/lit/ - Literature

>>17165220
Unless I am missing something I do not see a logical link between rational egoism and possibility of free will. Seems like nothing but a non sequitur for me.

>>17165220
>for he only pursues that which he perceives to be in his best interests.
Prediction and Free Will
If you know all possible conditions of a physical system you can, in theory (though not, as we saw, in practice), project its behavior into the future. But this only concerns inanimate objects. We hit a stumbling block when social matters are involved. It is another matter to project a future when humans are involved, if you consider them living beings and endowed with free will.
If I can predict all of your actions, under given circumstances, then you may not be as free as you think you are. You are an automaton responding to environmental stimuli. You are a slave of destiny. And the illusion of free will could be reduced to an equation that describes the result of interactions among molecules. It would be like studying the mechanics of a clock: a genius with extensive knowledge of the initial conditions and the causal chains would be able to extend his knowledge to the future of your actions. Wouldn’t that be stifling?
However, if you believe in free will you can’t truly believe in social science and economic projection. You cannot predict how people will act. Except, of course, if there is a trick, and that trick is the cord on which neoclassical economics is suspended. You simply assume that individuals will be rational in the future and thus act predictably. There is a strong link between rationality, predictability, and mathematical tractability. A rational individual will perform a unique set of actions in specified circumstances. There is one and only one answer to the question of how “rational” people satisfying their best interests would act. Rational actors must be coherent: they cannot prefer apples to oranges, oranges to pears, then pears to apples. If they did, then it would be difficult to generalize their behavior. It would also be difficult to project their behavior in time.

>>17165228
If he cannot ever oppose his best interests, then what of his free will?

>>17165220
The statement is based on evolution.

One counterargument is that people don’t often do what’s in their best interest.

>>17165220
>pursues that which he perceives to be in his best interests
This is simply not true.

>>17165220
>pursuing what you think is your best interest isn't free will
So you've got rent-free will or something? It's just making you do stuff and it's not even there?

>>17165261
Of course, which is why I distinguish between their perceived interest and actual interest.

>>17165262
You would rather say that people would pursue that which is contrary to their interests? Why, THAT cannot be true!

>>17165284
>would pursue that which is contrary to their interests?
Sometimes, of course. Most people have 0 idea what is good for them. That's why they overeat, don't exercise and have retarded politics.

>>17165220
Free will is a retarded concept that makes no sense.

>>17165284
I was thinking the former too. Most often people don’t act in their best perceived interest either.

>>17165296
>knows what's good for other people
>doesn't believe we are free to pursue what is good
Sounds like a personal problem. You might be an NPC

>>17165304
>makes no sense
It does, you're just too retarded to understand it. I've never interacted with a high IQ free will denier.

The question of free will is a fruitless endeavor. Whether one has free will or does not have free will, they live their life exactly the same.

>>17165282
You are confusing 'free will' and 'will' in general. Man wills himself towards his perceived interests, the Will which is always subordinate to interest cannot be considered 'Free'.

>>17165296
Once again, perceived interests. It may be disheartening to hear, but they really do perceive it to be the best path forward. Their folly must be attributed to shortsightedness more than anything else.

>>17165308
Lay off the potato chips, fatty.
>>17165315
People also act against their perceived rational best interest. That's why the concept of a sacrifice exists.

Are you just regurgitating Notes from the underground? kek

>>17165314
You might say that about any subject of metaphysics. Just because you have no interest in it doesn't make it irrelevant. But the debate on free will, even if free will itself is meaningless as you claim, the debate is pregnant with consequences for human social life, the study of it, and its technical application by governments and other organizing institutions.

>>17165250
The statement, then, is reduces to "people find it difficult to act against their self-interest". As such, it faces two problems.

First, it talks about weakness of will, not freedom of will in absolute sense. However difficult a person could find it to act in his self-interest, there is nothing in principle preventing people from doing this, and often times people do behave against their self-interest even through hesitation.

