than myself address the earlier stated point regarding how both free will and determinism both imply a self separate from the environment. Because this is where the argument pretty much stops for me.
It seems to me that the idea of separation stems from the monotheistic Creator who is apart from world and that we're somehow here to be TESTED in some fashion or other.
Here we are, picking peanuts out of poop...(I'm guessing Dok shat already).
What "me" is picking "what" out of "what"?
Caddisflies' environment are an aspect of their self?
Where do we draw the line?
oh, right, our skin.
goddamn sunburn.
shit. :?
(http://imgur.com/2kbTW.gif)
Jesus. Even the attempts at intelligent threads are retarded now.
I don't know what Free-Will even means. I make decisions based on what I know, with the intention of remaining happy.
I've always felt the whole idea of Free-Will/Pre-determined to be stupid.
I guess making a decision that wasn't influenced by anything shows Free-Will?
But thats very black & white.
It IS stupid. This entire thread should have filled up with barstools immediately, and yet here we are, 9 pages later still reading/posting/arguing what is just about the stupidest topic I can think of that's intended to make the people discoursing about it sound smart.
At least the "OMG SHOES" threads aren't trying to be intelligent.
I'll just go back to being a series of Liquid Filled Bladders ... I get to Piss atleast.
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on March 24, 2010, 08:58:49 AM
It IS stupid. This entire thread should have filled up with barstools immediately, and yet here we are, 9 pages later still reading/posting/arguing what is just about the stupidest topic I can think of that's intended to make the people discoursing about it sound smart.
At least the "OMG SHOES" threads aren't trying to be intelligent.
I think its been upgraded to Dildoes
Heck, shit happens. Not my fault.
Instead of arguing for them, I think I'll choose to not believe in either of them.
The cock knows what it wants.
(I'll stop spagging up this thread, I don't really want to talk about Free Will... Hows that for free will? :lulz:)
Quote from: Sigmatic on March 24, 2010, 03:59:23 AM
What happens because of someones involvement, regardless of intent, may be their responsibility. It is important to realize that, if a being (possessed of free will or no) knows that they may be held responsible for what happens because of them, they are less likely to behave poorly.
Additionally, without even looking at the truth value of free will, it should be obvious that behaving as though actions are not tied to responsibilities is a very bad idea.
Also, I now have polio.
I didn't say otherwise, I said that actions
alone don't fully shape the responsibility, in fact in law there are many facets to take into account intent, even with the example of a person killing another you have homicide, manslaughter, intent is reflected in the law to a certain extent.
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on March 24, 2010, 08:58:49 AM
It IS stupid. This entire thread should have filled up with barstools immediately,
I was too busy poomping. POOMPING! :argh!:
Quote from: Faust on March 24, 2010, 11:25:17 AM
Quote from: Sigmatic on March 24, 2010, 03:59:23 AM
What happens because of someones involvement, regardless of intent, may be their responsibility. It is important to realize that, if a being (possessed of free will or no) knows that they may be held responsible for what happens because of them, they are less likely to behave poorly.
Additionally, without even looking at the truth value of free will, it should be obvious that behaving as though actions are not tied to responsibilities is a very bad idea.
Also, I now have polio.
I didn't say otherwise, I said that actions alone don't fully shape the responsibility, in fact in law there are many facets to take into account intent, even with the example of a person killing another you have homicide, manslaughter, intent is reflected in the law to a certain extent.
YOUR POSITION IS TOO NUANCED AND VARIABLE FOR ME TO PULVERIZE INTO BABY FOOD!! FUCK YOU!
:argh!:
Quote from: Sigmatic on March 24, 2010, 05:43:06 PM
Quote from: Faust on March 24, 2010, 11:25:17 AM
Quote from: Sigmatic on March 24, 2010, 03:59:23 AM
What happens because of someones involvement, regardless of intent, may be their responsibility. It is important to realize that, if a being (possessed of free will or no) knows that they may be held responsible for what happens because of them, they are less likely to behave poorly.
Additionally, without even looking at the truth value of free will, it should be obvious that behaving as though actions are not tied to responsibilities is a very bad idea.
Also, I now have polio.
I didn't say otherwise, I said that actions alone don't fully shape the responsibility, in fact in law there are many facets to take into account intent, even with the example of a person killing another you have homicide, manslaughter, intent is reflected in the law to a certain extent.
YOUR POSITION IS TOO NUANCED AND VARIABLE FOR ME TO PULVERIZE INTO BABY FOOD!! FUCK YOU!
:argh!:
So talk to me about it rather then feigning indigence with this thread.
Yeah...meh.
Alright.
So, look at cognitive biases. Look at the BIP. Yeah, I'm stuck in an ontological quagmire, and yeah I'm forced to make every decision by hazarding an epistemological minefield, so my free will is not ideal. I don't get to take my time with every decision I make, and I don't have access to any "facts" beyond what I perceive and remember and contrive. So my actions are often wrong, incomplete, terrible, and idiotic. Ideally I would have the resources to make the best decisions based on what I want, based on what I intend, but life is not like that.
