/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17062278]

Books about hard determinism vs soft determinism vs free will?

[Anonymous No.17062380]

>>17062278
Read this https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/strawsong/free_will.html

[Anonymous No.17062411]

>>17062278
Was Plato the first guy to think of the concept of the Matrix?

[Anonymous No.17062718]

>>17062380
Seems quite informative, thx anon I'll look into it

[Anonymous No.17063029]

>>17062380
I've skimmed through this, it was indeed comprehensive read. For me the deterministic approach seems to be the most rational one, am I just coping? Its easy to picture yourself at the backseat of the car and destiny as a driver, it feels so relaxing. Also that randomness argument doesnt really make sense to me, randomness certainly doesnt mean free will, it seems like determinism with extra steps

[Anonymous No.17063065]

>the world is was created by god
>”NO!”
>the world is a simulation (i.e. created by another entity)
>SO INTERESTING

[Anonymous No.17063436]

>>17062718
It's a really good introduction to the philosophical literature around free will. Short, comprehensive and lucidly written.
>>17063029
>Also that randomness argument doesnt really make sense to me, randomness certainly doesnt mean free will, it seems like determinism with extra steps
Well this is Srawson's point, indeterminism is not enough to give you free will.
We often think of free will as having the capacity to pick between alternative actions without being determined to do either of them. But if the choices we make are not determined, what are they? One possible response is that they are purely random. But how does having your actions sprung from random dice rolls make you any more free than being determined by an antecedent causal chain? Strawson concludes that the only thing that could make us free in the sense of having absolute responsibility for our actions would be if we were causa sui - that is, if we self-caused ourselves into existence. But since this is clearly not the case, we can't really be free, at least not in the full (libertarian) sense of the term.

[Anonymous No.17063537]

>>17062278
Don't have a book but I think you can only choose soft determinism because it accounts for both and whichever it ends up being is only capable w soft determinism determining it. Hard determinism is too constructive and so is pure free will. Whichever it is you want to be able to account for why it's not the other so you should only build up soft determinism to be able to do so.
That was from today's study on computability in an application.

[Anonymous No.17063615]

>>17062278
>hard determinism
wrong
>soft determinism
compatablist theories are logically nonsensical
>free will
logically necessary

I won't even have this conversation with anyone who doesn't grasp this intuitively because I have assume you haven't advanced to a stage of brain development where you can be considered fully conscious.

[Anonymous No.17063639]

>>17063436
>free in the sense of having absolute responsibility for our actions
Okay but name one modern philosopher who believes in free will who defines it like this lol
>I can't flap my arms and fly therefore free will is false

[Anonymous No.17063692]

>>17063615
https://www.nature.com/news/2008/080411/full/news.2008.751.html

[Anonymous No.17063709]

>>17063639
There's a normal split between free will like that but that wasn't his point

[Anonymous No.17063732]

>>17063615
fuck you I'm a compatibilist you fucking nigger.

[Anonymous No.17063740]

https://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/laplaces_demon.html
>The new reason is that there is not enough information in the past (none at all in the early universe) to determine the present.
Determinism refuted?

[Anonymous No.17063838]

>>17063692
If you have ever thought about something longer than 10 seconds in your life you would understand why that is meme clickbait popsci garbage that wouldn't influence the philosophical arguments even if true
>>17063709
If 100% of decision you make are determined, determinism is true. It doesn't work the other way though, it only takes a single instance of indetermination to destroy the theory. If 99.99999999999999% of the decisions you make are determined, and the only indeterminate choice you ever made was whether to have corn pops or wheaties when you were 10, then determinism is BY DEFINITION FALSE. This fucking impossible metric you retards set up for what does and doesn't qualify as free will is fucking embarrassing. 100% accountability lmao fuck right off

[Anonymous No.17063886]

>>17063838
Was predestined to eat corn pops, saw the ad when I was 6, wasnt even aware

[Anonymous No.17063899]

>>17063838
If you don't control your neurons then you have to redefine mind as something aphysical and provide proof and not some fart-sniffery "intuitions".

