|
On July 12 2013 21:31 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 21:13 DertoQq wrote:On July 12 2013 20:39 rEalGuapo wrote:On July 12 2013 20:29 KingAce wrote:
Freewill doesn't exist. You don't get to pick if you're atheists or theists. The circumstances that have led you here. Where you're born, the time, the culture, your parents, siblings or lack of, access to education, experiences; you don't have a choice in picking any of them. However, they go on to influence the way you perceive the world. And through your perception and experiences, your decisions fall. Within the limits of those parameters.
If you went back in time you would make the same decisions again and again. The limited freewill we have doesn't interfere with predetermined outcome. Your time of death and location is also set in stone.
In theology they call this destiny or karma.
In reality it's called crap. Sure, you can always say everything that ever happened and will happen is predetermined. I have a tough time proving you wrong without creating another universe. Still I really doubt that you should just go ahead and say: "Well Hitler didn't do anything wrong, it was the time he was born and circumstances that made him do those things." It is true that we are all influenced by a variety of things, either we try and be like certain rolemodels or we take the opposite way. HOWEVER we also have acces to a ton of information that we can process without any outside judgement wether or not something was "right". Those sources give us a ground on which we judge experiences and take away from that what we want. In other words, it is true that we are partially a product of genetics and circumstances but saying "free will doesn't exist" is just a way to make yourself feel good even when you fucked up. Take responsibility and act better next time. I don't think you get the concept of "no free-will". You are saying "without outside judgement", what does this mean ? what is outside ? The point of no free-will is that the "inside" (you, your brain) is also predetermined to do something. To put it simply (and I'm strictly talking about pure free-will), you can : (a) believe the brain work the same way as a computer : a process that will always give the same result based on the same inputs. In which case I don't see where there is a place for free-will. You wouldn't say your computer has free-will even though he is the one "choosing" if he wants to print TL.net on your screen or not, right ? (b) believe there is something more to the brain (religion, soul etc..). In which case I guess you can believe that some action are not " chosen" by the " physical part of your brain" and then you would justify free-will, but to me it doesn't make much sense. I don't think ANYONE would justify their action by "Sorry, not my fault, I have not free-will", because if you believe in what I am saying (proposal (a)), then yes, it is still your fault. If my computer stop working and can't display TL.net anymore, I would through it away and buy a new one. All in all, this doesn't even matter, and again, no-one is using it as a justification for anything, it wouldn't make any sense at all. There are also compatiblists like myself who reject the conflict between free will and determinism. Basically, you can define varieties of free will (let's face it free will is poorly defined) that do not conflict with determinism and are perfectly in line with physicalism.
yes of course, that's why I started by saying "pure free-will", I was basically talking about the highest form of free will, at the opposite of determinism. But obviously, free-will is just a word, so you could find a middle-ground =)
edit : Unless I missed something, rEalGuapo's definition of free-will wasn't the compatibilists' one. Which is why I felt like responding, the normal definition of free-will just don't make any sense (unless you want to completely go against determinism).
|
On July 12 2013 20:39 rEalGuapo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 20:29 KingAce wrote:
Freewill doesn't exist. You don't get to pick if you're atheists or theists. The circumstances that have led you here. Where you're born, the time, the culture, your parents, siblings or lack of, access to education, experiences; you don't have a choice in picking any of them. However, they go on to influence the way you perceive the world. And through your perception and experiences, your decisions fall. Within the limits of those parameters.
If you went back in time you would make the same decisions again and again. The limited freewill we have doesn't interfere with predetermined outcome. Your time of death and location is also set in stone.
In theology they call this destiny or karma.
In reality it's called crap. Sure, you can always say everything that ever happened and will happen is predetermined. I have a tough time proving you wrong without creating another universe. Still I really doubt that you should just go ahead and say: "Well Hitler didn't do anything wrong, it was the time he was born and circumstances that made him do those things." It is true that we are all influenced by a variety of things, either we try and be like certain rolemodels or we take the opposite way. HOWEVER we also have acces to a ton of information that we can process without any outside judgement wether or not something was "right". Those sources give us a ground on which we judge experiences and take away from that what we want. In other words, it is true that we are partially a product of genetics and circumstances but saying "free will doesn't exist" is just a way to make yourself feel good even when you fucked up. Take responsibility and act better next time.
Think about it. How many odds did Hitler defy to get himself in power? One does not simply get that far over everyone else by willing himself there. I can't will myself to be the best SC2 player in NA for comparison.
