|
On July 06 2013 03:14 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 03:13 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 03:06 Tobberoth wrote:On July 06 2013 03:04 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 02:46 Tobberoth wrote:On July 06 2013 02:41 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 02:33 Tobberoth wrote:On July 06 2013 02:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 02:21 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
Choice and control are both words we use to describe emergent behaviours. It doesn't matter if choices and control have other underlying factors that determine how they work, those emergent behaviours still exist. These are actually the natural definitions of the words. What do you mean by "natural definitions"? And I don't think you're really using emergent behaviors correctly here. Make no mistake choice and control do indeed have a meaning but what you describe as 'illusion of choice/control' ARE their actual meanings. A meaning that cannot be found in the dictionary? It's found in every dictionary, you're just reading the definition incorrectly. Post an example. I already did. Here's more: 1. the act or an instance of choosing or selecting 2. the opportunity or power of choosing 2. Choice, alternative, option, preference all suggest the power of choosing between things. Choice implies the opportunity to choose: a choice of evils. Alternative suggests that one has a choice between only two possibilities. It is often used with a negative to mean that there is no second possibility: to have no alternative. Option emphasizes free right or privilege of choosing: to exercise one's option. Preference applies to a choice based on liking or partiality: to state a preference. 9. select, rare, uncommon, valuable, precious. See fine1 . And how do this support your conclusion? How doesn't it? I've already explained in a hundred posts how you make choices even if the actual choice you make is predetermined. You calling it an illusion of choice doesn't change that it fits with every single definition of the word. We're not talking about determinism... I think I've said that like... 10,000 times. Doesn't matter what you're talking about. The point is that the meaning of choice is inherently different if you believe in free will or not, without changing the definition because everything the definition depends on is already defined by your perspective on free will. If you're not interested in the subject, I don't understand why you're continuing to argue about it, and I don't understand what the point is of your posts in the topic. You haven't shown how definitions are subjective.
|
On July 06 2013 03:16 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 03:14 Tobberoth wrote:On July 06 2013 03:13 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 03:06 Tobberoth wrote:On July 06 2013 03:04 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 02:46 Tobberoth wrote:On July 06 2013 02:41 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 02:33 Tobberoth wrote:On July 06 2013 02:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 02:21 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
Choice and control are both words we use to describe emergent behaviours. It doesn't matter if choices and control have other underlying factors that determine how they work, those emergent behaviours still exist. These are actually the natural definitions of the words. What do you mean by "natural definitions"? And I don't think you're really using emergent behaviors correctly here. Make no mistake choice and control do indeed have a meaning but what you describe as 'illusion of choice/control' ARE their actual meanings. A meaning that cannot be found in the dictionary? It's found in every dictionary, you're just reading the definition incorrectly. Post an example. I already did. Here's more: 1. the act or an instance of choosing or selecting 2. the opportunity or power of choosing 2. Choice, alternative, option, preference all suggest the power of choosing between things. Choice implies the opportunity to choose: a choice of evils. Alternative suggests that one has a choice between only two possibilities. It is often used with a negative to mean that there is no second possibility: to have no alternative. Option emphasizes free right or privilege of choosing: to exercise one's option. Preference applies to a choice based on liking or partiality: to state a preference. 9. select, rare, uncommon, valuable, precious. See fine1 . And how do this support your conclusion? How doesn't it? I've already explained in a hundred posts how you make choices even if the actual choice you make is predetermined. You calling it an illusion of choice doesn't change that it fits with every single definition of the word. We're not talking about determinism... I think I've said that like... 10,000 times. Doesn't matter what you're talking about. The point is that the meaning of choice is inherently different if you believe in free will or not, without changing the definition because everything the definition depends on is already defined by your perspective on free will. If you're not interested in the subject, I don't understand why you're continuing to argue about it, and I don't understand what the point is of your posts in the topic. You haven't shown how definitions are subjective.
I have shown you over and over again that you and I obviously have different opinions on what choice means, even though the definitions support both. Your apparent lack of understanding at this point is something I have little control over, unfortunately.
I also find it hilarious how you keep arguing concepts concerning determinism, while vehemently claiming that's not what you're discussing.