Yes, that's exactly how it works. Too bad you rotted your brain w news and meme statistics because the only things that matter, and that happen, happen 100% of the time. 1+1=2, in whichever semiotic or foundational derivative, in all parts of the universe, is true 100% of the time. Now I know usually you're used to maybe 50-60% things you've rotted your brain in statistics but yes things happen 100% of the time. In fact the only real things happen 100% of the time. Welcome from pol or your retarded school. I don't keep up anymore.

[Anonymous No.17063902]

>>17062278
Man can do what he wants but he cannot will what he wills

[Anonymous No.17063908]

>>17063615
Albert einstein disagrees with you

[Anonymous No.17063918]

>>17063838
My midwitometer just exploded

[Anonymous No.17063924]

>>17063886
Okay, what if someone showed you the determination in advance and told you that you were about to pick corn pops, couldn't that change your decision? Couldn't that effect you enough to choose something else? Because if determinism is true, it literally cannot. You knowing you must choose corn pops is already calculated into the determination, and so you should be physically incapable of pouring yourself a bowl of Wheaties no matter how hard you try. Does that sound even somewhat plausible to you?

[Anonymous No.17063953]

>>17063899
>If you don't control your neurons then you have to redefine mind as something aphysical
Okay you are confirmed for never having read a single work of philosophy of mind, disregarded. Close Vsause and go read Dennett, Chalmers, Searle, Nagle, McGinn, Parfit, Putnam, and Fodor

[Anonymous No.17063961]

>>17063908
Yes, he rejected quantum physics and was decisively proven wrong by decades of experimental reseach. Definition of cope
>>17063918
based retard

[Anonymous No.17063968]

I can't take determinism seriously when it's just a religion for militant "atheists".
The entire logical basis is flawed the moment you account for our lack of perception and how limited our sense are, and even if hard determinism was true it wouldn't make any difference since we will never be able to grasp as much as a tiny, irrelevant fraction of this supposed cosmic order, so why bother at all? Just stick to windmills if you wanna bang your head on something.

[Anonymous No.17063976]

>>17063924
But then that event (somebody telling me that) will also be included in determination and my choice after that (may or may not affect me) too. Look man, Im not 100% pro determinism, but that is poor argument

[Anonymous No.17064003]

>>17063953
I'll be honest idgaff about philosophy of mind because I'm not a liberal or individualist, same with epistemology it's so derivative I just don't care. But I'm also not trying to win internet points in a dying rage because I tell everyone they're wrong because my "intuition" says so. I rather doubt you've read any of them minus a wiki article but I can defend my points and I offered you a position you could take or not but you acted like an immature rube at a wine party who can't pick up on social signals.

[Anonymous No.17064018]

>>17063065
>0 replies to this post
you people
what the fuck is wrong with you people

[Anonymous No.17064040]

>>17063968
Hard determinism implies an immutable archive from which to derive all data, and that's the biggest of pipe dreams. Soft determinism at the very least implies an archive that precedes the observer from which to update the observer's predictions, and there are countless examples of that (we're even posting in one right now).

Ironically, "free will" implies an active decision to ignore all archives and act merely on your own independent observations, but that's being disingenuous because you cannot fully detach yourself from the "outside" no matter how much you desire it.

If either the immutable archive or the ability to fully detach becomes realized, then and only then will hard determinism and free will be possible, respectively.

[Anonymous No.17064049]

>>17063615
Based .

[Anonymous No.17064073]

>>17063976
>But then that event (somebody telling me that) will also be included in determination and my choice after that (may or may not affect me) too
I am already breaking my rule arguing with subconscious people, fuck. Okay, last post before I bail
Two scenarios here,
A) the determination includes you finding out about the choice, or
B) the determination doesn't include you finding out about the choice.
If B), then something happened which wasn't determined, so determinism is automatically false. So, as we have now both stated, it must be the case that the determination includes your hearing about the determination. This leaves more options,
A1) You hearing about the determination allows you to choose something different
A2) You hearing about the determination doesn't allow you to choose something different, no matter how innocuous or trivial the determination
A1 obviously breaks the determination and therefore determinism isn't true (if determinism is true, then an accurate determination can't become false at a later time). A2 is a logical absurdity, and the idea that a trivial action like crossing your arms or choosing a different food could be determined to this exact of a degree to prevent any deviation is pants on head retarded and I don't even see the point in trying to argue with someone who would posit something like this. Again, ANY deviation from this determination would prove determinism wrong, and according to the rules of determinism, there is nothing logically inconsistent about this determination existing.