The action you take comes from a thought. A metaphysical concept your mind formulates. At the time you take that action, all circumstances, your mind and body are in agreement. It's easy and it's done. Otherwise you fail, hell for the most part the idea never formulates. You can go back to any regret in you life with the current information and contemplate on how you could've done it differently. But at the time those thoughts were absent.
Instead, you make revisions with the new information on your perception. Therefore, making a different choice in the future. But that new action is governed by the first decision you made.
See how that works.
Some people are born to kill. Some are born to be saviors. That is the cruel nature of the beast.
|
|
|
On July 12 2013 21:31 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 21:13 DertoQq wrote:On July 12 2013 20:39 rEalGuapo wrote:On July 12 2013 20:29 KingAce wrote:
Freewill doesn't exist. You don't get to pick if you're atheists or theists. The circumstances that have led you here. Where you're born, the time, the culture, your parents, siblings or lack of, access to education, experiences; you don't have a choice in picking any of them. However, they go on to influence the way you perceive the world. And through your perception and experiences, your decisions fall. Within the limits of those parameters.
If you went back in time you would make the same decisions again and again. The limited freewill we have doesn't interfere with predetermined outcome. Your time of death and location is also set in stone.
In theology they call this destiny or karma.
In reality it's called crap. Sure, you can always say everything that ever happened and will happen is predetermined. I have a tough time proving you wrong without creating another universe. Still I really doubt that you should just go ahead and say: "Well Hitler didn't do anything wrong, it was the time he was born and circumstances that made him do those things." It is true that we are all influenced by a variety of things, either we try and be like certain rolemodels or we take the opposite way. HOWEVER we also have acces to a ton of information that we can process without any outside judgement wether or not something was "right". Those sources give us a ground on which we judge experiences and take away from that what we want. In other words, it is true that we are partially a product of genetics and circumstances but saying "free will doesn't exist" is just a way to make yourself feel good even when you fucked up. Take responsibility and act better next time. I don't think you get the concept of "no free-will". You are saying "without outside judgement", what does this mean ? what is outside ? The point of no free-will is that the "inside" (you, your brain) is also predetermined to do something. To put it simply (and I'm strictly talking about pure free-will), you can : (a) believe the brain work the same way as a computer : a process that will always give the same result based on the same inputs. In which case I don't see where there is a place for free-will. You wouldn't say your computer has free-will even though he is the one "choosing" if he wants to print TL.net on your screen or not, right ? (b) believe there is something more to the brain (religion, soul etc..). In which case I guess you can believe that some action are not " chosen" by the " physical part of your brain" and then you would justify free-will, but to me it doesn't make much sense. I don't think ANYONE would justify their action by "Sorry, not my fault, I have not free-will", because if you believe in what I am saying (proposal (a)), then yes, it is still your fault. If my computer stop working and can't display TL.net anymore, I would through it away and buy a new one. All in all, this doesn't even matter, and again, no-one is using it as a justification for anything, it wouldn't make any sense at all. There are also compatiblists like myself who reject the conflict between free will and determinism. Basically, you can define varieties of free will (let's face it free will is poorly defined) that do not conflict with determinism and are perfectly in line with physicalism.
I really like van Inwagen's suggestion on this topic of free will's definition: no matter what stance we pick (determinism, compatibilism, libertarianism) there seem to be really compelling arguments against that position. In light of this, perhaps it's the case that "free will" is an incoherent concept because we can't even seem to hypothesize a scenario in which most definitions would even make sense.
|
Was that to make a joke, to show us what some people are willing to believe, or do you actually believe any of that?
|
Was that to make a joke, to show us what some people are willing to believe, or do you actually believe any of that?
I can already tell you didn't read it entirely and skipped around.
|
On July 13 2013 00:57 xContagion wrote:Show nested quote +Was that to make a joke, to show us what some people are willing to believe, or do you actually believe any of that? I can already tell you didn't read it entirely and skipped around.
I read it entirely... I was laughing out loud the all time and had to leave work early : (
(everyone wondering, yes, I was pretty bored today !)
|
On July 12 2013 21:31 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 21:13 DertoQq wrote:On July 12 2013 20:39 rEalGuapo wrote:On July 12 2013 20:29 KingAce wrote:
Freewill doesn't exist. You don't get to pick if you're atheists or theists. The circumstances that have led you here. Where you're born, the time, the culture, your parents, siblings or lack of, access to education, experiences; you don't have a choice in picking any of them. However, they go on to influence the way you perceive the world. And through your perception and experiences, your decisions fall. Within the limits of those parameters.
