So, let me get this straight. Free will is not possible when everything we do is based off of the environment, past experience, memories, and emotions (based off of the above)? Free will would require a completely random decision (X) not based off of anything but a blank desire to do X?
Is that pretty much what free will is? Forgive me, I'm sorta new to this idea.
Decision X can be influenced by other factors to qualify as free will, but not wholly dictated by them. Some of us are saying that free will isn't possible because Decision X is preceded by an equation, the variables of which were also preceded by equations, a trail that I believe can be traced back to the start of the universe, meaning that everything you and I do now was set in stone back then.
Nexus Zero on
0
Options
AbsoluteZeroThe new film by Quentin KoopantinoRegistered Userregular
edited July 2007
Are those of you who say free will does not exist saying that we have no control over our destinies?
Are those of you who say free will does not exist saying that we have no control over our destinies?
That's exactly what I'm saying. You have as much control as you were meant to have; some people were always going to be influenced more by externalities, some were always going be the influences. None of it starts from a blank slate, though.
Edit: Also I'm noticing that most people who disagree with this point of view do so from fear or disdain of nihilism and weakness rather than a respect of logic.
The fact that I like a coffee with breakfast every morning doesn't mean I can't choose tea instead :roll: You people are morons. And Loren, you are so off my christmas card list.
Right, but the fact that you don't choose tea means that you can't choose tea in the instance in which you do not choose tea.
If you had free will you could always do those things contrary to the things which you do.
You're claiming that there's no free will because you can't make all the possible choices at once at one point in time? That's completely fucking ridiculous.
No, i'm claiming that there is no free will because all human actions are caused, and that what we do is the result of something.
If we had free will there would be no such thing as causality. The two ideas conflict.
That's the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard, and you should be ashamed of even typing it out. Go and think about what you've done
That's a great argument.
If your will motivates your actions, what motivates your will? It's pretty clear that your will is motivated by environmental factors and physical causes, in my mind. If you're hungry, you will eat; if you're tired, you sleep; if you disagree, you argue. You want to eat not because your consciousness is free to want to eat, you want to eat because your body needs nutrients.
Your mistake lies in deliberate oversimplification - in fact, the only way your argument survives is if you characterise my actions in a highly specific and deliberate way. As soon as I point out that I regularly put off fulfilling biological needs until its convenient, that i exercise a great deal of choice in what and how much I eat, etc etc, its all falls apart. If I ate whatever was at hand when hungry and shat on the floor whenever I felt the urge, you'd have an argument. But, uh, no.
Are those of you who say free will does not exist saying that we have no control over our destinies?
That's exactly what I'm saying. You have as much control as you were meant to have; some people were always going to be influenced more by externalities, some were always going be the influences. None of it starts from a blank slate, though.
Edit: Also I'm noticing that most people who disagree with this point of view do so from fear or disdain of nihilism and weakness rather than a respect of logic.
No, what you're saying is that there is no "I" to have the control. We're basically just highly evolved animals.
But behaviorism has been beaten into the ground in that respect a while ago. We have the capability to control what we're aware of and what we can affect. "I" falls under both of those. It's limited but it's there. So I do have control of my destiny, because I am aware of my destiny.
Hoz on
0
Options
AbsoluteZeroThe new film by Quentin KoopantinoRegistered Userregular
Are those of you who say free will does not exist saying that we have no control over our destinies?
That's exactly what I'm saying. You have as much control as you were meant to have; some people were always going to be influenced more by externalities, some were always going be the influences. None of it starts from a blank slate, though.
Edit: Also I'm noticing that most people who disagree with this point of view do so from fear or disdain of nihilism and weakness rather than a respect of logic.
But what is stopping me from doing anything that I want to do? Wouldn't it be predestined that there are only certain things I can do? But clearly I can do damn near anything with my life, within rational bounds (I couldn't become a millionaire 2 minutes from now even if I tried).
How could it even be proven that I or anyone else were predestined to or not to do anything?
I can make choices. Is that not free will? You will say it is not because my choice will have been determined by externalities. Say I chose a sandwich instead of a pizza. Well, what exactly is stopping me from choosing the pizza, then? What if I did choose the pizza when externalities should have determined my choice to be sandwich? Would you simply say some other externality caused me to choose the pizza?
Couldn't you always say that? But how can you prove it is true?