But I do have a choice to make. That's free will.
The coin/dice experiment where one's actions are decided by coin flips or other random methods shows that a person can act contrary to their usual behavioral patterns.
That shows free will. Unless you also consider the coinflip to be pre-determined, along with the arbitrary actions assigned to the flip's position.
If we did not have free will, we could not act in the contrary.
It's a trifle, but I can usually make a coin land the side I want it to by catching it a certain way. No idea how it works, mind you.
Quote from: LMNO on March 24, 2010, 07:57:27 PM
The coin/dice experiment where one's actions are decided by coin flips or other random methods shows that a person can act contrary to their usual behavioral patterns.
That shows free will. Unless you also consider the coinflip to be pre-determined, along with the arbitrary actions assigned to the flip's position.
If we did not have free will, we could not act in the contrary.
But then isn't the coin determining your action, rather than your Will?
This thread makes Baby Jesus stillborn.
Quote from: Sigmatic on March 24, 2010, 07:50:49 PM
Yeah...meh.
Alright.
So, look at cognitive biases. Look at the BIP. Yeah, I'm stuck in an ontological quagmire, and yeah I'm forced to make every decision by hazarding an epistemological minefield, so my free will is not ideal. I don't get to take my time with every decision I make, and I don't have access to any "facts" beyond what I perceive and remember and contrive. So my actions are often wrong, incomplete, terrible, and idiotic. Ideally I would have the resources to make the best decisions based on what I want, based on what I intend, but life is not like that.
But I do have a choice to make. That's free will.
I think thats accurate for the most part, I consider absolute free will diminished by the obvious physical impossibilities but also as I have said before, the subconscious compulsions that make us act in certain ways.
I'm always looking for things I do on automatic, why they happen, and how to turn them to manual.
I certainly don't believe in predetermination, but the human mind forcing you onto rails because and patterns of behaviour is where I argue that absolute free will is unobtainable.
I know this is straying a bit from the responsibility issue, but right now in the middle of the night I'm not sure I can verbalize a response.
Quote from: Chryselephantine Shavenwolf on March 24, 2010, 09:29:09 PM
This thread makes Baby Jesus stillborn.
I thought we were done with this.
Quote from: Burns on March 24, 2010, 06:38:06 AM
I'd like someone who is smarter than myself address the earlier stated point regarding how both free will and determinism both imply a self separate from the environment. Because this is where the argument pretty much stops for me.
It seems to me that the idea of separation stems from the monotheistic Creator who is apart from world and that we're somehow here to be TESTED in some fashion or other.
Here we are, picking peanuts out of poop...(I'm guessing Dok shat already).
What "me" is picking "what" out of "what"?
Caddisflies' environment are an aspect of their self?
Where do we draw the line?
oh, right, our skin.
goddamn sunburn.
shit. :?
This is my position as well. Ultimately, the argument itself has eaten the menu and wild dogs are picking at the carcass of the meal.
Unfortunately, we are 'civilized' people. Which means that even tho this should be a non-issue, we have had dualities imposed upon us since birth and we are forced to call them 'really-real-reality' or we don't get no sammiches.
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 24, 2010, 08:24:01 PM
Quote from: LMNO on March 24, 2010, 07:57:27 PM
The coin/dice experiment where one's actions are decided by coin flips or other random methods shows that a person can act contrary to their usual behavioral patterns.
That shows free will. Unless you also consider the coinflip to be pre-determined, along with the arbitrary actions assigned to the flip's position.
If we did not have free will, we could not act in the contrary.
But then isn't the coin determining your action, rather than your Will?
Are you positing that a so-called "random" process isn't actually random?
What if we altered the Schrodinger experiment? We set up a radioactive isotope in a box, and wait for a certain period of time. The isotope either did or didn't decay, based on quantum probability, which is random.
If it did, I do action A.
If it didn't, I do action B.
My actions are now based on a completely random process, which cannot be pre-determined. Thus, we have
physical free will.
Now, you can argue as much as you want about whether we have
psychological free will, but as far as physical pre-determination goes, forget it.
Quote from: LMNO on March 25, 2010, 02:03:54 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 24, 2010, 08:24:01 PM
Quote from: LMNO on March 24, 2010, 07:57:27 PM
The coin/dice experiment where one's actions are decided by coin flips or other random methods shows that a person can act contrary to their usual behavioral patterns.
That shows free will. Unless you also consider the coinflip to be pre-determined, along with the arbitrary actions assigned to the flip's position.
If we did not have free will, we could not act in the contrary.
But then isn't the coin determining your action, rather than your Will?
Are you positing that a so-called "random" process isn't actually random?
What if we altered the Schrodinger experiment? We set up a radioactive isotope in a box, and wait for a certain period of time. The isotope either did or didn't decay, based on quantum probability, which is random.