If you went back in time you would make the same decisions again and again. The limited freewill we have doesn't interfere with predetermined outcome. Your time of death and location is also set in stone.
In theology they call this destiny or karma.
In reality it's called crap. Sure, you can always say everything that ever happened and will happen is predetermined. I have a tough time proving you wrong without creating another universe. Still I really doubt that you should just go ahead and say: "Well Hitler didn't do anything wrong, it was the time he was born and circumstances that made him do those things." It is true that we are all influenced by a variety of things, either we try and be like certain rolemodels or we take the opposite way. HOWEVER we also have acces to a ton of information that we can process without any outside judgement wether or not something was "right". Those sources give us a ground on which we judge experiences and take away from that what we want. In other words, it is true that we are partially a product of genetics and circumstances but saying "free will doesn't exist" is just a way to make yourself feel good even when you fucked up. Take responsibility and act better next time. I don't think you get the concept of "no free-will". You are saying "without outside judgement", what does this mean ? what is outside ? The point of no free-will is that the "inside" (you, your brain) is also predetermined to do something. To put it simply (and I'm strictly talking about pure free-will), you can : (a) believe the brain work the same way as a computer : a process that will always give the same result based on the same inputs. In which case I don't see where there is a place for free-will. You wouldn't say your computer has free-will even though he is the one "choosing" if he wants to print TL.net on your screen or not, right ? (b) believe there is something more to the brain (religion, soul etc..). In which case I guess you can believe that some action are not " chosen" by the " physical part of your brain" and then you would justify free-will, but to me it doesn't make much sense. I don't think ANYONE would justify their action by "Sorry, not my fault, I have not free-will", because if you believe in what I am saying (proposal (a)), then yes, it is still your fault. If my computer stop working and can't display TL.net anymore, I would through it away and buy a new one. All in all, this doesn't even matter, and again, no-one is using it as a justification for anything, it wouldn't make any sense at all. There are also compatiblists like myself who reject the conflict between free will and determinism. Basically, you can define varieties of free will (let's face it free will is poorly defined) that do not conflict with determinism and are perfectly in line with physicalism.
I'm really curious as to how you would define free will, because to me it seems like the only way you could avoid coming up with a blatant contradiction is to reject the pure notion of free will, thus depriving the word of any meaningful value and turning it into a misnomer. I can not see any middle ground here. Either we are completely determined by physical laws, or we aren't. How can you have a compatibalist position between two contradictory ideas?
Randomness doesn't count as we all know. Emergent behaviour is still determined. What else is there that is "free" in the meaningful sense of the word? Because if you dismiss that part of the definition, then I feel like you are just playing with words, and creating a vague definition that makes us feel better about being determined. At that point, your are really nothing more than a determinist!
Edit: Also I love that illuminati story. Being a conspiracy theorist is *a lot* of fun, because you feel like you're living in a Deus Ex universe
|
On July 13 2013 00:57 xContagion wrote:Show nested quote +Was that to make a joke, to show us what some people are willing to believe, or do you actually believe any of that? I can already tell you didn't read it entirely and skipped around.
Read it all up till the predictions made for 2009 and further.
None of wich had come true so i was like: Meh nvm this
As a tip to everyone involved in making these websites and stuff on it: Dont get yourself involved with anny prediction for the future, it is much safer to say nothing about the future and instead stay with general conspiracy stuff,since then you cant be prooven wrong
The website is quiet interesting btw, its basicly a wiki of conspiracys and i spend quiet a few lost hours on there while beeing bored. Lots of interesting stuff, not neccesarely true, but interesting none the less.
|
On July 13 2013 01:19 radscorpion9 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 21:31 DoubleReed wrote:On July 12 2013 21:13 DertoQq wrote:On July 12 2013 20:39 rEalGuapo wrote:On July 12 2013 20:29 KingAce wrote:
Freewill doesn't exist. You don't get to pick if you're atheists or theists. The circumstances that have led you here. Where you're born, the time, the culture, your parents, siblings or lack of, access to education, experiences; you don't have a choice in picking any of them. However, they go on to influence the way you perceive the world. And through your perception and experiences, your decisions fall. Within the limits of those parameters.
