/lit/ - Literature

>>3984519

Go away, manchild.

The knowledge generated by humankind is at your fingertips and you're not even aware that our concept of freedom is based on Roman Law's conception of dominus, which is a pater familias approach to slavery relationships.

>>3984519
Not new, this is the basic introduction to fatalism. Why would that make you euphoric, it doesn't solve anything at all.

"The sun is the size of the human foot."

Euphoric.

"Oscar Wilde said that a genius is a spectator to their own life, to the point that the real genius is uninteresting," said Luis. "No Marisa has never threatened to kill me."

Euphoric.

Why does the nonexistence of free will depress people???

Icy is so retarded lol

>>3984745
Because then nothing is worth a single damn at all. Everything is meaningless.

>>3984812
meaning the statement that everything is meaningless is meaningless as well.

Determinism is dumb as fuck. Just forget about this shit and act as if you had free will. It's destined anyways, so who cares?

Atop referring to life or existence as "meaningful" or "meaningless". That's a childs way of approaching the subject.

Determinism is stupid. Any idiot can say that something that happens is "fated" to happen. If an alternative were to have happened, then the determinist would be "right" anyway.

Its a stupid argument based on semantics.

>>3984818
No. That's not what we're talking about, and you are also wrong. L2logic. I put forth logic on meaning based on free will. Not logic on logic.

>>3984892
>Its a stupid argument based on semantics

your stupidity belongs on /pol/

>>3984519
"Who are you quoting?"

>>3984892
It's not what happens,but how you view it.

>>3984915
Sorry, in a world where "everything is meaningless" (the words of the person I was responding to) even logic is meaningless.

This conversation is meaningless, my words are meaningless, your response is meaningless, all actions and reactions are meaningless.

>>3984812
How in the almighty fuck do you get that? You clearly don't understand. You make a decision every day don't you? Yes, so as far as you know you have free will. But really you don't becauese:

For everything that happens, according to the events preceding, it was *the only thing that could happen*.

If you feel like you have free will isn't that all that matters?

>>3985060
>Sorry, in a world where "everything is meaningless"
>everything is meaningless, because we don't have free will
>assuming what we are arguing about (whether free will exists or not) is already decided
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
>get the FUCK out you faggot
>l2argue

>>3985081
>How in the almighty fuck do you get that?
If there is no free will, there isn't any meaning imparted by you. Everything is and will be and there is nothing you can do about it. Existence is a cinema show in which you have front row seats, not a play in which you are an actor. Sit back and enjoy the ride because you have no power.

>But really you don't
Yes I do. Things happen because I think about them. I am free to think as I wish. That's unpredictable based on neural firings (whole is greater than the sum of its parts).

>If you feel like you have free will isn't that all that matters?
Philosophically, yes.

Check this out: http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2672

>'Everything is meaningless because we lack free will.'

That statement is in fact begging the question.

>>3985116

Define 'free will'.

>>3985116
If there is no free will, there isn't any meaning imparted by you. Everything is and will be and there is nothing you can do about it. Existence is a cinema show in which you have front row seats, not a play in which you are an actor. Sit back and enjoy the ride because you have no power.
But you don't know yet so why does it matter? You do have power, of course you got that power from events preceding but still...y'know I guess I just don't get you.
Because i'm stuck on this:
>If you feel like you have free will isn't that all that matters?
Philosophically, yes.
That's all that should matter. I see determinism as a way not to hate humanity, and nothing more. It just seems so obvious to me.
That's unpredictable based on neural firings
Those firings came from a previous cause. We cannot trace it because it is ridiculously complex (millions of interactions from the "beginning of time" till the second you think), but there is a cause.

>>3985188
I just realized how disorganized a post looks when you forget to quote..

>>3985126
>implying that statement has been made and not backed up

>>3985142
Ability to make choices.

>>3985188
>You do have power, of course you got that power from events preceding
No. You get your options from events preceding. You get your POWER from you, the power to choose. If there is no free will, you have no power. We do have power. We can enact, we can create, we can destroy. We can do.

>I see determinism as a way not to hate humanity, and nothing more.
Deplorable. Don't lie to yourself to avoid hating mankind. Besides, humanity does not even deserve your hate. It deserves your disgust.

>Those firings came from a previous cause. We cannot trace it because it is ridiculously complex
>ridiculously complex
That's not why we can't trace it. We can't trace it because the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. The firings add up to consciousness. A series of yes/no answers (neurons) should not add up to self-awareness, based on linear or exponential models. But it does. We can't back-track it.

I'm wondering, of those who believe in free will, do they also believe animals have free will? Which animals, apes or whatever all the way down to bacteria's and shit? At which animal does free will leave? Are humans somehow an exception and no other organism has free will?

>>3985329
Self awareness is a requirement for free will.

>>3985407
which animals have self awareness then, also, define self awareness

>>3985329
>I'm wondering, of those who believe in free will, do they also believe animals have free will?
No. See
>>3985407
One must be able to choose before one can choose.

