/lit/ - Literature

>>2969884
>2012

I'd say no.

>>2969884
common sure, then again its pretty common for people to believe in just about anything that people believe in.

>>2969884
That cow still has a free choice.

>>2969907
This.

Free choice is just a feeling we have, not an objective situation. Freedom is just a way of acting convinced you are not being constraint by forces that surpass our control or awareness.

I'd imagine not. The idea goes completely against anything atheists claim to believe in.

I'm putting up a millon dollar prize in this thread for anyone who even comes close to explaining how the concept of absolute freedom (which itself is a paradox) could be applied in this universe or for that matter in any other universe.

How can an agent be absolutely free if one has to have a set parameters to function (act) in the first place?

The free will issue overlaps so heavly with infinity/God (creator intelligence) it makes me shit rainbows.

I'm putting up a millon dollar prize in this thread for anyone who even comes close to explaining how the concept of absolute freedom (which itself is a paradox) could function in this universe or for that matter in any other universe.

How can an agent be absolutely free if one has to have a set parameters to function (act) in the first place?

The free will issue overlaps so heavly with infinity/God (creator intelligence) it makes me shit rainbows.

I'm atheist and I don't technically believe in free will.

I can't speak for other atheists though.

>>2969968
>absolute freedom
>free will

pick uno, you cretin

>>2969919
This but also the fact that the cow can still choose to go left or right. The comic really doesn't capture determinism at all.

The best way to conceptualise determinism vs free will is to view time from above either as a straight line - ie. deterministic - or as the branches of a tree.

There really no way for anyone to know which one reflects reality unless they can time travel or observe time from a position outside time.

>>2969937
>The idea goes completely against anything atheists claim to believe in.

No, it doesn't. You act as if Atheists believe in all the same things beyond lack of belief in a deity.

>>2969966
This only makes sense if by absolute freedom you mean omnipotence. You have the ability to make rational choices (left or right) or to make radical choices (to not move through the left or right gate at all), but the limitations of these choices are just a manifestation of limited power.

>We can do as we will but we cannot will as we will.
Best explanation I've heard.

Google compatibilism.

You still have free will, seeing as you have no control over anything determined. You still choose your own way.

This is the way I see it (if that makes any sense to you)

>>2969992
What would it mean to will something we do not will?

>>2969996

Only way to be absolutely free is to be nothing, non existence, no "spacetime" parameters affect you. To exist means you are bound by the system you inherent.

Does being omnipotent mean you have the power to decide with absolute freedom? How can one decide any action with total freedom if one must exist in a system to decide. To exist is to have parameters. To exist is to exist in a system (with limits). To decide is to derive your decison from parameters. Even if you're omnipotent. The other option of being infinite chaos of infinity of all possiblities doesn't give room for the word "free" either.

That being said, how is free will still up for a debate if the idea of absolute freedom (true freedom, "free will") doesn't even make a slightest sense. Being "free" within the constrains of the system is limited freedom. Be our actions deterministic or chaotic/random - the idea of real "freedom" doesn't even make sense to me.

Define will.

Free will does essentially imply some supernatural force though.
Your brain is still just a complex computer, and if we could fully understand, and map every factor, and every stimuli, I suppose we could calculate every choice as well.

>>2970161
So? why does that imply the lack of free will?

>>2970163
Because if your actions are 100% predictable, you have no real choice in making them.

>>2970163
Unless you flip a coin, which would eliminate "free" anyways, "you" have no choice.

>>2970168
Yes you do. That deterministic mechanism IS you. What it does you choose. Why should that not be free will? where are the chains. That fact that your actions always follow from who you are. Your choices are consistent with your nature. This is the ultimately what we want out of free will. You are not chained by determinism. You ARE determinism. That system which follows from cause to effect is you, and that system wills and does so freely, unconstrained.

I am regularly greatly confused by this debate, what would a free will mean? What are these people trying to prescribe for it as necessary?

>>2970170
Should I interject quantum determinism in here?

>>2970176
You can't see the chains, they're too far out of your immediate perception. Everything (absolutely everything) leading up to a certain moment where you can 'choose' something has already determined how you'd act in that situation.