If it did, I do action A.
If it didn't, I do action B.
My actions are now based on a completely random process, which cannot be pre-determined. Thus, we have physical free will.
Now, you can argue as much as you want about whether we have psychological free will, but as far as physical pre-determination goes, forget it.
But are we discussing 'pre-determination' or 'determination' versus free will?
'Pre' would indicate that someone could plug all the data in at the point of the Big Bang and tell every future action... I don't think that's a very likely scenario, personally.
However, 'determination' vs free will would debate if that choice is determined outside of your Free Will. If the choice is determined by a random process then that process is still outside of your free will, isn't it? Maybe it was Free Will that led you to decide to rely on a quantum coin toss, but maybe it was because you read Cosmic Trigger or Liber Null... where such games are promoted.
IMO, our existence is a complex system of causal feedback. We and our Environment together make the choices... our environment surely informs and shapes our worldview, but the processing, interpretation and final outcome seem to get processed internally.
EDIT: Though it might be fun to try to defend determinism including Coin Tosses and measuring Qbits. I mean if all of our choices are 'determined' then surely the state of the qbit must be as well... and the head or tail flip. I think.
The intention of the experiment is to show there is nothing physical that is preventing our actions.
Therefore, any discussion of "free will" is one of psychology. And psychology, as has been pointed out, is changable.
Therefore, we may act in a programmed manner, but that does not eliminate the fact that we are choosing to act out a program.
An interesting, if trivial, side discussion can be started regarding those people who are not aware that they are programmed, but that's mostly an academic exercise.
Sorry to post without anything to add, but this conversation, as much as it is mental fappery, is expressing thoughts about free-will in a way that I have never looked at them, and I still find it very interesting. So, with that being said, keep fapping! I'm gonna be the creepy guy who just likes to watch...
Quote from: LMNO on March 25, 2010, 03:31:34 PM
An interesting, if trivial, side discussion can be started regarding those people who are not aware that they are programmed, but that's mostly an academic exercise.
Thats what I've been pushing for, but for me it's the interesting part.
Serves me right for being modest.
[R-Prime]
THE MOST IMPORTANT THING HERE IS THE PEOPLE WHO ARE ACTING PROGRAMMED, BUT DON'T REALIZE IT.
THEY NEED TO WAKE THE FUCK UP.
HOW CAN WE DO THIS?
FUCKOS.
[/R-Prime]
Quote from: LMNO on March 25, 2010, 03:31:34 PM
The intention of the experiment is to show there is nothing physical that is preventing our actions.
But is physical capability an attribute of 'Determinism'? I had thought determinism basically just argues that decisions come from our programming/stimulus etc rather than Will. IE, nothing may be preventing our actions, but our actions are determined by X (where X is our whole BIP + current environment etc).
Quote
Therefore, any discussion of "free will" is one of psychology. And psychology, as has been pointed out, is changable.
This is an excellent point. My psychology today seems very different than my psychology 10 years ago. Personally, I like to think that's because I exercised my Free Will, but it is hard to argue with people that claim its because I read RAW and Crowley and Thornley and etc etc and those actions (modifying my previous psychology) determined my current psychology. I'm just not sure what argument would work best against that position.
Quote
Therefore, we may act in a programmed manner, but that does not eliminate the fact that we are choosing to act out a program.
An interesting, if trivial, side discussion can be started regarding those people who are not aware that they are programmed, but that's mostly an academic exercise.
Yes, a very good point. And I think its the point that kept me from grokking the BiP metaphor for so long...
Rat--
Agreement, Re:Determinism. I was merely eliminating terms. We appear to agree that the argument of Free Will is not a matter of Pre-Determined actions.
More later.
Tell me if I am on track here or if I just shot and missed the point completely -
I think perhaps there is a misuse of terms, when trying to explain the reason people do things - if we are running very close to Programming Logic, I would say that it is 'pre-determined' since we are Procedually following out the hard-coded responses of the Program, but Free Will is exercised with the choices of which program is run (and possibly making adjustments to that program)
An analogy - Firefox, Internet Explorer, Chrome, Opera, Misc - they do most of the same shit, free-will part comes in from the choice out of the bunch.
Quote from: LMNO on March 25, 2010, 03:31:34 PM
an academic exercise.
You know just how to speak to a man's heart.
To be fair, I would consider myself (on a global scale) to be a determinist -- I would agree with the plug-numbers-into-big-bang-repeatably cosmology Ratatosk brought up. However, on the level of an individual, one cannot determine one's actions without determining one's actions, so the perception of one's actions as free will is all but unavoidable (and a damn good way to avoid doing cheesy things like naming a city "Providence").