It's limited but it's there. So I do have control of my destiny, because I am aware of my destiny.
You're 'aware'? Why? Because of chemical-induced visions?
Couldn't you always say that? But how can you prove it is true?
You can't. You can only prove what happens. What happens happens. When you choose the sandwich, you can only have chosen the sandwich, because you didn't choose the pizza.
I know, that sounds ridiculous. But... well how else can this discussion go?
If I ate whatever was at hand when hungry and shat on the floor whenever I felt the urge, you'd have an argument. But, uh, no.
But evolution's programmed you differently. Your mistake is not seeing how you're hard-wired to do all this stuff.
I"m hardwired to pick between the two different flavours of tea I've got in the cupboard? Pasta or roast veggies for dinner? No, stop being a goddamned idiot. You're making the same oversimplification error as multifarious.
Cat, I'm probably just retreading over something that was already said, but the problem is that there's no choice behind the choices you make. You may choose to have tea one day, but your choice isn't motivated by anything but, so far as we can tell, your brain and your environment.
WELL WILL YOU LOOK AT THAT. FREE WILL!
The environment has an influence in that it provides us with a set of options. A necessarily limited set, yes, but the brain still exercises choice over which to pick, or whether to go to the effort of changing the environment to expand or contract that option range. If you think that's not free will, you're working with a retarded definition of it. Really, really stupid.
So you're saying, my existence is just my existence and I can only exist with my existence. Interesting.
I'm not certain exactly how what you are saying plays with my statement, or whether it was directed at me. "What are we free from" is an excellent question.
And that choice is based on chemicals and your surroundings.
Just because you don't know exactly which set of experiences or chemical effects going on in your body are causing you to act doesn't mean there's some mystical "choice force" in the fatty tissues of your skull.
It's the whole chaos theory thing. It's not that things cannot be predicted, it's that there's so much data that the resource cost is absurd for something so meaningless.
I mean hell, say you're chewing on an ice cube.
You assume, hey, free will right? You choose to chew ice cubes?
Turns out it's rather often associated with a mineral deficiency.
Depending upon how you define free will, it's either blatantly obvious that we have it or it's a concept that makes no sense whatsoever. I don't think there's a middle ground.
A lot of you aren't happy with the idea of free will because you see it in absolute terms and the absolute freedom you compare our wills to only exists in nonexistence, where we have no will at all. So you've learned to expect something you've never even understood.
Free will is the will to control our will. If you can't accept it because it's made of lesser ingredients then it seems like you're just falling into your will to not have a free will.
Does free will exist if we decide to ignore casual factors that are so small that they are negligible?
Here, I'll answer that one for you: Yes. So for all practical purposes, free will exists. At least in that context.
And there's no such thing as a concept making "no sense whatsoever!" You can see the sense behind any concept even if it is completely impossible and abstract, so really people, just shut up with that.
Does free will exist if we decide to ignore casual factors that are so small that they are negligible?
Here, I'll answer that one for you: Yes.
And there's no such thing as a concept making "no sense whatsoever!" You can see the sense behind any concept even if it is completely impossible and abstract, so really people, just shut up with that.
Square circle.
Edit: Also, does 2.1 + 2.1 equal 4 if you round the numbers to the nearest integer?
I"m hardwired to pick between the two different flavours of tea I've got in the cupboard? Pasta or roast veggies for dinner? No, stop being a goddamned idiot. You're making the same oversimplification error as multifarious.
Are you saying that your brain isn't preconditioned to prefer one thing over another? And are you saying that your preference on a given day isn't based on a variety of variables such as the frequency and pattern of tea consumption, what sort of day you're having, etc. Fucking hell. It's a good job you were always destined to be this arrogant. It's okay to admit it, you're not master of your domain.
or it's a concept that makes no sense whatsoever.
This is the realisation we should be making. The universe is based on mathematical laws, and we're not magically exempt from that. Barring a proposed degree of quantum randomness, there is no way that any choice you make is above the law. That doesn't mean you don't think of the outcome of the alternatives and take those into consideration.
a) I have multiple choices, I can pick any of them hence free will.
and
b) I have multiple choices, but I don't actually and regardless would've picked x choice because it was predestined by my situation.
I'll admit, point a) makes more sense to me on a logical level. Point b) smacks of pseudo-religious experience to my ears and that truly doesn't ring well with me.