But it's close enough to free will for me, I guess.

>>2970181
Then what is free will? What is required?

>>2970175
We all understand quantum determinism, Hawk. Come on.

It's just a difficult concept to reconcile with every day life.

>>2970184
>>2970175
I haven't come that far in either physics nor philosophy - but the moment you transfer the deciding force, you have lost your "free" will anyways?

>>2970175
>Should I interject quantum determinism in here?
No, it's a bogus, remporary concept akin to the elements, aether et al.

>>2970000
define 'you'
>2012
>thinking sentience makes you a single entity distinct from the rest of the universe
everyone do the shig dig diggy

It's not that "free will" does not exist, it's that the concept of free will itself is flawed.

Can we make a conscious choice? Yes. Is the choice physically predetermined? Yes. The two are different, unrelated processes.

>>2970194
Where'd you learn that, Cheech? Drug school?

>>2970189
>I haven't come that far in either physics nor philosophy
An electron (matter) behaves like a wave and a particle (something only light should do), unless it's being directly observed. This means it is breaking a fundamental rule of relative physics. Furthermore, if you fire electrons one at a time it they still behave like waves, meaning a single electron occupies multiple positions in space time, and will interact with itself.

We are not talking about quarks here, which is why it's so remarkable, we have no way of predicting the actions of one of the main three constituents of a simple atom.

>>2970239
u wot m8

>>2970240
> This means it is breaking a fundamental rule of relative physics
What rule would that be?

>we have no way of predicting the actions of one of the main three constituents of a simple atom.
It shouldn't have any affect on the brain, mainly driven by gradients of ions - as far as I know.

You guys realize the picture is political in nature.. right?

1. Probably fairly common.
2. I'm 90% sure that image is about voting.

>>2970094

I agree with Compatiblism, at least as it is depicted here

>>2970287
this guy read this:
>>2970283
and repeated it to seem smart

the picture is about voting you dumbtards

>>2970334
breaking news: thread discussion is irrelevant to the picture posted alongside it

>>2970338

breaking news: /lit/ derails threads immediately and proceeds to stay viciously on-topic with the new subject

>>2970334
Cows don't have sufferage, idiot.

>>2970353
Nope gained it in 1919

>>2970353
You obviously haven't heard about the protests, where the cows burned their udder straps to gain suffrage. I think one got trampled by a horse too.

>>2970371
udder straps? that doesn't really work

>>2970345
actually the op started off talking about determinism so the thread never actually derailed

>>2970375
could it ever really derail? I mean it could only have ever really gone in the way in which it did.

>>2970378

>>2970378
well it did derail (as in digressed from the topic that was originally mentioned) for a second there while we were discussing whether or not it had derailed but we're back on track now.

>>2970373
I agree. That is udderly preposterous that cows could undertake such a moovement. It's clear as grass they never cud hoof reached the numbers of cow paticipants needed for the cow tipping point. It is too much to lebeef.

I have been sent back in time to prevent this thread from going any further. the consequences were...disastrous for species.

>>2970408
ahahaha fuck you long live the determinism thread

>>2970408
I wasn't going to post, but now I must post.

>>2970407
My bitter cynical mind doesn't often permit me to smile, and I often scowl at puns, but one glance in the mirror revealed that the corners of mouth were indeed contorted in a disgustingly close approximation. Thank you, sir, this day has been noted.

>>2970442
I'm glad I've brought some warmth to that fresian exterior just by milking a few puns.

I never understood the concept of free will. What does free mean in this context. Free from what? Causes? But wouldnt a will free from causes be random, and not free?

>>2970471
You're precisely right, which is why the whole free will debate is largely pointless.

>>2970471
>>2970477
It means magic. Seriously, its nothing that we can understand with logic and corresponds to nothing we have or could ever see. Its just something magic that is both uncaused and not random.

>>2970471
>What does free mean in this context.
In the picture? It's suggesting the cow has the illusion of 'free choice', because he is able to choose to go left or right, but they ultimately result in the same outcome. It would be a horrible analogy for 'free will', similar to someone holding up a sock puppet on both hands, but is a good metaphor for western politics.