If you went back in time you would make the same decisions again and again. The limited freewill we have doesn't interfere with predetermined outcome. Your time of death and location is also set in stone.
In theology they call this destiny or karma.
In reality it's called crap. Sure, you can always say everything that ever happened and will happen is predetermined. I have a tough time proving you wrong without creating another universe. Still I really doubt that you should just go ahead and say: "Well Hitler didn't do anything wrong, it was the time he was born and circumstances that made him do those things." It is true that we are all influenced by a variety of things, either we try and be like certain rolemodels or we take the opposite way. HOWEVER we also have acces to a ton of information that we can process without any outside judgement wether or not something was "right". Those sources give us a ground on which we judge experiences and take away from that what we want. In other words, it is true that we are partially a product of genetics and circumstances but saying "free will doesn't exist" is just a way to make yourself feel good even when you fucked up. Take responsibility and act better next time. I don't think you get the concept of "no free-will". You are saying "without outside judgement", what does this mean ? what is outside ? The point of no free-will is that the "inside" (you, your brain) is also predetermined to do something. To put it simply (and I'm strictly talking about pure free-will), you can : (a) believe the brain work the same way as a computer : a process that will always give the same result based on the same inputs. In which case I don't see where there is a place for free-will. You wouldn't say your computer has free-will even though he is the one "choosing" if he wants to print TL.net on your screen or not, right ? (b) believe there is something more to the brain (religion, soul etc..). In which case I guess you can believe that some action are not " chosen" by the " physical part of your brain" and then you would justify free-will, but to me it doesn't make much sense. I don't think ANYONE would justify their action by "Sorry, not my fault, I have not free-will", because if you believe in what I am saying (proposal (a)), then yes, it is still your fault. If my computer stop working and can't display TL.net anymore, I would through it away and buy a new one. All in all, this doesn't even matter, and again, no-one is using it as a justification for anything, it wouldn't make any sense at all. There are also compatiblists like myself who reject the conflict between free will and determinism. Basically, you can define varieties of free will (let's face it free will is poorly defined) that do not conflict with determinism and are perfectly in line with physicalism. I'm really curious as to how you would define free will, because to me it seems like the only way you could avoid coming up with a blatant contradiction is to reject the pure notion of free will, thus depriving the word of any meaningful value and turning it into a misnomer. I can not see any middle ground here. Either we are completely determined by physical laws, or we aren't. How can you have a compatibalist position between two contradictory ideas? Randomness doesn't count as we all know. Emergent behaviour is still determined. What else is there that is "free" in the meaningful sense of the word? Because if you dismiss that part of the definition, then I feel like you are just playing with words, and creating a vague definition that makes us feel better about being determined. At that point, your are really nothing more than a determinist! Edit: Also I love that illuminati story. Being a conspiracy theorist is *a lot* of fun, because you feel like you're living in a Deus Ex universe
Its a trick of phylosophers.
Determinism and "free will" in the way 90% of the people understands it are not compatible, so they make up their own definition of free will to make determinism and free will compatible.
I still dont quiet understand why they want to hold onto determinism and their idea of free will so badly, but i guess it has a religious ground.
|
On July 13 2013 01:19 radscorpion9 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 21:31 DoubleReed wrote:On July 12 2013 21:13 DertoQq wrote:On July 12 2013 20:39 rEalGuapo wrote:On July 12 2013 20:29 KingAce wrote:
Freewill doesn't exist. You don't get to pick if you're atheists or theists. The circumstances that have led you here. Where you're born, the time, the culture, your parents, siblings or lack of, access to education, experiences; you don't have a choice in picking any of them. However, they go on to influence the way you perceive the world. And through your perception and experiences, your decisions fall. Within the limits of those parameters.
If you went back in time you would make the same decisions again and again. The limited freewill we have doesn't interfere with predetermined outcome. Your time of death and location is also set in stone.
In theology they call this destiny or karma.