Now, unless you know the whole picture (you're omniscient, and have a perfect map of the universe in your mind that goes as fast or faster than the real thing -- newton's calculator with all the things in it newton couldn't grok), you will perceive your current actions as the product of free will (unless you have an external locus of control, want a scapegoat, or don't think any of the choices are any good). This doesn't apply necessarily to past events, and a greater level of self-awareness will let you see how predictable past events have been without the excuse of circumstances beyond your control (hindsight isn't quite 20/20, but it seems that way). This brings up the question of levels of psychological free will: the more self-aware you are, the more your previous actions (at lower levels of self-awareness) seem like dumb mechanical/pavlovian/whatever responses (and the more in-control you feel), but like hindsight, perhaps the clarity is an illusion.
Ok, so since we have people here who are barely familiar with the argument, I'll lay out some etymology and terms.
The whole free-will/determinism language basically stems from a radical philosophy response during the 'Enlightenment' era to the prevailing dogma of the "Geocentric Crystal Spheres of the Creator God" theory/model of the Solar System/Universe refined by the church from Antiquity to the Renaissance (shades of the Egg of Mithras model).
Hold on folks. :fnord::1fap:
------------wikipedia-----------
The celestial spheres, or celestial orbs, were the fundamental entities of the cosmological models developed by Plato, Eudoxus, Aristotle, Ptolemy, Copernicus and others. In these celestial models the stars and planets are carried around by being embedded in rotating spheres made of an aetherial transparent fifth element (quintessence), like jewels set in orbs.
In the geocentric model adopted in the Middle Ages, the planetary spheres (i.e. those that contained planets) were arranged outwards from the spherical, stationary Earth at the centre of the universe in this order: the spheres of the Moon, Mercury, Venus, Sun, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. In more detailed models the seven planetary spheres contained other secondary spheres within them. The planetary spheres were followed by the stellar sphere containing the fixed stars; other scholars added a ninth sphere to account for the precession of the equinoxes, a tenth to account for the supposed trepidation of the equinoxes, and even an eleventh to account for the changing obliquity of the ecliptic.
In modern science, the orbits of the planets are simply the paths of those planets through mostly empty space. For medieval scholars, on the other hand, celestial spheres were actually thick spheres of rarefied matter nested one within the other, each one in complete contact with the sphere above it and the sphere below.[5] When scholars applied Ptolemy's epicycles, they presumed that each planetary sphere was exactly thick enough to accommodate them.[6] Combining this information with astronomical observations allowed scholars to calculate that the distance to the far edge of Saturn (or to the inside of the stellar sphere) was 73,387,747 miles.
--------------/wikipedia----------
Ok, so here's a secret. Most Mythology is humanity projecting onto things in the universe that they can't understand. We do this because as soon as we project part of our 'self' out there we can have some degree of control more than blind non-understanding.
This theory was codified into Western culture by the Greeks (remember the 'indigestion' and "The classical Greeks did not influence the classical Greeks" quotes?). The Greeks actually calculated the circumference of the earth pretty darn accurately and got a lot right. The Greeks inherited the legacy of the Babylonians and developed the science of astronomy. By the second century A.D., they had covered most of the main branches of astronomy: They knew what caused and could predict eclipses, they had charted planets, cataloged stars, observed novae, and discovered precession. They had discovered the Earth was spherical (though that knowledge was lost later), and that it moved around the sun (though that model grew out of favor).
Some excerpts [http://burro.astr.cwru.edu/stu/advanced/pre20th_ancients_greeks.html] :
--------------------------------------
Thales probably believed in a spherical Earth; Pythagoras and Plato did, as well. However, though Aristotle was grossly incorrect in his model of the universe, he must be given credit for the first study of scientific geography. He gave three reasons for his thinking:
1.
Only a sphere could result from the tendency of matter to fall together toward a common center.
2.
Only a sphere could through the circular shadow which we always see during a lunar eclipse.
3.
Only on the surface of a sphere would a traveler going from North to South see new constellations rising above the horizon on (s)he moved.
After Aristotle was dead, Eratosthenes (284-192 B.C.) , the librarian of Alexandria, was able to determine the circumference of the Earth to an accuracy of 0.1-0.5%. Around 250 B.C., Eratosthenes knew that on a particular day, the sun cast no shadow in a well in the modern-day village of Assouan. At the same time, on the same day, it cast a minor shadow in Alexandria - the distance between the two was known to high accuracy, and Alexandria and Assouan are almost at the same longitude. Thus, by dividing 360° by that shadow angle and multiplying by the distance, the polar circumference was measured. Eratosthenes measured it to be 40,000 km (24,855 miles), and the current accepted figure is 40,032 km (24,875 miles)*.
Sadly, a few centuries later, Ptolemy in his infamy messed up this calculation as well. His measurement for the circumference of the Earth was short by around 30%. A nice footnote of history is that this is another reason why Columbus thought that there was a faster route to India. If he had known that there was another 1200 km to go, he probably never would have set off on his voyage.