This is all you get from me /lit/, read Nagel

[Anonymous No.17064081]

>>17064003
see
>>17064073
Adios

[Anonymous No.17064126]

>>17064040
>but that's being disingenuous because you cannot fully detach yourself from the "outside" no matter how much you desire it.
It's equally disingenuous to postulate that free wll doesn't exist merely because we're sentient and sapient beings that can consciously elaborate (extremely biased) external data.
We're constantly stumbling in the dark as far as we're concerned, saying that free will doesn't exist because we do in fact act in response to external stimuli that are part of a supposed universal order is pointless when we're not aware of 99.99999999999% of this supposed order, and even there we're still not sure this order exists in the way we imagine.
Feels like a massive waste of time and a poor existential cope like any other religion out there.
Might as well argue that unicorns are real because I can imagine them since I can also imagine this universal order but will never have any way to actually prove it on the scale necessary to validate the theory.

[Anonymous No.17064164]

>>17064081
God you're retarded. That's all garbage that will never make anything except a YouTube video lol
I'd recommend studying in the field and how to write a paper because that lacks everything. Good lord, knowing determinism exists doesn't mean you can break it. I can know 1+1=2 and say 1+1=3 but it doesn't change what happens. I'd recommend staying off until you've read a book on the subject and debated someone so they can point out where you're making retarded assumptions.

[Anonymous No.17064166]

>>17064073
Honestly I dont even think we are talking about same thing anymore. If something is hard determined it cannot be otherwise. I will always choose YES or NO, my decision will be output of a function that takes infinite number of factors as an input, all events leading to that will also be determined, like you telling me what I'll choose, or interacting with me in any way.. maybe that is not the way it works, but your logic or understanding of hard determinism is flawed

[Anonymous No.17064182]

>>17064126
But I'm not saying "free will doesn't exist", rather that "free will exists, but humanity has yet to discover the technique to practice it in earnest".

[Anonymous No.17064189]

>>17064164
>knowing determinism exists doesn't mean you can break it
>>17064166
>If something is hard determined it cannot be otherwise.
So you agree with A2 and are fucking retarded or literal p-zombies; this is why I don't try with /lit/. You just repeat back something I already explained like somehow that changes anything I just wrote
>Determinism would imply X, and this is a problem
>It's not a problem because determinism implies X
Every single thread like clockwork

[Anonymous No.17064204]

>>17063692
failed to replicate, not important anyway

[Anonymous No.17064215]

>>17064189
>Okay, what if someone showed you the determination in advance and told you that you were about to pick corn pops, couldn't that change your decision?
>what if

[Anonymous No.17064234]

>>17064215
>doesn't know what a thought experiment is

[Anonymous No.17064245]

>>17064215
It's a hypothetical outside influence seeping into a supposedly closed system, and at that point you're now asking whether that system was perfectly closed. A hypothetical fails if it makes the premise unstable.

[Anonymous No.17064246]

>>17063065
>>17064018
What kind of discussion do you expect to come from such a bait?

Imagine for a second what's it like to forget something, how it feels to forget, to know that you do not know something you once knew. Now think what the opposite of this event is, what does it feel like to learn? At which point does an information become part of your sum of knowledge?

When you see a bird fly in front of your window, you don't instantly know what color it is or how fast it is going, or even what it was. Gradually you make sense of your senses, process what you've seen into information that's neatly set into your memory based on some patterns. Your brain is not perfect though, it can make mistakes, more so as it deteriorates with age, disease or substance abuse. You'll remember a bird that flew in front of your window in the past, eerily similar to the one you've just seen. At the back of your head will be a memory of events that followed this sighting, feeling strangely familiar to what you're just seeing. Somehow you'll think that you just know what's going to happen next. Something just crossed in your brain and you're experiencing deja vu.