In reality it's called crap. Sure, you can always say everything that ever happened and will happen is predetermined. I have a tough time proving you wrong without creating another universe. Still I really doubt that you should just go ahead and say: "Well Hitler didn't do anything wrong, it was the time he was born and circumstances that made him do those things." It is true that we are all influenced by a variety of things, either we try and be like certain rolemodels or we take the opposite way. HOWEVER we also have acces to a ton of information that we can process without any outside judgement wether or not something was "right". Those sources give us a ground on which we judge experiences and take away from that what we want. In other words, it is true that we are partially a product of genetics and circumstances but saying "free will doesn't exist" is just a way to make yourself feel good even when you fucked up. Take responsibility and act better next time. I don't think you get the concept of "no free-will". You are saying "without outside judgement", what does this mean ? what is outside ? The point of no free-will is that the "inside" (you, your brain) is also predetermined to do something. To put it simply (and I'm strictly talking about pure free-will), you can : (a) believe the brain work the same way as a computer : a process that will always give the same result based on the same inputs. In which case I don't see where there is a place for free-will. You wouldn't say your computer has free-will even though he is the one "choosing" if he wants to print TL.net on your screen or not, right ? (b) believe there is something more to the brain (religion, soul etc..). In which case I guess you can believe that some action are not " chosen" by the " physical part of your brain" and then you would justify free-will, but to me it doesn't make much sense. I don't think ANYONE would justify their action by "Sorry, not my fault, I have not free-will", because if you believe in what I am saying (proposal (a)), then yes, it is still your fault. If my computer stop working and can't display TL.net anymore, I would through it away and buy a new one. All in all, this doesn't even matter, and again, no-one is using it as a justification for anything, it wouldn't make any sense at all. There are also compatiblists like myself who reject the conflict between free will and determinism. Basically, you can define varieties of free will (let's face it free will is poorly defined) that do not conflict with determinism and are perfectly in line with physicalism. I'm really curious as to how you would define free will, because to me it seems like the only way you could avoid coming up with a blatant contradiction is to reject the pure notion of free will, thus depriving the word of any meaningful value and turning it into a misnomer. I can not see any middle ground here. Either we are completely determined by physical laws, or we aren't. How can you have a compatibalist position between two contradictory ideas? Randomness doesn't count as we all know. Emergent behaviour is still determined. What else is there that is "free" in the meaningful sense of the word? Because if you dismiss that part of the definition, then I feel like you are just playing with words, and creating a vague definition that makes us feel better about being determined. At that point, your are really nothing more than a determinist! Edit: Also I love that illuminati story. Being a conspiracy theorist is *a lot* of fun, because you feel like you're living in a Deus Ex universe
Is "pure" free will even logically coherent? Assuming that it did exist, how would we define it? If it has nothing to do with physicality, then it has nothing to do with our brains, which means it has nothing to do with us (even if you're not a physicalist, everyone agrees that the brain has SOMETHING to do with consciousness and thought). If it's magic, then it's not us.
|
Well then why not simply say that free will does not exist?
Just because it would not be a popular statement to make?
That seems to be a verry bad reason for people who are searching for "the truth" (phylosophers)
|
On July 13 2013 01:19 radscorpion9 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 21:31 DoubleReed wrote:On July 12 2013 21:13 DertoQq wrote:On July 12 2013 20:39 rEalGuapo wrote:On July 12 2013 20:29 KingAce wrote:
Freewill doesn't exist. You don't get to pick if you're atheists or theists. The circumstances that have led you here. Where you're born, the time, the culture, your parents, siblings or lack of, access to education, experiences; you don't have a choice in picking any of them. However, they go on to influence the way you perceive the world. And through your perception and experiences, your decisions fall. Within the limits of those parameters.
If you went back in time you would make the same decisions again and again. The limited freewill we have doesn't interfere with predetermined outcome. Your time of death and location is also set in stone.
In theology they call this destiny or karma.