"I dislike blueberry pie."
"What? What's wrong with blueberries?"
"Dude no, I'm not discussing food, I just dislike blueberry pie."
"That's food, and why do you think it's bad?"
"Look dude, I've already said, I'm not discussing food".
|
On July 06 2013 03:20 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 03:16 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 03:14 Tobberoth wrote:On July 06 2013 03:13 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 03:06 Tobberoth wrote:On July 06 2013 03:04 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 02:46 Tobberoth wrote:On July 06 2013 02:41 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 02:33 Tobberoth wrote:On July 06 2013 02:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:
[quote]
What do you mean by "natural definitions"? And I don't think you're really using emergent behaviors correctly here.
[quote]
A meaning that cannot be found in the dictionary? It's found in every dictionary, you're just reading the definition incorrectly. Post an example. I already did. Here's more: 1. the act or an instance of choosing or selecting 2. the opportunity or power of choosing 2. Choice, alternative, option, preference all suggest the power of choosing between things. Choice implies the opportunity to choose: a choice of evils. Alternative suggests that one has a choice between only two possibilities. It is often used with a negative to mean that there is no second possibility: to have no alternative. Option emphasizes free right or privilege of choosing: to exercise one's option. Preference applies to a choice based on liking or partiality: to state a preference. 9. select, rare, uncommon, valuable, precious. See fine1 . And how do this support your conclusion? How doesn't it? I've already explained in a hundred posts how you make choices even if the actual choice you make is predetermined. You calling it an illusion of choice doesn't change that it fits with every single definition of the word. We're not talking about determinism... I think I've said that like... 10,000 times. Doesn't matter what you're talking about. The point is that the meaning of choice is inherently different if you believe in free will or not, without changing the definition because everything the definition depends on is already defined by your perspective on free will. If you're not interested in the subject, I don't understand why you're continuing to argue about it, and I don't understand what the point is of your posts in the topic. You haven't shown how definitions are subjective. I have shown you over and over again that you and I obviously have different opinions on what choice means, even though the definitions support both. Your apparent lack of understanding at this point is something I have little control over, unfortunately. I also find it hilarious how you keep arguing concepts concerning determinism, while vehemently claiming that's not what you're discussing.
You haven't shown once how the definition given supports your interpretation of it. You've just said that it does and posted the definition. Stating an opinion is not synonymous with supporting said opinion with reasoning.
The concepts of determinism and physicalism often intersect, because physicalism almost always (in my opinion always) implies determinism. But I am not discussing determinism, I am discussing physicalism.
|
@ doubleupgradeobbies!
you and your computer!
your computer has a maker, who is your maker?
|
On July 06 2013 03:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 03:20 Tobberoth wrote:On July 06 2013 03:16 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 03:14 Tobberoth wrote:On July 06 2013 03:13 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 03:06 Tobberoth wrote:On July 06 2013 03:04 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 02:46 Tobberoth wrote:On July 06 2013 02:41 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 02:33 Tobberoth wrote:
[quote]
It's found in every dictionary, you're just reading the definition incorrectly. Post an example. I already did. Here's more: 1. the act or an instance of choosing or selecting 2. the opportunity or power of choosing 2. Choice, alternative, option, preference all suggest the power of choosing between things. Choice implies the opportunity to choose: a choice of evils. Alternative suggests that one has a choice between only two possibilities. It is often used with a negative to mean that there is no second possibility: to have no alternative. Option emphasizes free right or privilege of choosing: to exercise one's option. Preference applies to a choice based on liking or partiality: to state a preference. 9. select, rare, uncommon, valuable, precious. See fine1 . And how do this support your conclusion? How doesn't it? I've already explained in a hundred posts how you make choices even if the actual choice you make is predetermined. You calling it an illusion of choice doesn't change that it fits with every single definition of the word. We're not talking about determinism... I think I've said that like... 10,000 times. Doesn't matter what you're talking about. The point is that the meaning of choice is inherently different if you believe in free will or not, without changing the definition because everything the definition depends on is already defined by your perspective on free will. If you're not interested in the subject, I don't understand why you're continuing to argue about it, and I don't understand what the point is of your posts in the topic. You haven't shown how definitions are subjective. I have shown you over and over again that you and I obviously have different opinions on what choice means, even though the definitions support both. Your apparent lack of understanding at this point is something I have little control over, unfortunately. I also find it hilarious how you keep arguing concepts concerning determinism, while vehemently claiming that's not what you're discussing. You haven't shown once how the definition given supports your interpretation of it. You've just said that it does and posted the definition. Stating an opinion is not synonymous with supporting said opinion with reasoning. The concepts of determinism and physicalism often intersect, because physicalism almost always (in my opinion always) implies determinism. But I am not discussing determinism, I am discussing physicalism.