You're completely convinced that what you're experiencing is an authentic recollection of events, they are no different from any other memory. You're walking to the fridge to grab something but once you open it you realize you don't know what you wanted, your mind wandered off and you cannot recollect what you went to fetch. These feelings touch the very core of our existence, the points where our perceptions, memories and expectations become fuzzy and unclear, intertwined and unknown.

The process that goes on in your mind when you realize what's happening in such a moment is humbling, a realization that a fault occurred and re-anchoring your concept of self in what you perceive is the correct reality without the fault.

[Anonymous No.17064268]

>>17064234
You're still here?
Its such a shame those millions of guys wondering about free will since the dawn of man didnt read 4channel, they banged their heads for nothing, you solved it with your smart little thought experiment

[Anonymous No.17064282]

>>17064204
It did not you read the first couple sentences. That was a replication.

>>17064189
That's it. Knowing 1+1=2 doesn't mean I can make 3 apples by grouping 2. I know that's hard for your little liberal, privileged powderpuff-head but that's reality.

[Anonymous No.17064286]

>>17064268
>he thinks posing a thought experiment is proof of something
I gave you like 4 different possible outcomes for it and if you aren't a retard you could come up with a dozen more

[Anonymous No.17064298]

>>17064282
>That's it. Knowing 1+1=2 doesn't mean I can make 3 apples by grouping 2. I know that's hard for your little liberal, privileged powderpuff-head but that's reality.
>confuses a priori truth with conscious will
>uses the word liberal as an insult
don't know if you are far left or far right but you are not equipped for this conversation anon

[Anonymous No.17064328]

>>17064286
>>17064268
Allow me to interject for a moment, I posit that a turing complete state machine attempting to use the result a function within the function itself would quickly run into a problem of infinite computational complexity, recursively calling itself with no end condition. Much like trying to argue against determinism by presenting the a future point in reality as a variable accessible in the events preceding it.

Determinism as is, does not apply to hypothetical scenarios that are inherently impossible to occur.

[Anonymous No.17064398]

>>17064328
>I posit that a turing complete state machine attempting to use the result a function within the function itself would quickly run into a problem of infinite computational complexity, recursively calling itself with no end condition
/lit/ think this is a response to the problem of determination
>Determinism as is, does not apply to hypothetical scenarios that are inherently impossible to occur
if determinations are inherently impossible then it is you who is arguing against determinationism. do you people know how to tie your shoes and brush your teeth or do you just try and brute force your way through everything in life?

[Anonymous No.17064413]

There is freedom. If there's no freedom we will make it.

[Anonymous No.17064419]

>>17064398
>if determinations are inherently impossible then it is you who is arguing against determinationism.
Determinism describes how a set of variables will always lead to the same outcome, it doesn't even remotely touch upon someone jamming said outcome in between starting variables, it would create a completely new set.

[Anonymous No.17064431]

>>17064419
This

[Anonymous No.17064451]

>>17062278
Will Durant

[Anonymous No.17064476]

>>17064419
>Determinism describes how a set of variables will always lead to the same outcome, it doesn't even remotely touch upon someone jamming said outcome in between starting variables
You are assuming it's jammed in but this is your own philosophical baggage. There is NOTHING logically inconsistent with a determination being made under determinism. Why can't a determination being known be predetermined and treated as any other variable? Nothing logically inconsistent with it existing so why is it impossible that it should be known?

[Anonymous No.17064485]

>>17064476
The true answer is you haven't even considered that you might be wrong. I was a determinist anon. Then I got a philosophy degree. You are so far behind you think you are ahead.

There is a time and a place for believing determinism and it's called high school.

[Anonymous No.17064492]

>>17064485
meant for
>>17064419
and probably
>>17064431

[Anonymous No.17064522]

>>17064476
>Why can't a determination being known be predetermined and treated as any other variable? Nothing logically inconsistent with it existing so why is it impossible that it should be known?
Attempting to use the result of a deterministic system before the result was reached is a never ending cycle. It's not illogical, it's just an infinite cycle that if not broken will never arrive at a conclusion.