The early reference to "What is it free from" doesn't make sense either, though maybe you'd be better served to understand where "Free Willers" are coming from if the word "free" was dropped from the conversation, since it implys an oppressor somewhere.
I think what riles people is that your side of the debate implies 0 will and 0 choice, without which we certainly shouldn't be in the position we are now, any sudden environmental change should've wiped us out in those circumstances surely?
Junpei: If I punch you in the face, very very hard, with brass knuckles, are you going to:
a) Choose to hum the tune to Bambi.
or
b) Say something like "Ow, you mother fucker, you gonna die!" or whatever your background suggests.
Incenjucar on
0
Options
AbsoluteZeroThe new film by Quentin KoopantinoRegistered Userregular
edited July 2007
The oppressor is that which makes our choices predestined.
Edit: Also, he could very well choose to hum the tune to Bambi. There is nothing stopping him from doing so, unless of course he doesn't know the tune or you punch him hard enough that he is unable to hum.
I think what riles people is that your side of the debate implies 0 will and 0 choice, without which we certainly shouldn't be in the position we are now, any sudden environmental change should've wiped us out in those circumstances surely?
No, it shouldn't have. There is a problem, though, in that if there is no free will and no choice, there is no such thing as responsibility. There are no such things as good people or bad people, regardless of whether they save innocent toddlers from sharks or perform autopsies on two live teenagers a week just to get off. That's a problem.
I think what riles people is that your side of the debate implies 0 will and 0 choice, without which we certainly shouldn't be in the position we are now, any sudden environmental change should've wiped us out in those circumstances surely?
No, it shouldn't have. There is a problem, though, in that if there is no free will and no choice, there is no such thing as responsibility. There are no such things as good people or bad people, regardless of whether they save innocent toddlers from sharks or perform autopsies on two live teenagers a week just to get off. That's a problem.
Likewise, there's nothing morally wrong with taking people who perform autopsies on live teenagers and either throwing them in prison or killing them.
He could hum the tune to Bambi, but I'd hate to have seen the events of his life that would lead to that decision. I'm not saying this is merely down to animal instincts, it's more subconscious than that, relying on chemicals and physics and all that. To have free will away from these mathematical medium, we'd have to have some kind of soul, and that's what smacks of pseudo-religion to me.
I think what riles people is that your side of the debate implies 0 will and 0 choice, without which we certainly shouldn't be in the position we are now, any sudden environmental change should've wiped us out in those circumstances surely?
No, it shouldn't have. There is a problem, though, in that if there is no free will and no choice, there is no such thing as responsibility. There are no such things as good people or bad people, regardless of whether they save innocent toddlers from sharks or perform autopsies on two live teenagers a week just to get off. That's a problem.
Likewise, there's nothing morally wrong with taking people who perform autopsies on live teenagers and either throwing them in prison or killing them.
To have free will away from these mathematical medium, we'd have to have some kind of soul, and that's what smacks of pseudo-religion to me.
The thing is that the soul thing doesn't make any sense either.
Because, shit, how is the soul making its decisions, and why are souls relatively predictable if they are so "free?"
--
Your consciousness is pretty much your choice itself. Who you are is what you do and what surrounds you and what you did before and what surrounded you back then. Hell, individuality is a questionable notion in itself, considering we're bazillions of different individual life forms ourselves, and humanity functions much as any other "super organism" despite its massive variety.
Junpei: If I punch you in the face, very very hard, with brass knuckles, are you going to:
a) Choose to hum the tune to Bambi.
or
b) Say something like "Ow, you mother fucker, you gonna die!" or whatever your background suggests.
However I want to reply when it happens. See, you've given me a choice, and I could actually do either. What Nexus is saying is that I have no choice, the same punch hitting me in the exact same situation will result in the exact same response from me every time is what is being said. I don't personally believe that.
The problem with this question you've posed, is that whatever my response is, your response will be that I was predetermined to respond that way for any number of reasons.
What it boils down to is that currently we have zero evidence of it either way, it's just two opposing theories about why we go about our daily lives. It would be interesting to see the results of 2 identical clones in 2 identical situations to see if they actually do anything different. My standpoint believes that they will more then likely do something different since they have choice, yours is that regardless they will do the exact same thing since their choice doesn't really exist in the first place.
