|
On July 13 2013 02:11 MiraMax wrote:Show nested quote +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.
A good definition of free will would be the ability to innaugurate a new chain of consequence in the world. But then again it isn't compatible with determinism. Which is fine, I mean initially people who believed in free will did no in determinism.
I really will never get compatibilism.
|
Maybe all of us should change our lives from the predestinated path by making a quantum shock machine and putting a finger in it
It could be a big succes at carnivals and such. "Change your future here! 1 $ only"
I really will never get compatibilism
Neither will i , i think. Nor understand the motivation to look for such a compatibilism.
|
On July 13 2013 02:05 MiraMax 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. 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.
Sure, i guess if you would be willing to grant "free-will" to a computer with a conscious experience / decision making etc.., then I agree with your definition of free-will. I would say it is very close to the kind of free-will DoubleReed is talking about.
|
Everybody's a philosopher now, huh?
On July 12 2013 21:13 DertoQq wrote:
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 ?
This is such a gross simplification of the way the brain works that it invalidates the rest of your claim. Further, it reminds me of Newton's mechanical model of the universe, which essentially considered everything (including our brains) to be clockwork -- winding down predictably until the end of time. Modern science generally agrees that there is randomness in the very building blocks of our universe (quantum physics, etc) -- it seems reasonable that our brains are not immune from such randomness.
To put it more simply, given the same inputs, random events could potentially cause two systems (people, groups, molecules, etc) to respond differently. Pure causal determinism isn't possible under this model.
that's my belief, anyways. To some degree, however, I want to believe in free will -- I hate the idea that I have no control -- so I'm biased.
On July 13 2013 01:53 Vivax wrote:
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?
If there's a good argument for thought being the cause of brain activity that doesn't appeal to the supernatural, I'd love to hear it. Could you expand on your question?
As an aside, if I've misused any terms, please correct me. I'm not so good with semantics.
|
On July 13 2013 02:16 Rassy wrote:Maybe all of us should change our lives from the predestinated path by making a quantum shock machine and putting a finger in it I really will never get compatibilism Neither will i , i think.Nor understand the motivation to look for such a compatibilism, though i asume it to have its origins in religion. (nothing wrong with religion btw, though i think it should not be a guideline when doing phylosophy)
The motivation is getting away from nonsense statements like "the future is inevitable" and "I don't have control over things" or "I follow the path set out for me."
None of these make any sense. It's not that you have no control, it's that YOU are deterministic. Your desires and thoughts and capabilities are just as real as real can be. You have plenty of control and power.
|
Well there is another option to get away from these statements, and that is to accept a stochastic world.
I dont see how the future is not inevitable in a deterministic world btw, nor see how a stochastic world would remove your power and control more substantially then a deterministic world would.
|
On July 13 2013 02:33 Varpulis wrote:Everybody's a philosopher now, huh? Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 21:13 DertoQq wrote:
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 ?
This is such a gross simplification of the way the brain works that it invalidates the rest of your claim. Further, it reminds me of Newton's mechanical model of the universe, which essentially considered everything (including our brains) to be clockwork -- winding down predictably until the end of time. Modern science generally agrees that there is randomness in the very building blocks of our universe (quantum physics, etc) -- it seems reasonable that our brains are not immune from such randomness. To put it more simply, given the same inputs, random events could potentially cause two systems (people, groups, molecules, etc) to respond differently. Pure causal determinism isn't possible under this model. that's my belief, anyways. To some degree, however, I want to believe in free will -- I hate the idea that I have no control -- so I'm biased. .
It was a voluntary simplification because it is something that has already been talked about earlier. Yes, the world is probably not fully deterministic. But we are talking about the brain and free will here. First, it has never been proven that quantum physic has an impact on your decision making. Secondly, even if it did, I don't see how something random gives you more free will.
I don't think that this has any relevance to the point I was trying to make.
|
What does that mean "the future is inevitable"? This phrase seems like a tautology. It makes no difference if it is deterministic or not.
|
On July 13 2013 02:41 Rassy wrote:
Well there is another option to get away from these statements, and that is to accept a stochastic world.
I dont see how the future is not inevitable in a deterministic world btw, nor see how a stochastic world would remove your power and control more substantially then a deterministic world would.
What would a stochastic world be ??
|
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 did read it entirely, for entertainment purposes.
|
People want free will because they want to feel their lives, their desires and aspirations are worth something. Unfortunately, there not. You're a program, that is how much free will you have. You function within the parameters set for you. Within these parameters the illusion of free will and purpose manifest. However, there is no meaning to it, there is no point to any of it.
Every individual aspires for happiness, wealth, purpose etc. However, those things are achieved by those predetermined to gain them. The successful are a minority, everyone else is a try hard. And even the successful are not content if even happy. So they also continue to ponder and desire. Some achieve while most settle. You die and someone else is born and repeats the cycle. The world changes but human ambition continues, ever searching for the elusive freedom.
