User Controls
Determinism
-
2017-07-06 at 5:21 AM UTC
-
2017-07-06 at 3:10 PM UTCIt's not just the keyboard, the actual computer is not working. I think the video card is overheating or something. I dunno. My friend who built the computer is going to look at it this weekend.
That's also why I haven't been on the Minecraft server. -
2017-07-06 at 3:14 PM UTCMeaningless. You'll never get another chance so you might as well be discussing a theory about a video game or a fantasy movie.
-
2017-07-06 at 4:29 PM UTC
Originally posted by benny vader why not ? you've been predetermined to be wrong, to be perceived and / or opined as being ''wrong'' by the majority of the people that surrounds you.
as there are no absolute rights or wrong.
If there are no absolute right or wrongs then you still can't ever go wrong. Because then there would be no objective standard of what's wrong. Which means punishing anyone is unfair regardless. I am not advocating for no consequences for anyone. But you see my point.
Also, you might say: Well the majority of people will decide what is right or wrong. Which is an arbitrary bulsshit fix and still would be unfair. In the middle ages, a lot of people thought the Earth was flat. That didn't make it right. And i don't think questions of ethics are any different. -
2017-07-06 at 7:31 PM UTC
Originally posted by Sophie If there are no absolute right or wrongs then you still can't ever go wrong. Because then there would be no objective standard of what's wrong. Which means punishing anyone is unfair regardless. I am not advocating for no consequences for anyone. But you see my point.
Also, you might say: Well the majority of people will decide what is right or wrong. Which is an arbitrary bulsshit fix and still would be unfair. In the middle ages, a lot of people thought the Earth was flat. That didn't make it right. And i don't think questions of ethics are any different.
Categorical imperative and social contract theory, merged with utilitarianism. -
2017-07-06 at 7:53 PM UTC
Originally posted by Sophie If there are no absolute right or wrongs then you still can't ever go wrong. Because then there would be no objective standard of what's wrong.
correct
Which means punishing anyone is unfair regardless. I am not advocating for no consequences for anyone. But you see my point.
fair and unfair too … are opinion.Also, you might say: Well the majority of people will decide what is right or wrong. Which is an arbitrary bulsshit fix and still would be unfair. In the middle ages, a lot of people thought the Earth was flat. That didn't make it right. And i don't think questions of ethics are any different.
unfortunately thats how our world works cos i remember something about that guy that postulated the earth is round like a ball ended up on a stake. -
2017-07-06 at 8:02 PM UTCWas that a religious deal or what was up with people being killed for believing in something unpopular? Were they just that insecure of people or what the fuck?
-
2017-07-27 at 1:48 AM UTC
-
2018-01-24 at 4:42 AM UTC
-
2018-01-24 at 4:56 AM UTCAccording to classical physics, if we had a complete snapshot of every particle in the universe (position and motion) at a suitably simple time in the past (ie. before the big bang), we could calculate the cascading interactions between particles and not only know everything that happened in the past but also precisely predict everything that would happen in the future. It's unlikely it'd ever be technically feasible but it makes sense theoretically.
If we take quantum mechanics into account, where macro-level physics is statistical and micro-level is completely random, it makes sense that actions in the above scenario would be predictable to a degree but with significant random 'interference'.
As far as I understand the universe is either predetermined or random - there's no real free will. Of course we feel like we have free will, but that's along the same lines as HTS 'feeling' like he's a woman.
What we consider 'free will' is a combination of genetic material inherited from our parents and its reaction to external stimuli.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-01-24 at 5:07 AM UTC
Originally posted by aldra According to classical physics, if we had a complete snapshot of every particle in the universe (position and motion) at a suitably simple time in the past (ie. before the big bang), we could calculate the cascading interactions between particles and not only know everything that happened in the past but also precisely predict everything that would happen in the future. It's unlikely it'd ever be technically feasible but it makes sense theoretically.
If we take quantum mechanics into account, where macro-level physics is statistical and micro-level is completely random, it makes sense that actions in the above scenario would be predictable to a degree but with significant random 'interference'.
As far as I understand the universe is either predetermined or random - there's no real free will. Of course we feel like we have free will, but that's along the same lines as HTS 'feeling' like he's a woman.
What we consider 'free will' is a combination of genetic material inherited from our parents and its reaction to external stimuli.