And I asked you how it doesn't. The fact that you can't show how it doesn't, proves that it fits. It's that simple.
You can discuss whatever you want, but the discussion in this case boils down to the existance or non-existance of free wills impact on choice. My reason for not believing in free will stems from my belief in determinism, because determinism dictates that free will can't exist, so it's a given that I'm forced to bring it up in a discussion relating to free will.
|
On July 06 2013 03:29 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 03:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 03:20 Tobberoth wrote:On July 06 2013 03:16 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 03:14 Tobberoth wrote:On July 06 2013 03:13 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 03:06 Tobberoth wrote:On July 06 2013 03:04 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 02:46 Tobberoth wrote:On July 06 2013 02:41 sc2superfan101 wrote:
[quote]
Post an example. I already did. Here's more: 1. the act or an instance of choosing or selecting 2. the opportunity or power of choosing 2. Choice, alternative, option, preference all suggest the power of choosing between things. Choice implies the opportunity to choose: a choice of evils. Alternative suggests that one has a choice between only two possibilities. It is often used with a negative to mean that there is no second possibility: to have no alternative. Option emphasizes free right or privilege of choosing: to exercise one's option. Preference applies to a choice based on liking or partiality: to state a preference. 9. select, rare, uncommon, valuable, precious. See fine1 . And how do this support your conclusion? How doesn't it? I've already explained in a hundred posts how you make choices even if the actual choice you make is predetermined. You calling it an illusion of choice doesn't change that it fits with every single definition of the word. We're not talking about determinism... I think I've said that like... 10,000 times. Doesn't matter what you're talking about. The point is that the meaning of choice is inherently different if you believe in free will or not, without changing the definition because everything the definition depends on is already defined by your perspective on free will. If you're not interested in the subject, I don't understand why you're continuing to argue about it, and I don't understand what the point is of your posts in the topic. You haven't shown how definitions are subjective. I have shown you over and over again that you and I obviously have different opinions on what choice means, even though the definitions support both. Your apparent lack of understanding at this point is something I have little control over, unfortunately. I also find it hilarious how you keep arguing concepts concerning determinism, while vehemently claiming that's not what you're discussing. You haven't shown once how the definition given supports your interpretation of it. You've just said that it does and posted the definition. Stating an opinion is not synonymous with supporting said opinion with reasoning. The concepts of determinism and physicalism often intersect, because physicalism almost always (in my opinion always) implies determinism. But I am not discussing determinism, I am discussing physicalism. And I asked you how it doesn't. The fact that you can't show how it doesn't, proves that it fits. It's that simple.
lol. Are you being serious right now?