The problem I have with this thread is that I don't see its constructive merit, it's the most circular arguement possible, and is central to basically everything about our existance. Philosophy at its finest.
If I ate whatever was at hand when hungry and shat on the floor whenever I felt the urge, you'd have an argument. But, uh, no.
But evolution's programmed you differently. Your mistake is not seeing how you're hard-wired to do all this stuff.
I"m hardwired to pick between the two different flavours of tea I've got in the cupboard? Pasta or roast veggies for dinner?
We're not saying you're "hardwired" to prefer one flavour over another, nor that you were "destined" or "predetermined" to choose that flavour. We're saying that whatever flavour you pick, given the technology and sufficient understanding of how the brain works, we could go back and show how ongoing electrochemical processes in your body led to your choosing that particular flavour.
People need to stop characterizing our position as one that believes in destiny and other such nonsense.
If I ate whatever was at hand when hungry and shat on the floor whenever I felt the urge, you'd have an argument. But, uh, no.
But evolution's programmed you differently. Your mistake is not seeing how you're hard-wired to do all this stuff.
I"m hardwired to pick between the two different flavours of tea I've got in the cupboard? Pasta or roast veggies for dinner?
We're not saying you're "hardwired" to prefer one flavour over another, nor that you were "destined" or "predetermined" to choose that flavour. We're saying that whatever flavour you pick, given the technology and sufficient understanding of how the brain works, we could go back and show how ongoing electrochemical processes in your body led to your choosing that particular flavour.
People need to stop characterizing our position as one that believes in destiny and other such nonsense.
I believe in determinism, and I fail to see any difference between it and destiny.
If I ate whatever was at hand when hungry and shat on the floor whenever I felt the urge, you'd have an argument. But, uh, no.
But evolution's programmed you differently. Your mistake is not seeing how you're hard-wired to do all this stuff.
I"m hardwired to pick between the two different flavours of tea I've got in the cupboard? Pasta or roast veggies for dinner?
We're not saying you're "hardwired" to prefer one flavour over another, nor that you were "destined" or "predetermined" to choose that flavour. We're saying that whatever flavour you pick, given the technology and sufficient understanding of how the brain works, we could go back and show how ongoing electrochemical processes in your body led to your choosing that particular flavour.
People need to stop characterizing our position as one that believes in destiny and other such nonsense.
All well and good, but it's how it comes across simply because it sounds like you are saying the situation is infinitely repeatable given the same circumstances and stimuli. If there is no difference between 2 tea bags sitting side by side, would I pick up the right, or the left? If I was faced with the same situation with the same chemical component in my body with the same environmental stimuli, would I pick the same side repeatedly?
What it boils down to is that currently we have zero evidence of it either way,
Ever heard of neurology?
Maybe psychology?
Aye, of course, but they are far from complete sciences, a lot of what they are built on is still theories. There isn't really a "Law of Thermodynamics" for either of those fields of study in their current shape. I agree however that what we are discussing here is entirely relevant to those fields of study and a definitive answer either way would have massive reprocussions on our understanding of ourselves.
If I ate whatever was at hand when hungry and shat on the floor whenever I felt the urge, you'd have an argument. But, uh, no.
But evolution's programmed you differently. Your mistake is not seeing how you're hard-wired to do all this stuff.
I"m hardwired to pick between the two different flavours of tea I've got in the cupboard? Pasta or roast veggies for dinner?
We're not saying you're "hardwired" to prefer one flavour over another, nor that you were "destined" or "predetermined" to choose that flavour. We're saying that whatever flavour you pick, given the technology and sufficient understanding of how the brain works, we could go back and show how ongoing electrochemical processes in your body led to your choosing that particular flavour.
People need to stop characterizing our position as one that believes in destiny and other such nonsense.
All well and good, but it's how it comes across simply because it sounds like you are saying the situation is infinitely repeatable given the same circumstances and stimuli. If there is no difference between 2 tea bags sitting side by side, would I pick up the right, or the left? If I was faced with the same situation with the same chemical component in my body with the same environmental stimuli, would I pick the same side repeatedly?
The universe is so huge and so complex that you couldn't possibly hope to run into the exact same situation twice, not in a thousand trillion years.
What if there's more to our conciousness and will than physical properties. I'm not necessarily saying soul, per se, but maybe something similar. Where would that fall into this?