Second, it confuses conceptual notions which are discussed while debating the problem of free will. Theoretical accounts on action divide it into belief, desire and intention, and the debate on possibility of free will arises from whether an agent has control over his intention, not his desire. No one would debate that people have no control over their desire, and no one questions whether desire in a very large part is determined by self-interest. What is not yet resolved in philosophy is whether, faced with a certain largely uncontrollable desire (such as an uncontrollable desire to act in accordance to self-interest) an agent is free to act upon his desires and beliefs or whether the possibility of such act is out of agent's control.

>>17165314
>The question of free will is a fruitless endeavor.
Wrong.
>Whether one has free will or does not have free will, they live their life exactly the same
Whether one thinks that he has free will or doesn't, has MASSIVE consequences for his life.

>>17165315
>You are confusing 'free will' and 'will' in general. Man wills himself towards his perceived interests, the Will which is always subordinate to interest cannot be considered 'Free'.
Man wills himself based on his interests? So he is making a choice? Interesting. How did he make this choice? Did he will it as you claim? Or was he willed to do it because of those 'interests'? Because if the later, now the will is free but you are not!

>>17165322
>sacrifice is against interest
Read Bataille. We are living in a society that is refusing to sacrifice its excess right now, and look at what that does to people. They are certainly feeling a lot less free.

>>17165311
most free willers are low iq retards.

>>17165314
it has huge implications for how we organize society. responsability and all that shit.

>>17165311
>never interacted with a high IQ free will denier.
Because free will is a voight-kamf test for weeding out NPCs

>>17165345
>Whether one thinks that he has free will or doesn't, has MASSIVE consequences for his life.

Nah, they may think it does, but they still just go do the same shit they would have anyway.

>>17165378
>most free willers are low iq retards.
Among common people who haven't philosophically investigated the issue, perhaps. Among people genuinely interested in the topic, free will deniers are overwhelmingly the low IQ ones.

>>17165378
Nah, it only really has implications for the criminal justice system. But whether a criminal has free will or not, they have to be segregated away from society anyway. It's still the same.

>>17165324
Socrates, actually. Funnily enough, he was also referred to in the Notes as a naive child.

>>17165322
You bring up a very good point, sacrifices do infact occur in our society and, from a superficial glance, they seem to contradict my statement, but it is not the case. Because I am somewhat incompetent, allow me to use an example. The rational man, whose consciousness permeates his body, if afflicted with some disease or other, will volunteer a limb in order to preserve the entire body. This sounds reasonable, acceptable even. Now imagine a type of consciousness which envelops not only the body but also his entire association, tribe, society, commune, corporate, whatever, so that his goals coincide with the goals of his peers. Wouldn't that same man be willing to volunteer himself, and also regard in his best interest? And yet, this might seem too far-fetched.

>>17165357
It is not a choice, he cannot will otherwise.

>>17165415
>criminal justice system
Ah yes that institution which impacts the range of choices felt available by billions of governed people around the world. Truly a minor point!

Does the remorseful and repenting man addicted to masturbation, hard drugs and who is overweight believe that he is doing what is in his best interest as he continues to waste away masturbating, injecting heroin and eating enough food for 3 men?

>>17165427
>It is not a choice, he cannot will otherwise.
He doesn't have a choice but wills things one way or the other?

>>17165439
Going by the premise, yes he does. Truly tragic.

>>17165439
The only way OP's argument works is if he makes the notion of "rational self-interest" to mean anything that the individual does, in which case the statement becomes a tautology.
It also then doesn't contradict the notion of free will in the slightest. There is no argument from "man does what he does" to "there's no free will".

>>17165439
Does best interest have anything to do with free will? That people frequently make poor choices, if anything, suggests more freedom than less.

>>17165452
No, only one way.

>>17165220
Booba

>>17165466
If everything is totally predetermined, down to choice not even existing as anything other than mental activities meant to lead to one result in the first place, how do you explain the ineffable manifoldness and diversity of organic and mechanical processes unfolding around you at all times? Everything is just a magically complex piece of clockwork without any degrees of freedom?

