User Controls
Freewill
-
2015-11-28 at 12:28 AM UTCI don't mean in the legal sense. I mean the vague, mystical, hard to define sense. Freewill as in the magical ability to determine your own fate, cannot exist. Can you change the laws of physics? Can you alter the past? If you answered no to these questions, then it follows that you cannot have freewill.
-
2015-11-28 at 12:50 AM UTCNo I can't alter the past or change the laws of physics but neither can any other human before or after me. What I can dictate though is how things go from here on out. I can control the most important things that can be altered though. You get to decide whether you end up in prison or rich as fuck living the good life I would argue there is a vast difference in those two alternate realities. There is no "no matter what you do, you end up at X place or with X person or with X amount of friends or any other factor you could consider an important aspect of your life.
There are such circumstances that good/bad things are already very probable from the day you are born. There are literally billions of scenarios and they are all possible it's just the probability of each one are different. Ultimately it's up to you how things go though. -
2015-11-28 at 1:07 AM UTCWhatever you do has been predetermined. Your decisions are meaningless and choice is an illusion. You agree that you can't change the laws of physics or alter the past. The present is nothing more than the result of those laws acting on the past.
Look at your liver. It's a regenerating, automatic organic filtration system that you could not possibly build yourself. It evolved over eons from basically nothing to become this amazing thing. And if you can accept that, it shouldn't be too hard to accept that this miraculous feeling that we call freewill also evolved out of basically nothing. Sure, it's a complex system, but so is your liver. The rise of the liver as this amazing organ was entirely reactionary, as was the formation of the planet we live on and the evolution of every living thing on it, including you and all the decisions you have or will ever make. Research even shows us that brain activity behind a decision occurs before a person consciously apprehends the decision.
-
2015-11-28 at 1:13 AM UTC
…It evolved over eons from basically nothing to become this amazing thing…
The more sensible, simple, believable and logical conclusion would be that it was created by someone.
-
2015-11-28 at 1:24 AM UTCOh, this thread again.
Anyway, yeah, depends on free will. Sounds like OP is talking about libertarian free will, which yes, it's a fundamentally incoherent concept and no finding in physics can change that. And I've argued in the past, and still hold, that common usage of the term "free will" is in line with the libertarian definition. Compatibilists are, if we allow them their terms, strictly speaking correct but I maintain their move is largely a semantic one. I've softened my position on compatibilism a bit in recent years, I do think that in the context of philosophy, in an effort to find an answer to the question "what should I do?" it probably does make sense to adopt that language or minimally the idea of moral responsibility being dependent on compatibilist the presence of free will but I still maintain coining a new term would be a saner approach. Although Sarte's radical freedom isn't the same thing I think he made a good move in tacking radical on the front there. Even staunch determinists can come to terms with Sarte, and those that still disagree at least never do so for failing to understand his meaning which is more than we can say to the compatibilist tactic. -
2015-11-28 at 3:34 AM UTCDeterminism in theory and free will in practice. In the individual level we choose our fates but those choices are dependant on the choices others made in lives before yours.
Either way, I'm ready for a 9 page thread where OYM gives ridiculous assertions with no evidence or logical backing. -
2015-11-28 at 4:22 AM UTC
-
2015-12-02 at 4:09 AM UTC
Determinism in theory and free will in practice. In the individual level we choose our fates but those choices are dependant on the choices others made in lives before yours.
Either way, I'm ready for a 9 page thread where OYM gives ridiculous assertions with no evidence or logical backing.
You don't really seem to disagree with me. -
2015-12-02 at 5:59 AM UTCas per classical physics, all future action can be calculated given the opportunity to observe a sufficiently-simple starting state.
as per quantum mechanics, all future action can be *statistically* calculated as above, but is subject to completely random fluctuations, and predictions will break down more and more as you try to make them with greater precision.
in the first instance, everything is predefined (deterministic), and your choices are an illusion - you may think you're making a choice of your own volition, but it could've been predicted long before you made it as it relies completely on stressors external to yourself (experiences) and your (genetics) reaction too them.
in the second instance or a combination of the two, nothing is reliably predictable; all outcomes are random.
assuming both are correct, the only way free will could exist is if choice or consciousness comes from somewhere not bound by those rules -
2015-12-02 at 6:19 AM UTC
Yeah but sam harris is a dumb cunt -
2015-12-02 at 12:40 PM UTCI don't know who he is. I just liked what he said in that video. Is he such a cunt that he pretended to be a different person for years?