[Anonymous No.17064536]

>>17064522
>there are variables which could exist that could never be determined
anon, you are so close here, you are almost drinking the water

[Anonymous No.17064538]

>>17064485
I genuinely can't tell if you're just pretending to be retarded for fun.

[Anonymous No.17064558]

>>17064536
Not being able to utilize the result of a deterministic system within the system itself to compute said result, is an inherent property of such a system. Determinism doesn't mean you can predict the future from within the system, it means that if you're looking at it from outside of it, you can precisely determine what the outcome will be. The illusion of free will is called like that, because from within the system we indeed have free will as per our in-system perception.

[Anonymous No.17064571]

>>17064485
Im not even determinist lmao, its just that you fail to refute it with that shitty pseudo-logical experiment

[Anonymous No.17064601]

>>17064558
see
>>17064234
You are talking about computation and have reduced the problem from logic to computer science. The problem isn't if LaPlace's demon actually exists or not, the problem is the philosophical outcomes of logical consistence of LaPlace's demon with determinism. You might as well say quantum mechanics is wrong because Schodinger couldn't physically create a box where a cat is both alive and dead or Einstein couldn't build a train that moves at the speed of light. Plus, most physicists don't believe in determinism, probabilism is much more widely held. So you are arguing against logical problems inherent to determinism by appealing to physical laws which already discount determinism. Sad!

[Anonymous No.17064627]

>>17063968
Do you not know what Calvinism is?

[Anonymous No.17064641]

Threads like this make me question the average kevel of intelligence on this board.

[Anonymous No.17064650]

>>17064601
>The problem isn't if LaPlace's demon actually exists or not
On the contrary, that is your entire problem. You start your presumptions with bogus claims and then use the faulty premise to arrive at a conclusion you find agreeable. I'd go as far as to claim that you've actually picked a position and then reversely looked for arguments to support it, as opposed to any syntactic deduction.

LaPlace demon does not exist because it's an infinitely cycled self reference, you cannot "use every information" because that itself creates another piece of information. It's a cute word construct, that's all it is.

[Anonymous No.17064679]

>>17064650
>You start your presumptions with bogus claims and then use the faulty premise to arrive at a conclusion you find agreeable
>>17064234
Einstein couldn't build a train that moves at the speed of light, what does this mean for the theory of relativity anon?

[Anonymous No.17064689]

What is the mechanusm behind free will?
Whether an outcome us determined or random, neither involves a choice.
Free will is absurd and based on shit that you can't prove.

[Anonymous No.17064711]

>>17064679
>Einstein couldn't build a train that moves at the speed of light, what does this mean for the theory of relativity anon?
Are you trying to compare mathematical deduction to hypotheticals? I'm really curious here as to what you're trying to point at, your train of thought is alien to me. Do you think Einstein based his work on something that came to him in a dream?

[Anonymous No.17064761]

>>17064689
We can agree that a "choice" involves zero coercion, yes?
From there, the argument is whether any form of coercion is present in the system of that choice.
Beyond that point is that finicky thing called the unverifiable. Like shooting into the dark.

[Anonymous No.17064825]

>>17064711
Einsteins train wasn't a mathematical deduction, it was a thought experiment. You obviously don't have a basic comprehension of either philosophy or science, please stop trying and just read a book

[Anonymous No.17064845]

>>17064825
I've been exceedingly patient with your imbecilic insults. You're not here in good faith.

[Nemo !!GgBWHLRiayD No.17064856]

>>17062278
1. There is no such thing as "hard determinism" and "soft determinism"; determinism pertains to eternity/what is eternal; all entities carry beggining & end within their substance --transitory end for noble entities, fatal end for ignoble entities,

2. Humans have free election, not free will --that is: humans have the ability to choose into what eternity to flow.

Life is like a river, eternity is like an ocean.

[Anonymous No.17064868]

>>17064845
You are spewing absolute nonsense all over that you could correct via a fucking google search and you accuse me of arguing in bad faith lmao I hope you are in high school anon because this has been fucking embaressing

[Nemo !!GgBWHLRiayD No.17064998]

>>17064856
>...[beginning]...