Free will, as discussed in this thread, concerns ones actioned in life. Are you free to do anything, or are you restricted by being a physical property of the universe to follow a predetermined path?

This leads us to hard and soft determinism, and leads you to google.

The universe is basically a magic. I mean, how else it all be ... ?

>>2970511

This post should be stickied.

>>2970471
The way I always understood is that things are free because individual agency exists. That is, I am not you and you are not me. As long as this distinction holds up we can talk of beings separate from one another.

'Will' comes from the fact that there is a choice to be made. Technically we don't know if there is a choice to be made but it's from the fact that we cannot predict the future that we are able to think feel and believe we are making choices.

Hence my diagram further up. The future is uncertain which is where choice between different possible factors, or will, comes from.
and I have agency which is not your agency which is where 'free' comes from.

That's it explained. That's the existence of free will.

BUT the issue gets tangled up in another debate which is whether or not time is one linear path we're stuck to or whether there is a bunch of possible paths. From our perspective, we don't need to bother with this question because it's a metaphysical issue. in other words, it transcends our reality. You need to be external to our timeline to answer it definitively.

From our perspective we have something that is free will which is either individuality + choice or the feeling of choice which from our inescapable perspective comes out to the same thing.

Nevertheless the debate won't go away because as it turns out that metaphysical idea of fate is actually much more interesting but of course we need a way to make it meaningful to us so we join it up with the free will issue that is already settled by the fact that human beings differentiate between individuals, distinguish points on the causal mechanism and cannot tell the difference between real choice and feeling of choice.

>>2970471
It's weird because I personally can't even remember what I thought free will was supposed to be back when I believed in it. I wonder if that's because of a previous lack of thinking things through or later self brainwashing after turning to determinism.

As far as I can tell, "free will" is a sort of god of the gaps, or rather a freedom of the gaps. It really does assume omnipotent power over someone's immediate environment to do as they please, so long as there is no overwhelmingly obvious block around that no one could deny would restrict that power. So people will say you can go ANYWHERE you would will to go, unless you want to free will your way through a brick wall. In which case, people will say your free will suddenly doesn't apply to that situation since "obviously" you can't do THAT. The level of freedom of will you have seems to vary and shift depending on how ignorant the actor is about all the minute forces that affect him to the level of that "obvious" insurmountable point.

>>2970548
You're an idiot. Free will is never conceived of as omnipotence by philosophers or lay people. That would retarded so you rejecting it on that basis is even more retarded.
Free will is individuality + choice, or the illusion of choice between which from our perspective there is no difference, I mean for all of us, not the guy making the decision. It's just a restriction on our circumstance within this universe, not like we've convinced ourselves that we're making a choice when we're not.

The fate,determinism thing vs the idea that a choice is definitely being made is simply a debate about whether or not that choice is a real choice or an illusion (whether there are multiple possible branches in time or just one branch). it's an interesting but irrelevant discussion from our perspective.

>>2970573
>Free will is never conceived of as omnipotence by philosophers or lay people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_free_will
>Accounts of libertarianism subdivide into non-physical theories and physical or naturalistic theories. Non-physical theories hold that the events in the brain that lead to the performance of actions do not have an entirely physical explanation, and consequently the world is not closed under physics. Such interactionist dualists believe that some non-physical mind, will, or soul overrides physical causality.
Seems like the hardcore incompatibilists do believe in a sort of small scale omnipotence. Primarily in the "mind" or "soul", which they usually figure is separate from physical reality. I don't blame them because I don't see how you can have true choice without being completely uninfluenced by outside forces. And you can't be completely uninfluenced by outside forces without either partially existing outside of reality or somehow being "immune" to forces that would normally affect you but you WILL not to affect you, i.e. omnipotence - of a sort.

>Free will is individuality + choice
Are you the person that made this >>2970518
post? It didn't make any sense to me. In fact, half of it came off as word salad. I don't see how individuality has any significant importance to the question of free will. And again, choice is really problematic without an actor being in a rare (impossible?) situation where they have an option to do at least two actions without any influence whatsoever on either "choice" - an absolute 50/50 split.