|
On July 06 2013 03:37 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 03:29 Tobberoth wrote:On July 06 2013 03:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 03:20 Tobberoth wrote:On July 06 2013 03:16 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 03:14 Tobberoth wrote:On July 06 2013 03:13 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 03:06 Tobberoth wrote:On July 06 2013 03:04 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 02:46 Tobberoth wrote:
[quote]
I already did. Here's more:
1. the act or an instance of choosing or selecting
2. the opportunity or power of choosing
2. Choice, alternative, option, preference all suggest the power of choosing between things. Choice implies the opportunity to choose: a choice of evils. Alternative suggests that one has a choice between only two possibilities. It is often used with a negative to mean that there is no second possibility: to have no alternative. Option emphasizes free right or privilege of choosing: to exercise one's option. Preference applies to a choice based on liking or partiality: to state a preference. 9. select, rare, uncommon, valuable, precious. See fine1 . And how do this support your conclusion? How doesn't it? I've already explained in a hundred posts how you make choices even if the actual choice you make is predetermined. You calling it an illusion of choice doesn't change that it fits with every single definition of the word. We're not talking about determinism... I think I've said that like... 10,000 times. Doesn't matter what you're talking about. The point is that the meaning of choice is inherently different if you believe in free will or not, without changing the definition because everything the definition depends on is already defined by your perspective on free will. If you're not interested in the subject, I don't understand why you're continuing to argue about it, and I don't understand what the point is of your posts in the topic. You haven't shown how definitions are subjective. I have shown you over and over again that you and I obviously have different opinions on what choice means, even though the definitions support both. Your apparent lack of understanding at this point is something I have little control over, unfortunately. I also find it hilarious how you keep arguing concepts concerning determinism, while vehemently claiming that's not what you're discussing. You haven't shown once how the definition given supports your interpretation of it. You've just said that it does and posted the definition. Stating an opinion is not synonymous with supporting said opinion with reasoning. The concepts of determinism and physicalism often intersect, because physicalism almost always (in my opinion always) implies determinism. But I am not discussing determinism, I am discussing physicalism. And I asked you how it doesn't. The fact that you can't show how it doesn't, proves that it fits. It's that simple. lol. Are you being serious right now?
Hmm, still no attempt at showing how the definitions doesn't fit to my concept. Too bad, I expected more.
Oh well, mcc understood what I meant, hopefully others did too. My attempts at explaining it to you, have failed.
Safe to say, you will find no dictionary showing that my interpretation of choice is incorrect, unless you find a definition which specifically mentions free will. Good luck.
|
I've always had this question floating in the back of my mind; havent we, as a race, broken the most fundamental components of biology? That is, the interaction between statements,
1. Form aids in function.
2. Natraul Selection.
Humans, understood through solely a biological perspective, have either reached the pinnacle of evolution, or we have broken the damn thing. That is, if we have reached the pinnacle, we ought to be naturally selecting for those of us who promote the most advantageous situations for reproduction. Yet, in modern society what the most advantageous situation for reproduction is is incredibly complicated. Are we in a society that promotes ppl with genetic disposition, for example, to make a lot of money? with high eq? In other words, who fucks the most? and consistently so? With genetic traits that will be conducive to having sex in novel societal situations that future generations may face? (for example, if in 2070 money is no longer a thing.)
Or perhaps we have broken the fundamental law of biology, and the unifying dictation for all biological developments; that is, we no longer are evolving in a consistent direction. There is no arc over the course of time. It ended when we effectively ended 99.999% possibility of death before mating.
If the latter is the case, there is where discussion becomes interesting. Because than our biological functions can be understood as independent, novel functions with no directed purpose; and thus ideas about purpose and the higher planes of existnece that humanity can supposedly occupy (spirits, souls, all that) become much more relevant.
this doesnt really make sense right now, im supposed to be writing a paper, so sorry  but i like this topic!
|
On July 06 2013 03:03 DertoQq wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 02:45 Xiphias wrote:
I guess the big question is this: Is it possible, by only using chemical reactions and electric signals to produce something that can create and generate feelings? Can you teach a machine to show compassion? As an example, in "I, Robot" the robot tries to save the man from drowning instead of a little girls since the chances of him surviving is greater than her's. The only way the Robot would have understood that he should have tried to save her instead was if he had had compassion. Most likely yes, funnily enough, most movies are overly romanticizing (does this word even exist in English ?) the concept of robots and the reality would be very different. You should check out on the internet, there is a lot of articles (from microbiologist or "computer scientists") about that. For your example about compassion, this is actually much more simpler than that, a robot don't need "compassion" to do that (and neither do humans). There is a reason why we would save the little girl and not the man, and this reason is not an abstract feeling, we simply value the life of the little girl higher than the life of the man. simple numbers.
your argument about compassion doesnt make sense.