>>3985407
also, then does self awareness imply free will

>>3985419
so humans have the unique ability to choose? What does it mean to choose? and, when you say the ability to choose do you mean "the ability to choose (however it is defined) free of outside impetus"?

When do you think the ability to choose evolved, when did self-awareness evolve? Is our species the first to have it or did our ancestors (at least up to the first descendant of our common ancestor with our closest present "animal" relative (whichever animal that is, ape maybe?)) have it as well?

>>3985417
Unless there are some recent developments I'm not aware of only chimps, dolphins and possibly some whales have the brain capacity for the beginnings of awareness.

As far as this topic is concerned I would define self awareness as awareness of agency.

>>3985445
by awareness of agency you mean "the awareness (or perception) that the being that is aware of (or perceiving) this (this sentiment in quotes) has the ability to act"?

>>3985439
>so humans have the unique ability to choose?
Amongst Earth life.

>What does it mean to choose?
Pick out or select (someone or something) as being the best or most appropriate of two or more alternatives. Decide on a course of action, typically after rejecting alternatives

>the ability to choose (however it is defined) free of outside impetus"?
>free of outside impetus
That is a set of conditions in which one can choose, yes.

>When do you think the ability to choose evolved, when did self-awareness evolve?
Probably when we needed to switch over to an omnivorous diet for our brains.

>Is our species the first to have it or did our ancestors (at least up to the first descendant of our common ancestor with our closest present "animal" relative (whichever animal that is, ape maybe?)) have it as well?
Dunno. Thoughts don't fossilize well. Probably around when they started making tools.

>>3985462
I think you misunderstood one of my questions, by the definition of choose as
>Pick out or select (someone or something) as being the best or most appropriate of two or more alternatives. Decide on a course of action, typically after rejecting alternatives
would allow lower organisms and simpler natural processes to fall under the definition. also, in that definition, you would need to define pick out and select better because as it stands now this appears to be the same thing
>choose (someone or something) as being the best or most appropriate of two or more alternatives. Decide on a course of action, typically after rejecting alternatives
I tried to offer up what I think you mean, a definition that did not include lower organisms and natural processes in
>the ability to choose (however it is defined) free of outside impetus
as in (ignoring for now the problems I pointed out in the first part of this)
>the ability to pick out or select (someone or something) as being the best or most appropriate of two or more alternatives. Decide on a course of action, typically after rejecting alternatives free of outside impetus
and by free of outside impetus I would like to clarify that as "undetermined by outside (physical) impetus" so, finally
>the ability to pick out or select (someone or something) as being the best or most appropriate of two or more alternatives. Decide on a course of action, typically after rejecting alternatives undetermined by outside (physical) impetus
with "undetermined by outside (physical) impetus" as a requirement for choice in the context of free will, not a set of conditions in which one could choose, because * if it is the result of an unchoosable physical process the result has not been meaningfully chosen (as in, the choice is an illusion and not reality)*
I also want to know if you agree with the part surrounded with *s, and if not, what your problem with it is.

these last two questions were more specific than I meant, but you are saying free will and/or the ability to choose evolved in our branch of the evolutionary tree with no other surviving organisms that can choose/ have free will?

>>3985489
clarification, grammar problem
when I say
>typically after rejecting alternatives free of outside impetus
and
>typically after rejecting alternatives undetermined by outside (physical) impetus
I mean
>typically after rejecting alternatives. undetermined by outside (physical) impetus
like, the whole choosing process is undetermined by outside (physical) impetus, not that the rejected alternatives are undetermined by outside impetus

>>3985489
>the ability to pick out or select (someone or something) as being the best or most appropriate of two or more alternatives. Decide on a course of action, typically after rejecting alternatives undetermined by outside (physical) impetus
That's a fine definition of "choose."

>* if it is the result of an unchoosable physical process the result has not been meaningfully chosen (as in, the choice is an illusion and not reality)*
Yes. Caveat: if one does not realize that the process is an unchoosable physical process then one has still meaningfully chosen on a personal, philosophical level, although the outcome (being determined and fixed from the start) is still trivial with regards to free will and choosing.

>with no other surviving organisms that can choose/ have free will?
In a significant sense, yes. Animals technically have free will, but they don't really have will. What will they have is free, but it's not much to speak of. The question is largely irrelevant, trivial. They cannot choose beyond instincts, which is a real limit on their free will. Consider animals to be a decent model of what deterministic life looks like, and bacteria to be a perfect example of what deterministic life looks like.

>>3985552
I think I understand what you're thinking now, thank you. One more question though, is your Caveat what you think for humans in general, or just the few animals with small amounts of free will, or all humans except those that realize that the process is an unchoosable physical process?

>>3985568
The caveat is with regards to the entire statement, with regards to free will. It's rather nice. Believing in free will has the same philosophical/intellectual ramifications whether or not free will actually exists. The implications are the same.

>>3985116
>If you feel like you have free will isn't that all that matters?
>Philosophically, yes.