>>2970697
Let's say you could go down either the left or the right path in the OP image. You must choose. What if I then hold a gun to your head and say I will shoot you if you choose the right path? Do you have free will to choose? Some will say yes, some will say no (I say no). Let's say, statistically, actors that are assumed to have something called free will choose the left path 99% of the time given the stated influences. What if I build a brick wall over the right path? Now 100% of actors statistically free will themselves over to the left path. What if I find a medium between those two extremes and electrify the right path so that it gives excruciating pain if you choose it (there is no other advantage to choosing the right path)? Now 99.9% of actors go to the left path.

Is there really a significant difference between the forces that counteract against the "choice" of the right path in these scenarios? Only in the level of severity in how totally they affect the actors. They all the same affect every one of the actors though, and if those extremes can affect ability to choose in an observable way with consistency then should it not stand to reason that other less extreme force also deny an influence free choice in action in a collective and compound effect? If your "choice" is not free of influence then how can you say it is really a choice of your own free will and not a choice forced on you by the universe or by me putting weird ass negative consequences to your choices?

>it's an interesting but irrelevant discussion from our perspective.
Don't see why. It is of great importance. The assumption of free will affects all corners of modern society.

The Universe is deterministic, which means everything that occurs within it is also deterministic.

You don't have free will. If Chuck Norris was to hit the "reset" button on the Universe, you would do the exact same things as you did in the previous version of the Universe.

The Greek idea of fate rested on the idea not that the Gods could force a path upon, but that you would choose a path, and ONLY that path, due to your personality traits and there was nothing you could do except accept that and try to do the best you can with what you got.

>>2970161
>Your brain is still just a complex computer, and if we could fully understand, and map every factor, and every stimuli, I suppose we could calculate every choice as well.

you are so stupid and have no idea about what you are talking about IT HURTS

>>2970719
another uneducated idiot

any good reading on the subject that doesn't take a definitive stance either way? I know how I think it is, but I'd like to read more on it from a relatively unbiased standpoint

hard determinism atheist here

>>2970897

educate me then, bitch-nigga. And by educate, I don't mean bitch out and never respond

>>2970897
>>2970894
this guys right. the soul is what gives humans free will cos its a part of god. humans arent computers retards.

“Let us imagine a man who, while standing on the street, would say to himself: ‘It is six o’clock in the evening, the working day is over. Now I can go for a walk, or I can go to the club; I can also climb up the tower to see the sun set; I can go to the theater; I can visit this friend or that one; indeed I also can run out of the gate, into the wide world, and never return. All of this is strictly up to me, in this I have complete freedom. But still I shall do none of these things now, but with just as free a will I shall go home to my wife.’ This is exactly as if water spoke to itself: ‘I can make high waves (yes! in the sea during a storm), I can rush down a hill (yes! in the river bed), I can plunge down foaming and gushing (yes! in the waterfall), I can rise freely as a stream of water into the air (yes! in the fountain), I can, finally, boil away and disappear (yes! at certain temperature); but I am doing none of these things now, and I am voluntarily remaining quiet and clear water in the reflecting pond.’”

>>2969884

Yes it is common, because atheists don't need to foist a canon of accountability onto their actions to exonerate an imaginary deity who would otherwise be left in full responsibility for everything.

The Ancients had no understanding of the problem that we call 'free will', or 'Liberum arbitrium indifferentiae'. Such a 'free' will would be one determined by nothing, or one that is self-determining, which in turn is a case of causa sui.

Now go away.

>>2970945
>FUCK JESUS OH SCIENCE I LOVE DAWKINS HNNNG HIS CUM IS ALL OVER ME AHHH FUCK GOD

atheists are such annoying pricks

>>2970950

If this were an actual debate they'd be escorting you from the room now.

>>2970945
So you're a hard determinist

>>2970912
>And by educate, I don't mean bitch out and never respond
Ha, good luck...

>>2970965
>determined to circlejerk

glad determinism will never become popular
fucking sociopath "philosophy"

>>2970961

No, but you're clearly a university child.

>it's so cute, they think they can get hold of the thing by coming up with these little checklist categories

>>2969884

You could opt for compatibilism.

I feel like the cow can sit down and stay where she is at, turn around or go to the left or right in that comic along with the 2 sides of going forward to die