a grown man can protect his people, reproduce, has wisdom... blablabla etc. i dont feel like expanding this. i hope you get my point. your argument just didnt make sense  . you just used your personal judgement of a young girl being more valuable than a grown guy as justification.
anyway... i'm surprised so many people argue in favour of "no free will" while our subjective experience suggests otherwise. is this all based on that experiment where people showed that our brain makes decisions before we are aware of them?
because... other than this experiment, there's absolutely nothing pointing towards the answer. our subjective experience tells us that we have free will, mentioned experiment suggests that determinism might be real. but there's alternative interpretations of that experiment out there. some dudes claim we might have an option to veto, but not to choose. that still would be some kind of free will.
how are you guys so sure, while our experience tells us otherwise?
|
On July 06 2013 03:14 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 03:13 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 03:06 Tobberoth wrote:On July 06 2013 03:04 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 02:46 Tobberoth wrote:On July 06 2013 02:41 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 02:33 Tobberoth wrote:On July 06 2013 02:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 02:21 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
Choice and control are both words we use to describe emergent behaviours. It doesn't matter if choices and control have other underlying factors that determine how they work, those emergent behaviours still exist. These are actually the natural definitions of the words. What do you mean by "natural definitions"? And I don't think you're really using emergent behaviors correctly here. Make no mistake choice and control do indeed have a meaning but what you describe as 'illusion of choice/control' ARE their actual meanings. A meaning that cannot be found in the dictionary? It's found in every dictionary, you're just reading the definition incorrectly. Post an example. I already did. Here's more: 1. the act or an instance of choosing or selecting 2. the opportunity or power of choosing 2. Choice, alternative, option, preference all suggest the power of choosing between things. Choice implies the opportunity to choose: a choice of evils. Alternative suggests that one has a choice between only two possibilities. It is often used with a negative to mean that there is no second possibility: to have no alternative. Option emphasizes free right or privilege of choosing: to exercise one's option. Preference applies to a choice based on liking or partiality: to state a preference. 9. select, rare, uncommon, valuable, precious. See fine1 . And how do this support your conclusion? How doesn't it? I've already explained in a hundred posts how you make choices even if the actual choice you make is predetermined. You calling it an illusion of choice doesn't change that it fits with every single definition of the word. We're not talking about determinism... I think I've said that like... 10,000 times. Doesn't matter what you're talking about. The point is that the meaning of choice is inherently different if you believe in free will or not, without changing the definition because everything the definition depends on is already defined by your perspective on free will. If you're not interested in the subject, I don't understand why you're continuing to argue about it, and I don't understand what the point is of your posts in the topic.
As long as we continue abusing deductive reasoning in a manner akin to the possibilities created in this thread, there will be no synthesis on the subject. Haggling over definitions is so far removed from any legitimate, thoughtful discussion about the subject at hand along the trajectory of philosophical tradition, that it is practically begging each individual to come up with their own system of tautological constructs which completely fails to satisfy anyone except himself.
Determinism is unavoidable if one assumes that the real outcome of free will is a sequence of choices which manifest themselves in the future. If you dislocate reality to serve the question, either through self-deification, or projecting a weird kind of omnitemporality to the debater, your conclusion becomes inevitable.
This line of enquiry by which the truth of determinism may be concluded is, however, completely meaningless. It is purposefully juxtaposing the question with a set of conditions in which the condition itself is asserted because the muser desires a specific answer. Reification of the mind will produce an object with unfathomably object-like properties. Deification of the mind will produce an object with unfathomably God-like properties. The "self-evident" proposition that the mind cannot be causeless will produce a caused mind. The equally "self-evident" proposition that the mind is the "self-causing cause" will produce a causing mind. There is no line of argument one can pursue to debunk anyone crawling up these obstructive, dead-end and unproductive lines of inquiry. The man will "prove" what he wants to prove. The only thing you can do is plead for basic intellectual discipline, self-control, and honesty.