-
2015-12-03 at 12 AM UTCHere's another one:
So, to those of you who agree that we do not have freewill, I ask you what are the implications of this? Are people responsible for their actions? Is a sense of individuality essentially meaningless? What are your thoughts on the subject? -
2015-12-03 at 1:46 AM UTC
I don't know who he is. I just liked what he said in that video. Is he such a cunt that he pretended to be a different person for years?
More of a cunt by far. In fact I don't think pretending to be someone else is inherent cuntly, but I'm biased. One element of his cunthood is his delight in trying to make expert commentary on topics where, often by his own admission, he is painfully ignorant of prior art. His into to End of Faith is a famous example of this.So, to those of you who agree that we do not have freewill, I ask you what are the implications of this? Are people responsible for their actions? Is a sense of individuality essentially meaningless? What are your thoughts on the subject?
Again, it depends on what you take to what you consider "responsibility" to be. The obvious split would be to say that responsibility is dependent on an agent's freedom to do otherwise, so we ask what freedom is which leads us to ask what free will is which is the "what does free will mean" question again. Sidestepping an argument over the nature of responsibility I don't think there are any determinists who think we should stop jailing murderers because they couldn't have done otherwise. I'm perfectly happy to say let's jail/punish/whatever people for things they're not responsible for. Like even if we grant free will, we can imagine situations where this is OK. If someone possibly has a deadly contagious disease we can't really say they're responsible for contracting it (baring exotic scenarios where they intentionally infect themselves) yet quarantining them seems pretty non-controversial. Likewise if we catch a serial killer and live in a deterministic universe then we can jail them even if they're not strictly responsible for their actions. This would imply some interesting changes in our justice system, like if we catch an offender but somehow have very good reason to believe they'll never commit a crime again then there's no need to jail them. We do have a precedent for this in temporary insanity but insanity wouldn't be the only criteria.
I have no idea what line of logic you think leads from lack of free will to individually being meaningless though. -
2015-12-03 at 1:42 PM UTCTime and space are an illusion. The universe is as we imagine it.
-
2015-12-04 at 2:52 AM UTC
One element of his cunthood is his delight in trying to make expert commentary on topics where, often by his own admission, he is painfully ignorant of prior art.
You know, when you stop to think about it, that sounds a lot like pretending to be someone he isn't.Again, it depends on what you take to what you consider "responsibility" to be.
Like taking credit for stuff. Let's suppose a man invents something amazing and world changing. Knowing that freewill does not exist, and that all of his activity leading towards this invention were merely a result of earlier events and interactions, does he really deserve praise for the invention when he isn't so much its creator but rather the conduit of its creation? Would his taking pride in his "accomplishment" really benefit anyone? Should he be paid royalties for the invention, when the truly altruistic action would be to allow the world free access to it?have no idea what line of logic you think leads from lack of free will to individually being meaningless though.
While I admit that I do not believe individuality is meaningless, the concept of "self" appears to be illusory in light of our lack of freewill. I mean, what is "the self"? Most people tend to think of the self as some interior essence that distinguishes a person from the world around them. But if you think about it, it's fairly obvious that you didn't just will those thoughts you are thinking right now anymore then you willed the words that I typed on this screen. Thoughts just arise in your mind. If the self is not really the author of your own thoughts, what is the self? If we suggest that the self is consciousness, then what is consciousness? A sort of highly evolved awareness, a highly evolved reaction to our environment. It appears to be perfectly reasonable to suggest that the environment is the cause of consciousness, for consciousness (you and me) arose out of this environment and if there were no environment to be conscious of, what exactly would consciousness consist of?