>>17165497
This is not a good argument against determinism. It is well known that low complexity rules can produce behavior of extremely high complexity.
Determinism is compatible with complex, diverse systems. However, it's incompatible with quantum physics.

>>17165497
Yes, and what more, that this clock has its own Artisan...

>>17165510
...and He does not play with dice.

>>17165537
>...and He does not play with dice.
Yeah, free will is not randomness.

>>17165311
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Determinists

>>17165510
>Determinism is compatible with complex, diverse systems. However, it's incompatible with quantum physics.
Ah so as we continue to research the building blocks of reality we have to abandon determinism anyway

>>17165537
>Yes, and what more, that this clock has its own Artisan...
Sure we don't have free will but I guess we can somehow imagine something that does using its free will to take away ours, behaving so curiously like we do towards each other

>>17165220
OP here, after some contemplation, I realised there actually must be a Free Will, if only to contrast with the determined Will. A very silly oversight on my part. This thread may be concluded now.

>>17165674
What makes you think your brain didn’t make you think that and didn’t make your awareness, perception and thoughts perfectly matched and integrated for you?

>>17165706
Your brain is a cancer of the nervous system. Are you your brain?

>>17165717
I’m an awareness who is forced to be aware of a will and of thoughts, but I am only an awareness.

>>17165706
You see, my brain likes to compare itself to a wifi dongle; perhaps it does not create its own awareness, but receives it from one great fountain of wisdom.

>>17165732
>>17165732
The awareness relies then on all these other things, brains, wills, thoughts, interests, etc. as feeder systems yes? And then by eliminating rivalrous possibilities an action is made? We can debate how 'free' this action is but to suggest the data we are fed is totally deterministic of our final decision is untenable. It robs us of our own awareness and gives it to some unknown party which decides for us, reduces us to the data fed to someone else. But in fact we are already both feed and feeder, data for others, data for ourselves, as they are data for us and data for themselves. If degrees of freedom were totally eliminated there is no explanation for anything that happens short of saying something somewhere has free will but not you. Something which apparently does not even receive data to make decisions in the first place, since then it would be unfree, determined. Now since free will involves making decisions, and decisions require data, this is nonsense and therefore we are back to having free will after all.

>>17165408
Anon you are both wrong and retarded.

But you do have good taste in anime girl pics so keep posting.

>>17165401
>they still just go do the same shit they would have anyway
This. We may choose from a number of options, but are choices are limited because we all have inclinations. In order to have true free will, one would have to be a blank slate, completely uninfluenced both by the outside world and his own character. As it is you can choose to do a particular thing but what choices you *tend to make are more or less set in stone

>>17165971
>are
Fuck me, I've never made that mistake before

>>17165427

>The rational man, whose consciousness permeates his body, if afflicted with some disease or other, will volunteer a limb in order to preserve the entire body. This sounds reasonable, acceptable even. Now imagine a type of consciousness which envelops not only the body but also his entire association, tribe, society, commune, corporate, whatever, so that his goals coincide with the goals of his peers. Wouldn't that same man be willing to volunteer himself, and also regard in his best interest?

It's not even that complicated. Truly selfless actions do not exist. A man who sacrifices himself for his people out of a sense of duty etc. does it in an attempt to act out his own ideal of the kind of man he should be. At bottom, it's about how HE feels vs. how he would feel if he shirked his duty. The potential shame of failing to do what he believes he should do outweighs the fear of death.