I should note that I don't believe in the traditional idea of a soul.. I'm just curious and find this discussion to be fascinating.
Posts
Decision X can be influenced by other factors to qualify as free will, but not wholly dictated by them. Some of us are saying that free will isn't possible because Decision X is preceded by an equation, the variables of which were also preceded by equations, a trail that I believe can be traced back to the start of the universe, meaning that everything you and I do now was set in stone back then.
That's exactly what I'm saying. You have as much control as you were meant to have; some people were always going to be influenced more by externalities, some were always going be the influences. None of it starts from a blank slate, though.
Edit: Also I'm noticing that most people who disagree with this point of view do so from fear or disdain of nihilism and weakness rather than a respect of logic.
Your mistake lies in deliberate oversimplification - in fact, the only way your argument survives is if you characterise my actions in a highly specific and deliberate way. As soon as I point out that I regularly put off fulfilling biological needs until its convenient, that i exercise a great deal of choice in what and how much I eat, etc etc, its all falls apart. If I ate whatever was at hand when hungry and shat on the floor whenever I felt the urge, you'd have an argument. But, uh, no.
But evolution's programmed you differently. Your mistake is not seeing how you're hard-wired to do all this stuff.
But behaviorism has been beaten into the ground in that respect a while ago. We have the capability to control what we're aware of and what we can affect. "I" falls under both of those. It's limited but it's there. So I do have control of my destiny, because I am aware of my destiny.
But what is stopping me from doing anything that I want to do? Wouldn't it be predestined that there are only certain things I can do? But clearly I can do damn near anything with my life, within rational bounds (I couldn't become a millionaire 2 minutes from now even if I tried).
How could it even be proven that I or anyone else were predestined to or not to do anything?
I can make choices. Is that not free will? You will say it is not because my choice will have been determined by externalities. Say I chose a sandwich instead of a pizza. Well, what exactly is stopping me from choosing the pizza, then? What if I did choose the pizza when externalities should have determined my choice to be sandwich? Would you simply say some other externality caused me to choose the pizza?
Couldn't you always say that? But how can you prove it is true?
You're 'aware'? Why? Because of chemical-induced visions?
You can't. You can only prove what happens. What happens happens. When you choose the sandwich, you can only have chosen the sandwich, because you didn't choose the pizza.
I know, that sounds ridiculous. But... well how else can this discussion go?
WELL WILL YOU LOOK AT THAT. FREE WILL!
The environment has an influence in that it provides us with a set of options. A necessarily limited set, yes, but the brain still exercises choice over which to pick, or whether to go to the effort of changing the environment to expand or contract that option range. If you think that's not free will, you're working with a retarded definition of it. Really, really stupid.
I'm not certain exactly how what you are saying plays with my statement, or whether it was directed at me. "What are we free from" is an excellent question.
Just because you don't know exactly which set of experiences or chemical effects going on in your body are causing you to act doesn't mean there's some mystical "choice force" in the fatty tissues of your skull.
It's the whole chaos theory thing. It's not that things cannot be predicted, it's that there's so much data that the resource cost is absurd for something so meaningless.
I mean hell, say you're chewing on an ice cube.
You assume, hey, free will right? You choose to chew ice cubes?
Turns out it's rather often associated with a mineral deficiency.
Free will is the will to control our will. If you can't accept it because it's made of lesser ingredients then it seems like you're just falling into your will to not have a free will.
Here, I'll answer that one for you: Yes. So for all practical purposes, free will exists. At least in that context.
And there's no such thing as a concept making "no sense whatsoever!" You can see the sense behind any concept even if it is completely impossible and abstract, so really people, just shut up with that.
Square circle.
Edit: Also, does 2.1 + 2.1 equal 4 if you round the numbers to the nearest integer?
Technically, it's not actually a whale either. Two lies mean that it's true!
Are you saying that your brain isn't preconditioned to prefer one thing over another? And are you saying that your preference on a given day isn't based on a variety of variables such as the frequency and pattern of tea consumption, what sort of day you're having, etc. Fucking hell. It's a good job you were always destined to be this arrogant. It's okay to admit it, you're not master of your domain.