This sort of realization leads us away from an egocentric view of life, and that can be liberating. We are not truly separate. We are linked to each other, and to the world around us, throughout time and space. While you might not take credit for your talents it's still important that you use them. While you might not really be to blame for your weaknesses, it's still important to correct them. What is the value in pride and shame when it would be better to just commit to well being and the improvement of your life and others? Love and compassion make sense. This sort of realization does not diminish the value of political or social freedoms. It just doesn't make sense to believe in free will, and if we want to be guided by reality instead of fantasy, it's probably important that our views on this topic change.Time and space are an illusion. The universe is as we imagine it.
Please take this moment as an opportunity to explain your view further. -
2015-12-04 at 4:25 AM UTC
You know, when you stop to think about it, that sounds a lot like pretending to be someone he isn't.
If a person were to pretend to be an expert in something when, in reality, they are not then sure, there's a definite similarity there. If a person pretends to be something rather mundane, or even undesirable (for example, when we act as though we hold views we don't for the sake of argument or to elicit a certain response from others) then I think it's forgivable. Socrates is a famous example of someone pretending to be someone other than what he was to famous and much applauded effect.Like taking credit for stuff. Let's suppose a man invents something amazing and world changing. Knowing that freewill does not exist, and that all of his activity leading towards this invention were merely a result of earlier events and interactions, does he really deserve praise for the invention when he isn't so much its creator but rather the conduit of its creation? Would his taking pride in his "accomplishment" really benefit anyone? Should he be paid royalties for the invention, when the truly altruistic action would be to allow the world free access to it?
It seems like there's a risk of circularity here. If we say a person is responsible for a thing when they can claim credit for it then we need to ask what is the criteria for claiming credit? I think the common answer would be responsibility, you can claim credit for things you're responsible for. As for creators, I think it's fair to say they deserve a level of credit. While their actions may be mere consequences of prior states their output is incomparable to the input, that is to say calculus is more interesting, more commendable, than the educations that Newton and Leibnitz enjoyed. While their discoveries may be the inevitable effect of the confluence of their circumstances they are not equal. They produced something of value, whether or not they had any choice in the matter.
As for royalties, it's a simple question of consequences. In a world where invention is rewarded we would expect more people to try it, more people to succeed. If inventors are too richly rewarded, if their inventions are made too costly, then they pose little benefit to us, thus the question of how much a person deserves for their effort is the optimal point between encouraging discovery and making the fruits of that labor widely available. Sorta like laffer curves only not retarded. I suspect, although I can be swayed by empirical data, that we tend to overreward many sorts of inventors in the 21st century western world, evidenced primarily by the fact that historically most of our great minds were not exceptionally well compensated. I suspect there's a connection between eagerness to do something (that is, willingness to do it for minimal compensation) and likelihood of doing good work. This shouldn't really be surprising, if a person love their job it seems wholly realistic to think they'll do more of it and generally be better at it than someone who doesn't.While I admit that I do not believe individuality is meaningless, the concept of "self" appears to be illusory in light of our lack of freewill. I mean, what is "the self"? Most people tend to think of the self as some interior essence that distinguishes a person from the world around them. But if you think about it, it's fairly obvious that you didn't just will those thoughts you are thinking right now anymore then you willed the words that I typed on this screen. Thoughts just arise in your mind. If the self is not really the author of your own thoughts, what is the self? If we suggest that the self is consciousness, then what is consciousness? A sort of highly evolved awareness, a highly evolved reaction to our environment. It appears to be perfectly reasonable to suggest that the environment is the cause of consciousness, for consciousness (you and me) arose out of this environment and if there were no environment to be conscious of, what exactly would consciousness consist of?