In reality it's called crap. Sure, you can always say everything that ever happened and will happen is predetermined. I have a tough time proving you wrong without creating another universe. Still I really doubt that you should just go ahead and say: "Well Hitler didn't do anything wrong, it was the time he was born and circumstances that made him do those things." It is true that we are all influenced by a variety of things, either we try and be like certain rolemodels or we take the opposite way. HOWEVER we also have acces to a ton of information that we can process without any outside judgement wether or not something was "right". Those sources give us a ground on which we judge experiences and take away from that what we want. In other words, it is true that we are partially a product of genetics and circumstances but saying "free will doesn't exist" is just a way to make yourself feel good even when you fucked up. Take responsibility and act better next time. I don't think you get the concept of "no free-will". You are saying "without outside judgement", what does this mean ? what is outside ? The point of no free-will is that the "inside" (you, your brain) is also predetermined to do something. To put it simply (and I'm strictly talking about pure free-will), you can : (a) believe the brain work the same way as a computer : a process that will always give the same result based on the same inputs. In which case I don't see where there is a place for free-will. You wouldn't say your computer has free-will even though he is the one "choosing" if he wants to print TL.net on your screen or not, right ? (b) believe there is something more to the brain (religion, soul etc..). In which case I guess you can believe that some action are not " chosen" by the " physical part of your brain" and then you would justify free-will, but to me it doesn't make much sense. I don't think ANYONE would justify their action by "Sorry, not my fault, I have not free-will", because if you believe in what I am saying (proposal (a)), then yes, it is still your fault. If my computer stop working and can't display TL.net anymore, I would through it away and buy a new one. All in all, this doesn't even matter, and again, no-one is using it as a justification for anything, it wouldn't make any sense at all. There are also compatiblists like myself who reject the conflict between free will and determinism. Basically, you can define varieties of free will (let's face it free will is poorly defined) that do not conflict with determinism and are perfectly in line with physicalism. I'm really curious as to how you would define free will, because to me it seems like the only way you could avoid coming up with a blatant contradiction is to reject the pure notion of free will, thus depriving the word of any meaningful value and turning it into a misnomer. I can not see any middle ground here. Either we are completely determined by physical laws, or we aren't. How can you have a compatibalist position with two contradictory ideas? Randomness doesn't count as we all know. Emergent behaviour is still determined. What else is there that is "free" in the meaningful sense of the word? Because if you dismiss that, then I feel like you are just playing with words, and creating a vague definition that makes us feel better about being determined. But at that point, you have to admit that you are still a determinist.
Well, yes it is deterministic. The problem with free will is that it's basically talking about our agency. Well, we certainly have agency and wants and desires and some of them we can even achieve through our own power. Certainly that's true regardless of the determinism.
The thing is when you talk about agency, deterministic or not, you have to talk about what the agent can do to affect itself or it's environment. And suddenly you realize that any kind of sensible definition of free will needs to take into consideration the circumstance of the agent. Some things they have power over and some things they can't. And when you get into that sort of pragmatism you get all the nice things about free will like moral resposibility and meaning in life or whatever, but still in a deterministic world.
So I think you can define free will so that it's in conflict with determinism, but the motivations for those definitions imo are just not necessary. The reason people don't like determinism is that they feel it robs people of their agency and power, when it simply doesn't. You have just as much power and agency as you always did, even in a deterministic world. Hence free will and determinism are not in conflict.
There is no "pure free will." There's a bunch of definitions for it, even the ones that conflict with determinism.
|
If the world is 100% deterministic, then what do i have control or power over?
I can not change my future, i can not take a different direction.All i can do is walk the path wich has been set out for me.
I dont see how that is a positive idea either tbh, then i much rather prefer a stochastic world without free will.
Well nvm this, this has been discussed since the start of the thread and we not getting closer to an agreement.
Phylosopers keep holding on to their definition of free will, saying other definitions make no sense. and thoose who find that definition not representing true free will are not giving in either, its going in circles.
I am still realy curious though for the motive to hold on to this notion of free will to make it compatible with determinism.
|
Question: How can you tell if the mind is deterministic or probabilistic without first determining which of the two: Neuronal activity and thought, is the cause and which the effect?
|
On July 13 2013 01:45 Rassy wrote:
If the world is 100% deterministic, then what do i have control or power over?
I can not change my future, i can not take a different direction.All i can do is walk the path wich has been set out for me.
I dont see how that is a positive idea either tbh.
You have control over everything you have control over. I don't understand. You can walk and eat and fight and post on forums. You obviously have control over things.
I don't know what you mean "I can't control my future." You have just as much control over your actions as you always have. Certainly the future is going to happen, but that's true in indeterministic worlds as well. A future that doesn't happen never happens...
There is no path set out for you. That implies somebody set a path for you.
|
I am still realy curious though for the motive to hold on to this notion of free will to make it compatible with determinism.
Well I'm curious about the motive for notions of free will that are incompatible with determinism. Seems pointless to me.
|
On July 12 2013 21:13 DertoQq wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 20:39 rEalGuapo wrote:On July 12 2013 20:29 KingAce wrote:
Freewill doesn't exist. You don't get to pick if you're atheists or theists. The circumstances that have led you here. Where you're born, the time, the culture, your parents, siblings or lack of, access to education, experiences; you don't have a choice in picking any of them. However, they go on to influence the way you perceive the world. And through your perception and experiences, your decisions fall. Within the limits of those parameters.