|
On July 06 2013 04:25 beg wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 03:03 DertoQq wrote:On July 06 2013 02:45 Xiphias wrote:
I guess the big question is this: Is it possible, by only using chemical reactions and electric signals to produce something that can create and generate feelings? Can you teach a machine to show compassion? As an example, in "I, Robot" the robot tries to save the man from drowning instead of a little girls since the chances of him surviving is greater than her's. The only way the Robot would have understood that he should have tried to save her instead was if he had had compassion. Most likely yes, funnily enough, most movies are overly romanticizing (does this word even exist in English ?) the concept of robots and the reality would be very different. You should check out on the internet, there is a lot of articles (from microbiologist or "computer scientists") about that. For your example about compassion, this is actually much more simpler than that, a robot don't need "compassion" to do that (and neither do humans). There is a reason why we would save the little girl and not the man, and this reason is not an abstract feeling, we simply value the life of the little girl higher than the life of the man. simple numbers. your argument about compassion doesnt make sense. a grown man can protect his people, reproduce, has wisdom... blablabla etc. i dont feel like expanding this. i hope you get my point. your argument just didnt make sense . you just used your personal judgement of a young girl being more valuable than a grown guy as justification.
Then the movie doesn't make sense, not me. But I think overall people would prefer to save a little girl instead of a man, and the only reason is "value" (value can regroup everything, from money, to love or whatever else you can think of). I don't think i'm wrong is saying that society value the life of children higher than everything else.
|
On July 06 2013 04:58 DertoQq wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 04:25 beg wrote:On July 06 2013 03:03 DertoQq wrote:On July 06 2013 02:45 Xiphias wrote:
I guess the big question is this: Is it possible, by only using chemical reactions and electric signals to produce something that can create and generate feelings? Can you teach a machine to show compassion? As an example, in "I, Robot" the robot tries to save the man from drowning instead of a little girls since the chances of him surviving is greater than her's. The only way the Robot would have understood that he should have tried to save her instead was if he had had compassion. Most likely yes, funnily enough, most movies are overly romanticizing (does this word even exist in English ?) the concept of robots and the reality would be very different. You should check out on the internet, there is a lot of articles (from microbiologist or "computer scientists") about that. For your example about compassion, this is actually much more simpler than that, a robot don't need "compassion" to do that (and neither do humans). There is a reason why we would save the little girl and not the man, and this reason is not an abstract feeling, we simply value the life of the little girl higher than the life of the man. simple numbers. your argument about compassion doesnt make sense. a grown man can protect his people, reproduce, has wisdom... blablabla etc. i dont feel like expanding this. i hope you get my point. your argument just didnt make sense . you just used your personal judgement of a young girl being more valuable than a grown guy as justification. Then the movie doesn't make sense, not me. But I think overall people would prefer to save a little girl instead of a man, and the only reason is "value" (value can regroup everything, from money, to love or whatever else you can think of). I don't think i'm wrong is saying that society value the life of children higher than everything else.
society values (or valued) imprisoning cannabis users over non-users too. so what? that doesnt mean anything.
society might value religion over atheism. does it mean religion is right?
|
if the robot was woman, she should've saved the man; if the robot was a man, he should've saved the girl. society should not even be an issue.
|
The world is not deterministic but it is physical, at least according to most physics.
Physics allows for true random processes,for things to occur without a cause, and for causes to make unpredictable things happen.
For example the decaying of radioactive particles, there is no way to predict when a specific particle will decay.
The cause is the instability of the atom, but that instability has an unpredictable result.
Some people say that there is a cause but that we simply dont know it yet and only need more knowledge,like einstein. Some say there is a cause but we can never know it, and the most popular vision is that there simply is no direct cause at all (at least as far as i know, feel free to correct me)
I dont understand why phylosophy does not take this into account and why it wants to hold on to determinism so badly.
"anyway... i'm surprised so many people argue in favour of "no free will" while our subjective experience suggests otherwise" i think because the existance of free will would basicly imply the existence of a god, or at least allow for a god to be possible.
|
there is a difference between pre-determined and determined. the former does not not allow losses of any kind (energy/matter) nor randomization of any kind, while the later well, it does not care if that happens.
and i think philosophy fights against determination?, or at least against pre-determination.
|
Every instance you are at in the present moment, is dictated by the instance before and that instance was dictated by another previous instance all the way back to the big bang. That's it, its just a bunch of dominoes falling and we are the observers.