The contradiction, the universe is deterministic because every system functions within limits. Laws that can be observed and studied. Reverse engineered by the mind to remodel human thought. From a metaphysical space to an objective one, a material one. Through this remodeling.(Music, Movies, Anime, Technology, etc) We find that what the human mind wants, is a world without limits...a free world. That is the amusing part.
|
On July 13 2013 02:16 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 02:11 MiraMax wrote: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. A good definition of free will would be the ability to innaugurate a new chain of consequence in the world. But then again it isn't compatible with determinism. Which is fine, I mean initially people who believed in free will did no in determinism. I really will never get compatibilism.
New with respect to what? Why is it not good enough to be able to intentionally take an essential part in a chain of consequences? Freedom in other domains of inquiry is assessed in terms of relevant 'can-do's. Is the will of a human being not more free than the will of a dog? Or of an ant eater? Or of an ant?
On July 13 2013 02:16 Rassy wrote:Maybe all of us should change our lives from the predestinated path by making a quantum shock machine and putting a finger in it It could be a big succes at carnivals and such. "Change your future here! 1 $ only" I really will never get compatibilism Neither will i , i think. Nor understand the motivation to look for such a compatibilism.
Compatibilism is an ancient concept that was devised by simply thinking hard about a non-trivial question at a time when freedom of will was not essential for some religious salvation proposal. It's motivation was and is that there is something different about humans and other mammals and to understand that this difference is important while not dependent at all on determinism means to better understand it. No more, no less...
|
how would a deterministic event between a murderer and its victim work?.( @Rassy )
- it was determined for one to be the killer and for the other one the victim?; how the hell can that even make sense?. everything leading to that point, to that event, as far as the victim is concerned, determined her to be a victim?. that goes against the most basic instinct of survival/self preservation. how can you make a case about how someone was determined, by prior events, to be a victim?.
|
Am not sure on how to answer that as i believe in a stochastic world.
Sure all systems function within limits (though i personally believe there are no limits, but lets just say there are) but that does not make the world deterministic, as it can be random as long as its within thoose limits.
In a deterministic world the killer would have been destined to be the killer, and the victem would have been destined to be the victem. It could be compared to that when you add up 1 and 2, you are destined to get 3 as your answer. the only difference would be the scale and complextity of the calculation.
There would be no other outcome or answer possible, as long as you follow all the rules of a deterministic world.
I dont know how else to describe it or make sense of it.
I do believe in punishing criminals btw, but from a pragmatic point of vieuw, not from an ideological point of vieuw.
Punishing someone from an ideological point of vieuw i would find wrong.
|
On July 13 2013 03:48 Rassy wrote:
I do believe in punishing criminals btw, but from a pragmatic point of vieuw, not from an ideological point of vieuw.
Punishing someone from an ideological point of vieuw i would find wrong.
what does that even mean... especially if you think that everything in the universe is predetermined to happen, or even destined to happen.
You blame the philosophers for free will, but you could take their example atleast when it comes making clear what you mean, that is, to explicate your definitions. You mix up so many things on so many levels I don't even know what to make of it.
|
On July 13 2013 04:05 TSORG wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 03:48 Rassy wrote:
I do believe in punishing criminals btw, but from a pragmatic point of vieuw, not from an ideological point of vieuw.
Punishing someone from an ideological point of vieuw i would find wrong. what does that even mean... especially if you think that everything in the universe is predetermined to happen, or even destined to happen. You blame the philosophers for free will, but you could take their example atleast when it comes making clear what you mean, that is, to explicate your definitions. You mix up so many things on so many levels I don't even know what to make of it.
He meant that the legal system exist to prevent people from doing things that make everyone else life more shitty, not because the philosophy of their actions are "morally wrong or right". =pragmatism vs moral
|
On July 13 2013 04:25 DertoQq wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 04:05 TSORG wrote:On July 13 2013 03:48 Rassy wrote:
I do believe in punishing criminals btw, but from a pragmatic point of vieuw, not from an ideological point of vieuw.
Punishing someone from an ideological point of vieuw i would find wrong. what does that even mean... especially if you think that everything in the universe is predetermined to happen, or even destined to happen. You blame the philosophers for free will, but you could take their example atleast when it comes making clear what you mean, that is, to explicate your definitions. You mix up so many things on so many levels I don't even know what to make of it. He meant that the legal system exist to prevent people from doing things that make everyone else life more shitty, not because the philosophy of their actions are "morally wrong or right". =pragmatism vs moral
I understood that much, but what does that mean in the world he believes we live in. In the world he thinks we live in, this discussion is entirely pointless, and we only have it because some input determined that we have it.
Ofcourse the legal system exists to preven people from doing things that make everyones life more shitty, the problem that arises is in defining what exactly "more shitty" means (also, who is included into everyone). You cannot say, we want pragmatic law, unless you define the values it is empty, and when you define the values, it is becomes another ideology.
|
On July 13 2013 05:00 TSORG wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 04:25 DertoQq wrote:On July 13 2013 04:05 TSORG wrote:On July 13 2013 03:48 Rassy wrote:
I do believe in punishing criminals btw, but from a pragmatic point of vieuw, not from an ideological point of vieuw.