>>17165778
That's what Aldous Huxley thought too

>>17165220
Just read Bergson's Essay and realize how stupid determinism is. Feelsgood seeing determinists brainlets trying to justify reddit tier theories. There isn't a single decent thinker that really advocated to determinism, only faggots that read too much Spencer or actually believes in some random dialogues in a certain Dosto novel

>>17165220
>"that man could not be endowed with the free will, for he only pursues that which he perceives to be in his best interests."
yes and that's what free will is. what are you trying to say? pursuing what you want is somehow not a choice? doing something because it benifits you, or others in some way is free will by definition.
what more do you think is possible? should we abandon all thought and logic and live life like animals?
fucking braindead sophists

Can a man change the fact that in the end, only one sequence of event gets realized?
Guess not.
Can a man change the fact that his environment determines the way he ultimately acts?
Guess not.
Can a man choose NOT to do something, in order to assert his control over his own actions, while it not being his own action?
Guess not.
Is there still room for free will?
Guess not.

Next, on the list of truths humanity need to internalize:
-Why matter is just energy
-Why energy is just a manifestation of space-time curvature.
-Why our reality is just a manifestation of space-time, which is just a manifold
-Why everything mathematical exist (spacetime included)
-Why everything, paradoxical or not, exist

The existential dread you're feeling right now is courtesy of the 4chin community.
Here's a cute animu girl to cope.

>>17165220
>that man could not be endowed with the free will, for he only pursues that which he perceives to be in his best interests.
Man has free-will: otherwise counsels, exhortations, commands, prohibitions, rewards, and punishments would be in vain. In order to make this evident, we must observe that some things act without judgment; as a stone moves downwards; and in like manner all things which lack knowledge. And some act from judgment, but not a free judgment; as brute animals. For the sheep, seeing the wolf, judges it a thing to be shunned, from a natural and not a free judgment, because it judges, not from reason, but from natural instinct. And the same thing is to be said of any judgment of brute animals. But man acts from judgment, because by his apprehensive power he judges that something should be avoided or sought. But because this judgment, in the case of some particular act, is not from a natural instinct, but from some act of comparison in the reason, therefore he acts from free judgment and retains the power of being inclined to various things. For reason in contingent matters may follow opposite courses, as we see in dialectic syllogisms and rhetorical arguments. Now particular operations are contingent, and therefore in such matters the judgment of reason may follow opposite courses, and is not determinate to one. And forasmuch as man is rational is it necessary that man have a free-will.

>>17165315
>Man wills himself towards his perceived interests

What else would he will himself towards?

>>17165220
Anime posters don't have free will. Prove me wrong by acquiring a 3DPD gf

>>17168351
No one is denying that man is more rational than a sheep, or a rock.
But does that fact alone subtracts the man from the path he is following?
Much like water flowing down a hill when atop, man goes down his path in time and space without straying, then die, much like he was programmed to. Him feeling unique or having sentiment of free will changing nothing to the course of action.

>>17165284
Like 80% of Americans are obese

>>17168402
>man goes down his path in time and space without straying
Straying from what?

>>17168443
From his path, duh

>>17168452
Yeah ok and what is his path?

>>17168474
A chunk of space and time.

>>17168486
Being obtuse won't help you. You have to be honest when speaking about things. What is mans path and what is its cause.

>>17168260

Disregarding your vulgar conflation of freedom of will and freedom of action, I would say that the answer to all those questions is yes. For example, "one sequence of events" can be self-contradictory. Is the crucifixion a Catholic nightmare of appeasing Yaldabaoth or magnanimous Socratic Gnosis? Do the cretinous inertia of your bodily movements and you thinking of that reply comprise "one sequence"? Ironically, it can ONLY be "one sequence" by and in one's free will, the rigor you ascribe to that which is determined from without actually only operates from within.

>>17168532
Being acute won't help you.
A chunk of space and time is all there is to us. You can't subtract yourself from it.
You can't be defined by anything else but a set of relations. Set of relations which can be defined by a set of numbers, which we conveniently designate as space-time.

>>17168555
First of all, nice trips.
Second of all. Cut all this fucking semantic crap. The feeling of freewill that so ferociously blinds most of us is so ironically inscribed into the set of things that is we can't control that it is at the very least laughable, and at most depressing.
If you don't have the freedom of action, you don't have the freedom to will.

>>17165220

>>17168428
It is perceived as their interest to gorge on mcwhoppers and mountain d.