I mean sure, if we accept a deterministic, materialistic universe then we can explain any phenomenon without ever making reference to minds of persons but that doesn't make minds or persons non-real. We can explain the universe in terms of atoms and never need reference rocks or trees or whatever but that doesn't make these things non-real or meaningless. I will agree that the notion of an atomic essential self is both pervasive and seemingly wrong but that's not the only notion of self out there. Existentialism has grappled with this problem and has a lot to say about the idea of a self and personal responsibility in the absence of an essential nature ("existentialism" itself is a name chosen to contrast with essentialism). Just because an explanation of ourselves requires reference to non-us things (for example, my ideas about free will (something that is in some sense a part of me) can't be explained without talking about the arguments I've seen for and against it (clearly not a part of my self) ) doesn't mean we can't draw a line between self-things and non-self-things or that such a line can't mean meaningful, it just means the distinction isn't going we're going to go and find out in nature.
And sure, that's crushing to many world views, perhaps a majority of lay people fail to recognize this, but it doesn't invalidate or disprove an other concepts of self. Hmm, so since this is kind of a theme I'm pressed to ask myself why, if most people hold an idea of self that's contradictory or invalid, why the statement "self is illusory" would be false. Maybe it's due to usage in a philosophical context, "self" means something different in philosophy, and even from philosopher to philosopher, than it does in common usage. Don't know, have to think about that one.While you might not really be to blame for your weaknesses, it's still important to correct them. What is the value in pride and shame when it would be better to just commit to well being and the improvement of your life and others?
Well the value is that they are lever arms on action. We're not perfectly rational beings, not even the most rational among us. We need pride to motivate us towards nobel goals and shame to keep us from doing wrong. Yes, you can feel pride at doing evil or shame from something innocent, but it's hard to imagine any person producing a great work that didn't feel either pride in it or shame in failing to do so. I mean obviously pride and shame aren't the only two emotions here, anything that acts as a hedonic motivator will do, but those two, even if they are tied to a false sense of responsibility, seem to be very powerful motivators towards action. Probably because they're tied to the idea of responsibility. -
2015-12-05 at 5:46 PM UTC
If a person were to pretend to be an expert in something when, in reality, they are not then sure, there's a definite similarity there. If a person pretends to be something rather mundane, or even undesirable (for example, when we act as though we hold views we don't for the sake of argument or to elicit a certain response from others) then I think it's forgivable. Socrates is a famous example of someone pretending to be someone other than what he was to famous and much applauded effect.
This Sam Harris guy seems pretty famous too (despite the fact that I had never heard of him before), and he also got a lot of applause at the end of that video. I guess the criteria for being a cunt is sort of subjective, but considering the fact that free will cannot exist it's hard to blame a cunt for being a cunt. It's not as if cunts had any real choice to not be cunts.It seems like there's a risk of circularity here. If we say a person is responsible for a thing when they can claim credit for it then we need to ask what is the criteria for claiming credit? I think the common answer would be responsibility, you can claim credit for things you're responsible for.
I guess I'm asking you if you think people who would traditionally receive credit for (or be deemed responsible for) specific events are actually responsible for those events. I mean, you could say Newton is responsible for the discovery of gravity, but isn't it just as correct to say the apple that fell on his head also bears some of the responsibility? Or the tree that dropped the apple on him? Or perhaps the man who planted that apple tree? Or perhaps none of these interactions and people are really responsible for the discovery of gravity, rather they are merely links in the chain of cause and effect.As for creators, I think it's fair to say they deserve a level of credit. While their actions may be mere consequences of prior states their output is incomparable to the input, that is to say calculus is more interesting, more commendable, than the educations that Newton and Leibnitz enjoyed. While their discoveries may be the inevitable effect of the confluence of their circumstances they are not equal. They produced something of value, whether or not they had any choice in the matter.
If a man didn't have any choice in the matter how can he be responsible for the production of something? If a man despite his best efforts cannot control his body odor and produces a rather disgusting smell because of some genetic disorder he is inflicted with, would he really be found responsible for it? I mean, of course in a room full of people questioning who stinks he would be found to be the culprit, but would we really blame him for the odor that he has no control over? If a man cannot be blamed for producing something he has no control over, is it really right to praise another man for producing something he had no choice in?As for royalties, it's a simple question of consequences. In a world where invention is rewarded we would expect more people to try it, more people to succeed. If inventors are too richly rewarded, if their inventions are made too costly, then they pose little benefit to us, thus the question of how much a person deserves for their effort is the optimal point between encouraging discovery and making the fruits of that labor widely available. Sorta like laffer curves only not retarded. I suspect, although I can be swayed by empirical data, that we tend to overreward many sorts of inventors in the 21st century western world, evidenced primarily by the fact that historically most of our great minds were not exceptionally well compensated. I suspect there's a connection between eagerness to do something (that is, willingness to do it for minimal compensation) and likelihood of doing good work. This shouldn't really be surprising, if a person love their job it seems wholly realistic to think they'll do more of it and generally be better at it than someone who doesn't.