The Geocentric model held so much sway because of many of the philosophies of the ancient Greeks. They believed that the circle is the perfect form, and that the simplest model that made sense must be the correct one. Since they "knew" the heavens were perfect, everything must move upon a circle, and since the simplest model was that the Earth stood still and everything moved around it, then that must also be true. After all, we can't feel the Earth moving, so why should be believe that it does without any extraordinary evidence?
There's one problem with the Geocentric model and it had to do with the motion of the planets. For periods of time, the planets seem to orbit in an eastward direction across the stars. However, for brief periods of time, they switch and go in a westward direction. This is called retrograde.
So, Pythagoras has an ad hoc explanation for planetary motion, which he put forth as "left-behind-ness." The body left the farthest behind was Earth's moon, which lost a whole revolution in 29.5 days. The body that left the least behind was Saturn (Uranus through Pluto were not discovered yet), which lost a whole revolution in 29.5 days.
Plato taught that the movements, occultations, conjunctions, etc. of the sky were all calculable, and they only frightened those who could not "work a sum." However, he did complain that the heavenly bodies did not always use good sense. He was sure that their movements could be understood, and if they did not make sense then it was the theory that was at fault, not the heavenly bodies.
This lead him to eventually accept the theory that the Earth might not be at the center of the universe, and he wrote "the Earth, our nurse, goes to and fro on its axis, which stretches right through the universe." In Plato's school, the theory enjoyed a long life, and it was one of his followers that hit upon the heliocentric - sun-centered - model. Unfortunately, Plato's greatest pupil, Aristotle (384-322 B.C.), disagreed.
Aristotle's heavy scientific words contrasted with light and eloquent phrases from Plato, and they tipped the balance in the favor of geocentrism. It would take nearly 2000 years before main-stream thought returned to heliocentric ideas.
--------------------------------------
So the whole point was that they couldn't quite figure out how to make the "wandering stars" fit into their math, and it pissed them off. These things had seemingly "free will" and thus earned god-titles and reputations. This re-occurs in most mythology about the planets, especially if it isn't known that the Morning Star and the Evening Star are the same heavenly body. Earlier Greeks did not realize what the planets were, but were quite disdainful towards them. They were referred to as "tramp stars," which is our word for "planets." Homer wrote of the morning and evening star (Venus) by two separate names, "Phospheros" and "Hesperos" -- he never knew that they were the same planet. It was Pythagoras in 550 B.C. who discovered that Phospheros and Hesperos were the same.
Early Islam shares that confusion, as noted in the wikipedia entry on Satan:
-------------wikipedia----------------
According to the Qur'an, Iblis (the Arabic name used) disobeyed an order from Allah to bow to Adam and as a result was forced out of heaven and given respite until the day of judgment from further punishment.
When Allah commanded all of the angels to bow down before Adam (the first Human), Iblis, full of hubris and jealousy, refused to obey God's command (he could do so because, as a jinn, he had free will), seeing Adam as being inferior in creation due to his being created from clay as compared to him (created of fire).[15]
"It is We Who created you and gave you shape; then We bade the angels prostrate to Adam, and they prostrate; not so Iblis (Lucifer); He refused to be of those who prostrate."
(Allah) said: "What prevented thee from prostrating when I commanded thee?" He said: "I am better than he: Thou didst create me from fire, and him from clay."
Qur'an 7:11-12
-------------------/wikipedia----------
Lucifer, of course, means Morning Star. I love the identification of the stars as Jinn fire-beings with free will, and the Angels as fire-beings with free will that have surrendered it to Allah. Then along comes this punk Lucifer (the morning-star) and says "Fuck this, I do what I want. Sometimes I go backwards in the sky JUST TO FUCK WITH THE HUMANS."
Venus had a similar reputation, dig. How the hell could you describe the path of a body across the sky mathematically if you don't recognize it half the time when it shows up. Those rouge star fuckers are obviously"allows" to wander from the ineffable clockwork plan of the Divine Watchmaker.
So all of this history bubbles up into the Renaissance Catholic Church as the "Ptolemnaic Geocentrism with Crystal Spheres" model of the Solar System.
And then some wise-ass in the church asks, "A'hyuk, well then what makes those immense solid spheres go round and round-y?" and some other fount of ignorance responds, "Well, GOD's WILL mannifest as physical FORCE. At the beggining of time, he just PUSHED everything and the Holy Spirit maintains the momentum."
And then oh shit, if everything in the universe that we can approach mathematically is a manifestation of God's Will and Glory unfolding into the visible universe, then it's all PRE-DETERMINED.
But, but, but Lucifer had FREE WILL!, the Qu'ran tells me so, and Adam had FREE WILL, the Bible tells me so, and those fucking PLANETS! have free will, the astronomers tell us so [Fuck you and your heliocentrism, Copernicus. I like my model cuz' it's mine. We's gonna kills you, boy!].
.
.
.
.
.
.
This thread is mired in Cartesean Duality.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
:argh!: :argh!: :argh!: :argh!:
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
FFFUUUUUUU
Telarus has almost saved the thread.