[Anonymous No.17065023]

>>17064627
I don't see what imaginary tiger friends have to do with the subject at hand, enlighten me.

[Anonymous No.17065078]

>I feel, as an article of faith, that free will does not exist. I feel that there is absolutely nothing supernatural about anything, including souls. I feel that my experience of consciousness is entirely a product of evolution, a mental "structure" that keeps the internal processes "coherent" in a way that prevents non-optimal behaviors.
>I know this is only my feelings on the topic. I know Christians get enraged by it, or violently dismiss it. I can understand why. But let's be honest, the existence of free will has not and likely cannot be proven, so when all is said and done, determinism is exponentially more likely to be correct. And that's enough for me, barring actual evidence of the opposite. Every argument I've yet heard had been obfuscated feelings and religious bias, so don't come after me for stating that my opinion is based on the same. you have nothing and your anger is incriminating, not convincing

[Anonymous No.17065221]

>>17063639
>I can't flap my arms and fly therefore free will is false
I don't understand why you think the concept of absolute responsibility has anything to do with omnipotence, they are completely separate notions.
Absolute responsibility means that whatever you do, you are responsible for it. It doesn't mean you can do anything.

[Anonymous No.17065586]

>>17064282
What the lead author says today.
>https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-01/c-ub-tbd010416.php
"A person's decisions are not at the mercy of unconscious and early brain waves. They are able to actively intervene in the decision-making process and interrupt a movement," says Prof. Haynes. "Previously people have used the preparatory brain signals to argue against free will. Our study now shows that the freedom is much less limited than previously thought. However, there is a 'point of no return' in the decision-making process, after which cancellation of movement is no longer possible." Further studies are planned in which the researchers will investigate more complex decision-making processes.

[Anonymous No.17065700]

>>17062278
It seems to me regardless of which is true. We act as if our choices are real and made by us with little knowledge to the outside "sum of all prior and current stimuli." Since universally this is how humans behave, it seems rather pointless to dogmatically attach ones self to one or another theory. I feel like my choices and decisions are mine, and I witness my actions having an impact on the observable material world. In this way, either we have free will, or we are very good at pretending we do. The end result of Determinism won't be some algebraic path of least resistance to follow. We are interacting with infinity even by the philosophy of determinism. It's fun to think about, but I can't understand taking a "hard" stance on this, espescially if you're not actively proficient in the field.

[Anonymous No.17065756]

[Anonymous No.17066528]

>>17065756
Kek

[Anonymous No.17067159]

FA

[Anonymous No.17067341]

>>17063065
People have a hard time reconciling that a world like this with all its suffering would have a supreme spiritual being behind it all. While a simulation removes the problem of evil because the simulators are probably not omnipotent.

[Anonymous No.17067363]

>>17065586
All the study does is limit free will materially but it doesn't suggest free will at all. In this same sense, you'd have to prove free will exists by defining the mind and separating it from causation, material or otherwise. At the very least, through time, your brain continues to choose the platforms you must address which molds you almost entirely.

[Anonymous No.17067930]

Few weeks ago I saw the police talking to a 5 year old kiddo who was asking for customers for a change in the nearby bakery. If he has parents they are not there for him (maybe drug addicts or even dead, living with relatives, really cant know that) but what amount of free will can he have later in life? He will be thrown in some kind of social institution for kids or maybe return to same surrounding which threw him on the street in the beginning.. al those things are very traumatic and just send him down that path of criminal lowlife.. ofc if some good person or tutor finds him he has a chance, but that doesnt depend on him directly so it looks absurd to find him absolute morally responsible for some crime he will do later in life (although I know he must be fined just to be input for next generations behaviour so mankind can evolve). I found the most extreme case hopefully everyone can see that free will is at least partial illusion

[Anonymous No.17067982]

>>17063740

No, those people are being stupid. There was enough information.

Information isn't created or destroyed. It all existed from the very beginning.

[Anonymous No.17067989]

>>17067341

> People have a hard time reconciling that a world like this with all its suffering would have a supreme spiritual being behind it all.

Yet inevitably when people play "The Sims" they remove the pool ladder and put rugs in front of a fireplace.