Punishing someone from an ideological point of vieuw i would find wrong. what does that even mean... especially if you think that everything in the universe is predetermined to happen, or even destined to happen. You blame the philosophers for free will, but you could take their example atleast when it comes making clear what you mean, that is, to explicate your definitions. You mix up so many things on so many levels I don't even know what to make of it. He meant that the legal system exist to prevent people from doing things that make everyone else life more shitty, not because the philosophy of their actions are "morally wrong or right". =pragmatism vs moral I understood that, but what does that mean in the world he believes we live in. In the world he thinks we live in, this discussion is entirely pointless, and we only have it because some input determined that we have it. Ofcourse the legal system exists to preven people from doing things that make everyones life more shitty, the problem that arises is in defining what exactly "more shitty" means. You cannot say, we want pragmatic law, unless you define the values it is empty, and when you define the values, it is becomes another ideology.
I dont think everything in the universe is predestined to happen, i was hoping this would be clear by now lol.
You are technically right,in the end the pragmatism is based on another ideology which defines the values,though we dont need to establish thoose values inside a phylosophical framework and by thinking verry hard and deeply to find the "truth", we could simply vote on them.
I would be more then happy to determine these values in a democratic way, and let the population decide wich criminal acts should be punished and with what sentence, this is what i meant with pragmatic. Maybe i should have worded it differently.
DertoQq summarised my position quiet well btw,
The above just to answer your objection that in the end pragmatic would still be ideological because we have to determine thoose values, we can determine thoose values in other ways then ideological ways, for example by simply voting on them.
|
I think there's an interesting discussion to be had about the differences between the law and morality. On the one hand, if we had a completely perfect moral system, then it wouldn't make any sense for that not to be the law, since everyone would understand it by way of its perfection and would therefore know exactly why wrong is wrong and right is right. On the other hand, though, there are many things that most people agree are wrong but that most people would have problems with the state intervening with, like (deceptive) adultery, or even general, malicious lying with no serious material or emotional consequence. I think the reason for this has to do with the fact that we don't have a perfect state, nor a perfect moral system, nor a perfect legal system, which means that we're uncomfortable according absolute jurisdiction to any one of them, particularly when the events in question are private, interpersonal things like lying to your spouse or trying to break up someone's marriage.
|
On July 13 2013 05:12 Rassy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 05:00 TSORG wrote:On July 13 2013 04:25 DertoQq wrote:On July 13 2013 04:05 TSORG wrote:On July 13 2013 03:48 Rassy wrote:
I do believe in punishing criminals btw, but from a pragmatic point of vieuw, not from an ideological point of vieuw.
Punishing someone from an ideological point of vieuw i would find wrong. what does that even mean... especially if you think that everything in the universe is predetermined to happen, or even destined to happen. You blame the philosophers for free will, but you could take their example atleast when it comes making clear what you mean, that is, to explicate your definitions. You mix up so many things on so many levels I don't even know what to make of it. He meant that the legal system exist to prevent people from doing things that make everyone else life more shitty, not because the philosophy of their actions are "morally wrong or right". =pragmatism vs moral I understood that, but what does that mean in the world he believes we live in. In the world he thinks we live in, this discussion is entirely pointless, and we only have it because some input determined that we have it. Ofcourse the legal system exists to preven people from doing things that make everyones life more shitty, the problem that arises is in defining what exactly "more shitty" means. You cannot say, we want pragmatic law, unless you define the values it is empty, and when you define the values, it is becomes another ideology. I dont think everything in the universe is predestined to happen, i was hoping this would be clear by now lol. You are technically right,in the end the pragmatism is based on another ideology which defines the values,though we dont need to establish thoose values inside a phylosophical framework and by thinking verry hard and deeply to find the "truth", we could simply vote on them. I would be more then happy to determine these values in a democratic way, and let the population decide wich criminal acts should be punished and with what sentence, this is what i meant with pragmatic. Maybe i should have worded it differently. DertoQq summarised my position quiet well btw, The above just to answer your objection that in the end pragmatic would still be ideological because we have to determine thoose values, we can determine thoose values in other ways then ideological ways, for example by simply voting on them.
No it is not clear, that is why I asked you to make it more clear. You mix in so many terms with different connotations that it is completely unclear what exactly it is that you are saying
But if I may guess I think you mean to say we are determined that if one event would happen at another time under the exact same circumstances we would react to it exactly the same way and there is nothing we could do about it. We are hardwired to always respond to input A with response Z in situation 1. What I fail to see then however, is why we would still punish someone since our very legal system is based on the assumption that we are responsible for our own actions and that we can deliberately do these actions. I mean I can envision some sort of system that would put to death everyone who breaks the law, but this would hardly be "justice". Otherwise, there is no reason to punish them since they are hardwired to do whatever it is what they will do.
Ofcourse, if what you say is true, this entire conversation is rather pointless, since your response is already hardwired, and so is my response after that etc, and there is nothing we can do about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