Quote from: Telarus on March 26, 2010, 12:01:16 AM
This thread is mired in Cartesean Duality.
True story: I was sitting in a room full of stoned hippies discussing philosophy (because I'm a masochist, or something) and something someone said was replied to with "Your argument assumes Cartesian duality." I spoke up for the first time during the mind-numbing discussion, adding only "Your Mom is mired in dicks" and a little chuckle. They didn't understand, but they all laughed anyway. Thanks, DK. The end.
Back to thread being saved.
Ah bleeve that would be mind/body dualism--in Descartes' case, the idea that the mind is an intangible willer of stuffs whereas the body is a mechanical doer of stuffs
I believe you can't assume the universe is deterministic simply because no one can observe that determinism or the lack thereof.
As an entity INSIDE the universe, you are stuck with Heisenberg, quantum foam, Planck units and other effects that fundamentally prevent you from examining reality beyond a certain scale.
An entity OUTSIDE the universe can not look in because the universe is (likely) inside an event horizon, just like a black hole.
So can you assume something is true or false if there is no possible hypothetical observer to witness it?
If you say yes, then that means that all things are true, even those that are untrue for all possible observers.
If you say no, then the universe is not deterministic and ALSO not chaotic in nature. Noone can observe it to be so or not so, then it must be neither.
In any case logic falls apart.
(btw, first post, hi all!)
It sounds like you consider the question to be meaningless.
Nothing wrong with that.
Well yeah, kind of... The trick to keep having sane conversations is to see when it stops being useful to use logic.
Making a statement about something that is subject to logic is fine.
Making a statement about logic itself is fine, but expect a paradox here and there.
Making a statement about an effect that gives rise to logic itself (I think this topic is exactly that) is....... religion. That is fine too, but don't expect it to make sense.
Quote from: SuperNull on May 21, 2010, 02:21:41 PM
Well yeah, kind of... The trick to keep having sane conversations is to see when it stops being useful to use logic.
Making a statement about something that is subject to logic is fine.
Making a statement about logic itself is fine, but expect a paradox here and there.
Making a statement about an effect that gives rise to logic itself (I think this topic is exactly that) is....... religion. That is fine too, but don't expect it to make sense.
Well, believing free will exists is more useful than the alternative.
EOT
Not EOT.
I have found that, with practice, one can stand back and observe oneself. In time it becomes fairly obvious to me when I do this that my behaviors are simply a complex system interacting with it's inputs and outputs. I start seeing how my learned reactions feed into my thoughts which provide rationalizations after the fact of my decisionmaking, not before. After experiencing this "standing back", I've come to be fairly doubtful that any sort of "free will" in any essentialist sense really exists.
There's a difference between having Free Will and using Free Will.
We can behave in a pre-programmed manner, but that doesn't mean we're forced to.
In addition, even if our behavior is a set of somewhat predicatble rules, those same rules are not dictated by a Higher Force or Intelligence, which is where a lot of non-deterministic theories lead.
Quote from: LMNO on May 21, 2010, 08:24:37 PM
There's a difference between having Free Will and using Free Will.
We can behave in a pre-programmed manner, but that doesn't mean we're forced to.
That is a valuable distinction.
But wait:
Take a garden variety p-zombie. Say you could
convince him that he was a p-zombie. How would he behave? If he became able to act with regard to his lack of self-awareness, would he become self-aware?
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 21, 2010, 08:21:16 PM
Not EOT.
I have found that, with practice, one can stand back and observe oneself. In time it becomes fairly obvious to me when I do this that my behaviors are simply a complex system interacting with it's inputs and outputs. I start seeing how my learned reactions feed into my thoughts which provide rationalizations after the fact of my decisionmaking, not before. After experiencing this "standing back", I've come to be fairly doubtful that any sort of "free will" in any essentialist sense really exists.
Regardless, belief in a lack of free will has less utility than the belief that it exists, and not only in mere philosophical terms.
It may be true that you rationalize decisions after the fact. It may be true that the entire experience of control over your decisions is another manifestation of this after the fact monkey brain.
But, true or not, having a feeling of control over your decisions is strongly linked to your mental health and immune system.
Even if it is illusory, it confers a testable, biological advantage over believing it doesn't exist.
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 21, 2010, 08:35:21 PM
Take a garden variety p-zombie. Say you could convince him that he was a p-zombie. How would he behave? If he became able to act with regard to his lack of self-awareness, would he become self-aware?
He would reach a new level of self-awareness. On that level he could once again be convinced that what he calls self-awareness is not real sending him level-up again.
I'm not convinced this is true myself, but is sounds as the right answer......
Quote from: SuperNull on May 21, 2010, 08:39:58 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 21, 2010, 08:35:21 PM
Take a garden variety p-zombie. Say you could convince him that he was a p-zombie. How would he behave? If he became able to act with regard to his lack of self-awareness, would he become self-aware?
He would reach a new level of self-awareness. On that level he could once again be convinced that what he calls self-awareness is not real sending him level-up again.
