/lit/ - Literature

there is no free will.
volition is merely the conceptualization of chemical reactions in the brain

lol good luck

The illusion of free will is free will...dat phenomenology

i'll just follow my hunch on this one.
i see no need to argue for it.

am I correct in assuming physicalist determinism is effectively the same as causal determinism, similar to what Hobbes put forth?

>>1502222

if you have to make that distinction, you can.

nice quads

>>1502204
>JARGON JARGON JARGON JARGON JARGON JARGON JARGON JARGON JARGON JARGON

Welp, here we go.
Part 1 of 2: The case against physical determinism.

Einsteinean physics, which have been corroborated to a certain extent via physical experimentation, indicate that traditional Newtonian physics do not function at higher speeds. This and some other work in theoretical physics has been used as the basis for string theory, which disavows physical determinism on the grounds that all physical interactions are governed to a very slight degree by chaotic chance. Unlike the special theory of relativity, there is to my knowledge no experimental verification of this principle, and what it would indicate undermines the very basis of the scientific method: that, all factors being equal, two identical actions will have identical reactions. Nevertheless, it is worth mentioning.

A wild discordian appears

>>1502223
the only reason I asked is because Hobbes allowed for free will to be compatible with his determinism by invoking the concept of deliberation, the ability to choose not to follow through with the 'compulsions' caused by matter in motion & all. Until deliberation is complete, things could happen differently. Only once the decision is made, was it necessary.
But I think I have a less-than-complete understanding of free will, I'm struggling to understand the issue in the whole divine foreknowledge excluding free will problem. It just doesn't seem like an issue.
And Hobbes' determinism was decidedly soft.

>>1502231
Part 2 of 2: Free Will and Determinism

Determinism follows naturally from the assumption that the world is comprehensible, in that, if like causes have like effects, and we can predict anything about the world based on past experience, every action and effect is subject to a litany of causes, stretching back to some hypothetical first cause.
There are two ways of conceptualizing free will, one of which is and one of which is not mutually exclusive to a determinisitic universe. In the first, free will is the ability to determine the way one acts in the world: to decide between alternatives. In a deterministic world, any free will of this sort would be illusory, and therefore trivial and nonexistent, because there are no alternative courses of action. As part of a massive, thus far incomprehensible physical system, you, your brain, your intentions and your actions all necessarily come out in a particular way.
The second, compatible definition of free will is as the ability to act as one desires to act. This seems like a semantic difference, but it isn't. People don't have a problem with the idea that their actions are predictable. In fact, we routinely construct self-concepts and concepts of others in order to define in as rigid a way as possible exactly how we would act in any given situation. Our mutually exclusive definition implies that determinism restricts our freedom as does an oppressor, while the second merely sees it as the guiding principle for our intentions. Of course we act as we are inclined to act. Why would we want to act any other way?

its because we've already decided. the game is over already. we are just the shadows of men already dead being cast upon the walls of a cave. though the flame will flicker and we think we move, but nothing has changed. so there we are, stuck in place, yet going through the temporary flicker we call life.

did you really think the universe is traveling in a linear direction through time and space?

Fucking philosophers. On and on with semantics till the very end. I fucking love people who think that talking about shit actually happening is the same as knowing what shit is actually happening.

Fucking, lao tzu makes so much sense now.

>>1502260
>MFW behavioral research indicates that the semantic terminology used to describe things reflects and to an extent determines the way they are understood.
>MFW semantics and knowledge are basically the same thing.

Things happening in ways that seem random in the context of what we may currently be looking at does not violate determinism.

I terms of free will, your choices could be close to infinite inside an entirely physics based system. As if the difference matters. Could you ever think of that many, regardless?

>>1502204
I had sex with your mother last night

thats how

>>1502268
>MFW philosophers throw contradicting but detailed semantics and logic at eachother, all with their own pretension that they're right over everyone else
>MFW behavioral research is the equivalent to intellectual masturbation

>>1502204
>reconcile determinism with the exact opposite of determinism

well okay lol

determinism is the free will of the universe, bro

>>1502302
>mfw hard scientists describe events in the world using complex and detailed semantics and don't acknowledge that events are thermodynamically unique and never re-occur.
>mfw science is just philosophy that doesn't examine its assumptions.

>>1502314
>MFW when i fucking love you

>>1502314
>implying that philosophy DOES imagine its assumptions
>so optimistic, bro
>so optimistic

>>1502314
I like what Russell said about how, when any area of philosophy gets to a point where it can be agreed upon, it becomes a form of 'science,' like physics or psychology.
I wonder what they'd name ethics

>>1502351
Now we're getting somewhere. Philosophy is a battle of conflicting worldviews, and semantic arguments are the way that old conceptualizations are communicated and sometimes replaced by new ones. Philosophers cannot always exceed their assumptions. It has been claimed that it is impossible not to make any assumptions, but that is an active and thriving part of the mainstream of philosophical thought. Scientism itself is one sort of philosophy, a subset of empricism which takes experiential evidence as canon and relies on repetition and peer review for verification, yet there is no acceptable way to examine those assumptions from within the community. There is talk of pseudoscience and purity of perspective, and endless arguments about what qualifies as rigorous experimentation, yet no one even considers the possibility that contradictory evidence might be produced, or that the perceptions used to analyze experimental results might be biased.
And why? Because we are taught from a time before we ever learn the method that science is a path to infallible truth. We think that occurrences, as we sense them, form meaningful patterns, which are unarguably as our minds analyze them, but we aren't taught that our insights might be incorrect, or that we might be able to conceptualize two different abstractions in ways that are functionally capable of predicting a majority of results, but which are nevertheless incompatible with one another.

already done but not gonna tell u

wow this thread is retarded get out