This is the realisation we should be making. The universe is based on mathematical laws, and we're not magically exempt from that. Barring a proposed degree of quantum randomness, there is no way that any choice you make is above the law. That doesn't mean you don't think of the outcome of the alternatives and take those into consideration.
a) I have multiple choices, I can pick any of them hence free will.
and
b) I have multiple choices, but I don't actually and regardless would've picked x choice because it was predestined by my situation.
I'll admit, point a) makes more sense to me on a logical level. Point b) smacks of pseudo-religious experience to my ears and that truly doesn't ring well with me.
The early reference to "What is it free from" doesn't make sense either, though maybe you'd be better served to understand where "Free Willers" are coming from if the word "free" was dropped from the conversation, since it implys an oppressor somewhere.
I think what riles people is that your side of the debate implies 0 will and 0 choice, without which we certainly shouldn't be in the position we are now, any sudden environmental change should've wiped us out in those circumstances surely?
a) Choose to hum the tune to Bambi.
or
b) Say something like "Ow, you mother fucker, you gonna die!" or whatever your background suggests.
Edit: Also, he could very well choose to hum the tune to Bambi. There is nothing stopping him from doing so, unless of course he doesn't know the tune or you punch him hard enough that he is unable to hum.
No, it shouldn't have. There is a problem, though, in that if there is no free will and no choice, there is no such thing as responsibility. There are no such things as good people or bad people, regardless of whether they save innocent toddlers from sharks or perform autopsies on two live teenagers a week just to get off. That's a problem.
All determinism does is divorce it from mysticism.
Likewise, there's nothing morally wrong with taking people who perform autopsies on live teenagers and either throwing them in prison or killing them.
Is that supposed to be a counterpoint?
Why waste the time with the rationalization just grab the tea and drink it.
If your consciousness isn't making the choice why do we have and what is it's purpose?
The thing is that the soul thing doesn't make any sense either.
Because, shit, how is the soul making its decisions, and why are souls relatively predictable if they are so "free?"
--
Your consciousness is pretty much your choice itself. Who you are is what you do and what surrounds you and what you did before and what surrounded you back then. Hell, individuality is a questionable notion in itself, considering we're bazillions of different individual life forms ourselves, and humanity functions much as any other "super organism" despite its massive variety.
However I want to reply when it happens. See, you've given me a choice, and I could actually do either. What Nexus is saying is that I have no choice, the same punch hitting me in the exact same situation will result in the exact same response from me every time is what is being said. I don't personally believe that.
The problem with this question you've posed, is that whatever my response is, your response will be that I was predetermined to respond that way for any number of reasons.
What it boils down to is that currently we have zero evidence of it either way, it's just two opposing theories about why we go about our daily lives. It would be interesting to see the results of 2 identical clones in 2 identical situations to see if they actually do anything different. My standpoint believes that they will more then likely do something different since they have choice, yours is that regardless they will do the exact same thing since their choice doesn't really exist in the first place.
The problem I have with this thread is that I don't see its constructive merit, it's the most circular arguement possible, and is central to basically everything about our existance. Philosophy at its finest.
People need to stop characterizing our position as one that believes in destiny and other such nonsense.
Ever heard of neurology?
Maybe psychology?
I believe in determinism, and I fail to see any difference between it and destiny.
All well and good, but it's how it comes across simply because it sounds like you are saying the situation is infinitely repeatable given the same circumstances and stimuli. If there is no difference between 2 tea bags sitting side by side, would I pick up the right, or the left? If I was faced with the same situation with the same chemical component in my body with the same environmental stimuli, would I pick the same side repeatedly?
Edit:
Aye, of course, but they are far from complete sciences, a lot of what they are built on is still theories. There isn't really a "Law of Thermodynamics" for either of those fields of study in their current shape. I agree however that what we are discussing here is entirely relevant to those fields of study and a definitive answer either way would have massive reprocussions on our understanding of ourselves.
I should note that I don't believe in the traditional idea of a soul.. I'm just curious and find this discussion to be fascinating.
This is suggested by the overall predictability of people, and, essentially, statistics.
Unfortunately, to truly test this is, again, physically impossible.
But the evidence for free will is up there with evidence for a universal concept of evil, and invisible pink unicorns.
--
Dude.
All that is is Soul v3.7
"Well if you don't believe in magic.. how about magic!"
Fuck.
Don't you think it's a bit telling how this always ends up "Magic!"?