I'm not convinced this is true myself, but is sounds as the right answer......
Agree, but to me that implies two things: That "consciousness" and by extension free will, occur in degrees, not on/off. Secondly, it implies that we're part of the continuum between no consciousness and maximum consciousness.
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 21, 2010, 08:43:14 PM
Quote from: SuperNull on May 21, 2010, 08:39:58 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 21, 2010, 08:35:21 PM
Take a garden variety p-zombie. Say you could convince him that he was a p-zombie. How would he behave? If he became able to act with regard to his lack of self-awareness, would he become self-aware?
He would reach a new level of self-awareness. On that level he could once again be convinced that what he calls self-awareness is not real sending him level-up again.
I'm not convinced this is true myself, but is sounds as the right answer......
Agree, but to me that implies two things: That "consciousness" and by extension free will, occur in degrees, not on/off. Secondly, it implies that we're part of the continuum between no consciousness and maximum consciousness.
Who said there is a maximum?
I'm just guessing, based on the lack of infinite things in the universe.
Are you equating free will to the degree someone is self-aware?
If not, could you clarify how you're making this inference from your self-awareness example?
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on May 21, 2010, 08:50:48 PM
Are you equating free will to the degree someone is self-aware?
If not, could you clarify how you're making this inference from your self-awareness example?
Self Awareness does seem to be necessary for 'free will' to exist in a usable fashion ... I hadn't considered that.
You have to understand HOW you react to stimuli and WHY you react in that way in order to make any changes.
OR
You have to understand that you're in the BIP, you have to understand why this brick and that bar are there, before you can renovate your cell... maybe?
Because your level of free will is limited by how self-aware you are. People lacking self-awareness tend not to exhibit much free will. I think that one depends on the other. Could you imagine a being whose degree of free will exceeded their self-awareness? It doesn't seem to happen.
Quote from: Ratatosk on May 21, 2010, 08:54:43 PM
You have to understand that you're in the BIP, you have to understand why this brick and that bar are there, before you can renovate your cell... maybe?
Which was kind of the entire main thrust of the v1.0 pamphlet.
Quote from: SuperNull on May 21, 2010, 08:39:58 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 21, 2010, 08:35:21 PM
Take a garden variety p-zombie. Say you could convince him that he was a p-zombie. How would he behave? If he became able to act with regard to his lack of self-awareness, would he become self-aware?
He would reach a new level of self-awareness. On that level he could once again be convinced that what he calls self-awareness is not real sending him level-up again.
I'm not convinced this is true myself, but is sounds as the right answer......
I talked a friend who was mulling over these exact issues into a looping and re-looping illumination such that you describe (well, it was after I left and he took those mushrooms). Danger of introducing Discordia to a troubled Christian Mystic.
Self-awareness feedback loop sounds like a hellish way to lose your mind.
Quote from: Ratatosk on May 21, 2010, 08:54:43 PM
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on May 21, 2010, 08:50:48 PM
Are you equating free will to the degree someone is self-aware?
If not, could you clarify how you're making this inference from your self-awareness example?
Self Awareness does seem to be necessary for 'free will' to exist in a usable fashion ... I hadn't considered that.
You have to understand HOW you react to stimuli and WHY you react in that way in order to make any changes.
OR
You have to understand that you're in the BIP, you have to understand why this brick and that bar are there, before you can renovate your cell... maybe?
Understanding how you react and why you react certainly are not necessary prerequisites for change.
You can stumble upon a new way by accident and decide to continue doing it in this more effective manner with no understanding of how or why it works.
Similarly, you can observe another person do something a new way and merely do the same thing and arrive at the same results without any understanding how or why it works.
However, I do think the case for self awareness being a precondition is fairly compelling.
Good point Sig, I'm going to mull that one over.
Susan Blackmore's "Conversations about Consciousness" is where I got the notion, in case you're interested.
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on May 21, 2010, 09:01:38 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on May 21, 2010, 08:54:43 PM
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on May 21, 2010, 08:50:48 PM
Are you equating free will to the degree someone is self-aware?
If not, could you clarify how you're making this inference from your self-awareness example?
Self Awareness does seem to be necessary for 'free will' to exist in a usable fashion ... I hadn't considered that.
You have to understand HOW you react to stimuli and WHY you react in that way in order to make any changes.
OR
You have to understand that you're in the BIP, you have to understand why this brick and that bar are there, before you can renovate your cell... maybe?
Understanding how you react and why you react certainly are not necessary prerequisites for change.
You can stumble upon a new way by accident and decide to continue doing it in this more effective manner with no understanding of how or why it works.
Similarly, you can observe another person do something a new way and merely do the same thing and arrive at the same results without any understanding how or why it works.
However, I do think the case for self awareness being a precondition is fairly compelling.
Good point Sig, I'm going to mull that one over.