We've moved past this. We can agree that the universe is predetermined, but that fact has no impact on whether or not free will is a thing. The internally inconsistent definition of free will that Obbe is refusing to offer isn't possible, sure. But that's just arguing against a straw man.
Let me put it another way: lets assume that a "free" being exists, who has a thought process that is entirely caused internally, with no exterior causes. How is that any different to, for example, a humanoid biorobot that makes all decisions based on a personality generated off a seed that is in turn generated through quantum randomness? -
2018-01-24 at 5:19 AM UTCThat's just it, given the above, I don't think 'free will' is a concept that even makes sense - a 'free being' is hard to envision because no analogue exists.
For your robot, completely random behaviour doesn't equate to free will just because it deviates from predictable determinismThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-01-24 at 5:36 AM UTC
Originally posted by aldra That's just it, given the above, I don't think 'free will' is a concept that even makes sense - a 'free being' is hard to envision because no analogue exists.
For your robot, completely random behaviour doesn't equate to free will just because it deviates from predictable determinism
I didn't say it was completely random. I said that it has a personality generated off a random seed. Let's say it has a QRNG machine in its brain. It sets up the basic rules of its personality within the confines of its robot brain and a new causal chain begins based off the QRNG, completely internal to the robot in terms of origin. -
2018-01-24 at 5:58 AM UTCGoing back on what I said in the last post, maybe random counts as 'free will'? As in will that isn't constrained, even if it isn't coherent.
The semantics aren't all that important to me though; I just don't see any alternative to either a deterministic or a random universe, and by extension the behaviours of anything that exists within it. Any argument for free will if you accept the above just seems like a way to try to preserve a sense of 'self' where there doesn't really appear to be one.
In the case of your robot, it still follows the same pattern as a person - sets of behaviours that are created deterministically (either by design or by the results of previous behaviours/decisions), which are then affected by external (random) stimuli. You could (and probably will) argue that the quantum matter it derives its random seed from is internal, but it doesn't change the fact that it's random and therefore results in a randomised behaviourThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-01-24 at 6:17 AM UTCI don't care if anyone knows what I'm going to do before I do, as long as I have consciously feel like I have a complete choice and no clue what I'll ultimately choose until I choose it, that is as good a definition of free will to me as anything.
Like I'm just doing my thing. If you all actually built me and I'm actually a robot under your control that's designed to think and believe everything that I've ever done, that's fine. If I don't fucking know that then as far as I'm concerned I'm still willingly making my own choices as far as I'm concerned. -
2018-01-24 at 7:11 AM UTC
-
2018-01-24 at 7:40 AM UTC
Originally posted by aldra Going back on what I said in the last post, maybe random counts as 'free will'? As in will that isn't constrained, even if it isn't coherent.
The semantics aren't all that important to me though; I just don't see any alternative to either a deterministic or a random universe, and by extension the behaviours of anything that exists within it. Any argument for free will if you accept the above just seems like a way to try to preserve a sense of 'self' where there doesn't really appear to be one.
The semantics are usually what the argument boils down to though. It's true, the notion that our actions are totally non-random while also not being predetermined is incoherent. But almost no one holds to this view when we unpack the issue a bit. Even modern advocates of libertarian free will argue the meaning of "free will" we should care about is actually something to do with non-uniformly distributed random variables.
Pointing out the folk notion of free will is inconsistent is useful but it's not really satisfying to stop was "<logically inconsistent idea> doesn't exist", that seems trivial and we still productively use the term "free will" in conversation all the time so it seems like there has to be something that it picks out, even if it's not exactly what we thought it was.
Like if you encounter the gettier problems and realize the JTB model of knowledge doesn't work, your response isn't to say "knowledge is impossible, end of story", instead you look for a more coherent meaning of "knowledge" that captures it usage. -
2018-01-24 at 7:46 AM UTCThere's gotta be a good paradox in this shit somewhere, like passionately arguing about a having no free will but having a stance that you insist is correct even though you you believe everything yijb think isn't your actual decision anyway..somethinfg
-
2018-01-24 at 8:33 AM UTCthat is something i don't know for sure. lets prove it with your opinions
-
2018-01-24 at 1:44 PM UTCWhy do you niggers keep bumping these senseless 20+ page threads full of philosophical retardation? You guys do realize that you're basically arguing the same no-correct-answer nonsense in every one of these threads, right?The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