If free will did exist because the mind is non-physical and has a seperate set of rules, then EVERYONE has free will, and we would limit each other through interaction. So you would have very limited choice in such a situation (virtually 0) because every situation is changed by some other person with free will.
|
On July 06 2013 05:16 Rassy wrote:
The world is not deterministic but it is physical, at least according to most physics.
Physics allows for true random processes,for things to occur without a cause, and for causes to make unpredictable things happen.
For example the decaying of radioactive particles, there is no way to predict when a specific particle will decay.
The cause is the instability of the atom, but that instability has an unpredictable result.
Some people say that there is a cause but that we simply dont know it yet and only need more knowledge,like einstein. Some say there is a cause but we can never know it, and the most popular vision is that there simply is no direct cause at all (at least as far as i know, feel free to correct me)
I dont understand why phylosophy does not take this into account and why it wants to hold on to determinism so badly.
"anyway... i'm surprised so many people argue in favour of "no free will" while our subjective experience suggests otherwise" i think because the existance of free will would basicly imply the existence of a god, or at least allow for a god to be possible.
The original hypothesis of the kind of objection you issue, that of a physical universe governed by an in-determinism of micro-deviations pre-dates modern physics by over two millennia, it was originally postulated by the Epicureans, whose debates against the Atomists can be read alongside this thread to reveal the awful truism that nobody ever has anything really original to say.
|
On July 06 2013 05:16 Rassy wrote:
The world is not deterministic but it is physical, at least according to most physics.
Physics allows for true random processes,for things to occur without a cause, and for causes to make unpredictable things happen.
For example the decaying of radioactive particles, there is no way to predict when a specific particle will decay.
The cause is the instability of the atom, but that instability has an unpredictable result.
Some people say that there is a cause but that we simply dont know it yet and only need more knowledge,like einstein. Some say there is a cause but we can never know it, and the most popular vision is that there simply is no direct cause at all (at least as far as i know, feel free to correct me)
I dont understand why phylosophy does not take this into account and why it wants to hold on to determinism so badly.
"anyway... i'm surprised so many people argue in favour of "no free will" while our subjective experience suggests otherwise" i think because the existance of free will would basicly imply the existence of a god, or at least allow for a god to be possible.
not necessarily god, but something non-physical. Something outside our comprehension for sure, and many people probably label that as god. A dream, a simulation are equally plausible.
|
On July 06 2013 05:29 biology]major wrote:
If free will did exist because the mind is non-physical and has a seperate set of rules, then EVERYONE has free will, and we would limit each other through interaction. So you would have very limited choice in such a situation (virtually 0) because every situation is changed by some other person with free will.
huh? How does having context from interaction make a choice not free? If you can choose freely, it's free will regardless.
|
On July 06 2013 05:31 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 05:16 Rassy wrote:
The world is not deterministic but it is physical, at least according to most physics.
Physics allows for true random processes,for things to occur without a cause, and for causes to make unpredictable things happen.
For example the decaying of radioactive particles, there is no way to predict when a specific particle will decay.
The cause is the instability of the atom, but that instability has an unpredictable result.
Some people say that there is a cause but that we simply dont know it yet and only need more knowledge,like einstein. Some say there is a cause but we can never know it, and the most popular vision is that there simply is no direct cause at all (at least as far as i know, feel free to correct me)
I dont understand why phylosophy does not take this into account and why it wants to hold on to determinism so badly.
"anyway... i'm surprised so many people argue in favour of "no free will" while our subjective experience suggests otherwise" i think because the existance of free will would basicly imply the existence of a god, or at least allow for a god to be possible. The original hypothesis of the kind of objection you issue, that of a physical universe governed by an in-determinism of micro-deviations pre-dates modern physics by over two millennia, it was originally postulated by the Epicureans, whose debates against the Atomists can be read alongside this thread to reveal the awful truism that nobody ever has anything really original to say.
Fuck yeah clinamen.
Also I'd advice reading about the kantian position about determinism and liberty, pretty good stuff, Emmanuel was a smart boy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