If you went back in time you would make the same decisions again and again. The limited freewill we have doesn't interfere with predetermined outcome. Your time of death and location is also set in stone.
In theology they call this destiny or karma.
In reality it's called crap. Sure, you can always say everything that ever happened and will happen is predetermined. I have a tough time proving you wrong without creating another universe. Still I really doubt that you should just go ahead and say: "Well Hitler didn't do anything wrong, it was the time he was born and circumstances that made him do those things." It is true that we are all influenced by a variety of things, either we try and be like certain rolemodels or we take the opposite way. HOWEVER we also have acces to a ton of information that we can process without any outside judgement wether or not something was "right". Those sources give us a ground on which we judge experiences and take away from that what we want. In other words, it is true that we are partially a product of genetics and circumstances but saying "free will doesn't exist" is just a way to make yourself feel good even when you fucked up. Take responsibility and act better next time. I don't think you get the concept of "no free-will". You are saying "without outside judgement", what does this mean ? what is outside ? The point of no free-will is that the "inside" (you, your brain) is also predetermined to do something. To put it simply (and I'm strictly talking about pure free-will), you can : (a) believe the brain work the same way as a computer : a process that will always give the same result based on the same inputs. In which case I don't see where there is a place for free-will. You wouldn't say your computer has free-will even though he is the one "choosing" if he wants to print TL.net on your screen or not, right ? (b) believe there is something more to the brain (religion, soul etc..). In which case I guess you can believe that some action are not " chosen" by the " physical part of your brain" and then you would justify free-will, but to me it doesn't make much sense. I don't think ANYONE would justify their action by "Sorry, not my fault, I have not free-will", because if you believe in what I am saying (proposal (a)), then yes, it is still your fault. If my computer stop working and can't display TL.net anymore, I would through it away and buy a new one. All in all, this doesn't even matter, and again, no-one is using it as a justification for anything, it wouldn't make any sense at all.
Problem is that the fact that nobody is granting free will to a computer, has nothing whatsoever to do with it running deterministic processes, but because a computer, as far as we can tell, has no conscious experience, does not self-reflect and forms no intentions. And if it were, I would grant it free will - deterministic or not. To me it seems like a perfect example to demonstrate that the two matters, free will and determinism, are almost fully orthogonal.
I further don't get in what respect 'pre-'determined is different from fully determined or why this should matter. I mean either whatever happened 'had' to happen or whatever happened 'just' happened. If your notion of fee will is compatible with one but not the other I suggest it's either incoherent or gratuitous. Could you try to formulate how an underdetermined relationship between causes and effects could grant you any freedom worth wanting?
|
No i dont implie someone set out a path for me, though if you insists i could say the laws of physics predetermine my path (accourding to your idea of the world)
How do i have control over something if there is only one possible option for me to choose?
The control is an ilusion but this is just going in circles (and not for the first time in this thread)
I also dont say that a free will is possible inside a stochastic world, i have to agree with you and a stochastic world does not seem to leave the option open for a true free will to exist.
And it doesnt realy matter if quantum effects play a role inside my brain for the determinism of my thoughts. (to get back on an earlier discussion that quantum effects dont play a role inside my brain and that therefor my thoughts would be deterministic)
They play a role in the outward world and i can simply make a devise that gives me a big electrical shock (not big enough to die from off course) depending on some stochastic quantum effect happening or not.
Say i dont get the shock now, then we can run the world again in wich i for example do get the shock, in wich case my brain will be altered and i will have different thoughts.
|
On July 13 2013 01:45 Rassy wrote:
If the world is 100% deterministic, then what do i have control or power over?
I can not change my future, i can not take a different direction.All i can do is walk the path wich has been set out for me.
I dont see how that is a positive idea either tbh, then i much rather prefer a stochastic world without free will.
Well nvm this, this has been discussed since the start of the thread and we not getting closer to an agreement.
Phylosopers keep holding on to their definition of free will, saying other definitions make no sense. and thoose who find that definition not representing true free will are not giving in either, its going in circles.
I am still realy curious though for the motive to hold on to this notion of free will to make it compatible with determinism.
You cannot 'change your future' under indeterminism either?! I mean from what to what? Whatever it will be, the future is just gonna happen. The only thing you can do is change what you once anticipated to be your future to something actually different by taking intentional actions. This you can do under indeterminism and determinism and that's where our freedom lies. Compatibilism directly follows.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