It is not necessarily true that people will be more motivated to improve the world based on their expected compensation. For example, I don't think Tesla invented alternating current because he expected to become a rich man if he did so. If you look into it, it seems that the idea of alternating current just arose in his mind one day, just like your own thoughts arise in your own mind, seemingly out of nowhere. You don't will your thoughts into existence anymore than he willed alternating current into existence. The idea more or less just came through him, as if he weren't so much its creator but more like the conduit of its creation. And most inventions and innovations seem to have come into being in this way.Just because an explanation of ourselves requires reference to non-us things doesn't mean we can't draw a line between self-things and non-self-things or that such a line can't mean meaningful
Of course not. But a line drawn in the sand is just a line drawn in the sand. Just because people evolved to distinguish themselves from their environment and reaped benefits from doing so, doesn't mean that we cannot now realize that we are intricately linked to the environment and to each other and also reap the benefits of integrating this realization into our worldview. You might feel like you have some special unique "self" deep within you and I'm not going to tell you that you shouldn't feel that way, but you can't honestly deny that the concept of "the self" is just as illusory as the concept of free will. I'm not saying it doesn't have its uses, it certainly does, but being able to recognize that we really are all part of a greater whole is one of the first steps away from an egocentric view of life, and towards a greater commitment to well being and the improvement of life for all of us here on earth.Well the value is that they are lever arms on action. We're not perfectly rational beings, not even the most rational among us. We need pride to motivate us towards nobel goals and shame to keep us from doing wrong. Yes, you can feel pride at doing evil or shame from something innocent, but it's hard to imagine any person producing a great work that didn't feel either pride in it or shame in failing to do so. I mean obviously pride and shame aren't the only two emotions here, anything that acts as a hedonic motivator will do, but those two, even if they are tied to a false sense of responsibility, seem to be very powerful motivators towards action. Probably because they're tied to the idea of responsibility.
I agree that they can be powerful motivators, but they can also be powerful demotivators and distractions. People have killed themselves out of shame, and people have wasted their talents being distracted by pride and hedonism. If we truly want to move forward as a species it might not be such a bad idea to let go of such a primitive "motivation" in exchange for a simple commitment to improvement. Many of the greatest minds in science were not led by pride or shame but rather led by ideas that could and did change the world for the better. -
2015-12-10 at 11:43 PM UTC
I don't mean in the legal sense. I mean the vague, mystical, hard to define sense. Freewill as in the magical ability to determine your own fate, cannot exist. Can you change the laws of physics? Can you alter the past? If you answered no to these questions, then it follows that you cannot have freewill.
That sounds like a materialist perspective. Wouldn't a dualist simply respond that freewill exists in the immaterial mind? -
2015-12-11 at 12:56 PM UTCThat sounds like a pretty useless thing to believe. If their "free will" is unable to affect the real world, how is it really free will?
-
2015-12-11 at 6:16 PM UTC
That sounds like a pretty useless thing to believe. If their "free will" is unable to affect the real world, how is it really free will?
There are a lot of kinds of dualist, a majority propose some sort of casual interaction between material and non-material (the canonical example being Descartes thinking the pineal gland was the way that the non-material soul controlled the body). There are problems with that approach too, the largest would probably be conjuring evidence for dualism in the first place but then there's also the issue that if we admit interaction of non-material mind with the physical world we seem to face the same dilemma with the non-material world as we faced with the material one, either it behaves deterministically or non deterministically (that seems pretty exhaustive of the options here) and neither really affords room for libertarian free will.