Ah but in neither of those situations is the 'changed person' exhibiting 'free will'... in both of those examples, they are changing based on external stimuli (accidental or observed).
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 21, 2010, 08:59:00 PM
Self-awareness feedback loop sounds like a hellish way to lose your mind.
Yeah, I saw him 2 days later and his posture was bleeding exhaustion, so I asked him what was up. He described the self-awareness looping, said it lasted for a day (far longer than the mushrooms did) and that the night before that conversation it began to flash faster and faster until he had a panic attack, in the middle of which a bright light and sense of calm flooded his mind and he could pass out. He was really worried he did something wrong (like, messed up something physical/chemical).
I told him not to worry about it. He had gone through the classic Kabalistic practice of burning out the 3rd circuit temporarily in order to cross the abyss from 5th to 6th. Kabalistic practice focuses on Law of 5s style bombardment of symbols/correspondences, with numerology and the alphabet serving as your map. I told him it would take about a week to start integrating the experience.
He was very much relieved he wasn't antisocially insane like he thought he was.
Fascinating! ...But nothing I'd ever put my brain through. If I can't get there with understanding and meditation, I don't need to go.
Just one path up the mountain, brother. [/desmond-moment]
Quote from: Ratatosk on May 21, 2010, 09:29:09 PM
Ah but in neither of those situations is the 'changed person' exhibiting 'free will'... in both of those examples, they are changing based on external stimuli (accidental or observed).
That only makes sense if you have shifted the goalposts as to what free will means. Since you seem to have a different one from the dictionary, how about you share your definition?
How is accidentally doing something an external stimulus? That's ridiculous.
How exactly is deciding to simulate another person's behavior not free will?
LMNO just pointed out how you can, "behave in a pre-programmed manner, but that doesn't mean we're forced to."
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 21, 2010, 09:11:19 PM
Susan Blackmore's "Conversations about Consciousness" is where I got the notion, in case you're interested.
Cool beans. Thanks.
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on May 21, 2010, 08:37:11 PM
Regardless, belief in a lack of free will has less utility than the belief that it exists, and not only in mere philosophical terms.
It may be true that you rationalize decisions after the fact. It may be true that the entire experience of control over your decisions is another manifestation of this after the fact monkey brain.
But, true or not, having a feeling of control over your decisions is strongly linked to your mental health and immune system.
Even if it is illusory, it confers a testable, biological advantage over believing it doesn't exist.
It just occurred to me this has to do with the p-zombie example Sigmatic and me were talking about.
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 21, 2010, 08:43:14 PM
Quote from: SuperNull on May 21, 2010, 08:39:58 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 21, 2010, 08:35:21 PM
Take a garden variety p-zombie. Say you could convince him that he was a p-zombie. How would he behave? If he became able to act with regard to his lack of self-awareness, would he become self-aware?
He would reach a new level of self-awareness. On that level he could once again be convinced that what he calls self-awareness is not real sending him level-up again.
I'm not convinced this is true myself, but is sounds as the right answer......
Agree, but to me that implies two things: That "consciousness" and by extension free will, occur in degrees, not on/off. Secondly, it implies that we're part of the continuum between no consciousness and maximum consciousness.
It appears then when you are convinced you have no free will, you:
- Either kill yourself (directly, with depression or lack of care).
- Or compensate with a new mental construct that recognises your former lack of free will, incorporates your new-found free will and makes it harder to convince you again that you have no free will.
HAHAHA, how wonderful.
This really is a revelation to me.
Explain your reasoning?
A perceived lack of free will would probably result in the usual. Social withdrawal, depression, and prisoner-ish tendencies.
Have you read our BIP project, by the way?
Well yes, that's what I said.
A perceived lack of free will causes you to be a tortured soul unless you can compensate with a new world-view that has free will in it again.
That new world-view can be seen as "a higher state of conciousness" or "a new and more clever way to lie to yourself". With ever you prefer.
If you tell me what BIP stand for I can look for it.
I thought this thread was done with.
Sometimes metaphysics gets bogged down in this crap.
Quote from: Kai on May 22, 2010, 12:13:21 AM
I thought this thread was done with.
Sometimes metaphysics gets bogged down in this crap.
I'll put it down if you like, but I don't really see why I should.
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on May 21, 2010, 08:37:11 PM
Regardless, belief in a lack of free will has less utility than the belief that it exists, and not only in mere philosophical terms.
It may be true that you rationalize decisions after the fact. It may be true that the entire experience of control over your decisions is another manifestation of this after the fact monkey brain.
But, true or not, having a feeling of control over your decisions is strongly linked to your mental health and immune system.
Even if it is illusory, it confers a testable, biological advantage over believing it doesn't exist.
This is where the whole thing came from. The idea I wanted to play with is IF we don't ACTUALLY have free will, what accounts for the degrees of autonomy we can be aware of, and chopped it into 'stuff we do', stuff we've discovered we've had our eyes opened to be able to do, and stuff we have absolute technical practical choice over.