/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.2778474]

Are there many people on this board that aren't determinists? I'd be very interested in hearing you explain your positions on free-will.

[Anonymous No.2778481]

quantum mechanics (specifically Heiseinberg's uncertainty principle) invalidate determinism.

[Anonymous No.2778484]

Explain uranium, and you've got me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

[Anonymous No.2778487]

Free will has very little to do with determinism.
For instance the uncertainty principal pretty much disproves determinism without affecting free will either way. I think most of the arguments for free will are mostly based on religion.

[Anonymous No.2778491]

>>2778487
>or existentialism

[Anonymous No.2778500]

>>2778481
absolute knowledge. quantum mechanics doesn't invalidate determism, it merely proves a barrier which will be overcome with better scientific understanding. now can you do as asked and provid your opinion on free-will?

[Anonymous No.2778504]

I'm rather deterministic, however I do believe there is some wiggle room. That wiggle room is free-will.

[Anonymous No.2778508]

this >>2778481
and this >>2778487

and i dont believe in free will. i go along with schopenhauer there: i can do what you want, but you cant chose what you want

[Anonymous No.2778513]

>>2778508
This. Schop-dog had it right, in my humble opinion. However, I am insatiable interested in hearing objections; it's my favourite part of discussing philosophy.

[Anonymous No.2778545]

Free will

let's divide that up shall we?

'Will' implies a decision, a choice. For there to be a choice, all there has to be is 2 or more options. less than than that even, all we need is to not know the future.
So yes, there is will.


Now 'free'. This bit is more complicated.

Oh wait, no it's not.

'Free' just comes from separation of individuals. the fact that you are not me, my actions are not your actions and vice versa. 'Free' comes simply from agency.

Since we are not a singular blob of everything condensed and instead we are accepted as separate things, then 'free' exists.

'Will' exists
'Free' exists
'Free will' exists.

It really has nothing to do with determinism, causality, probability, or neuroscience which are all very interesting but nonetheless irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.2778554]

>>2778545
this cluster-fuck of stupid may very well be the worst post to ever grace this piss-soaked board

As for OP, no, free-will does not exist.

[Anonymous No.2778577]

>>2778554
I thought it made quite good sense.

I never understood what noncompatibilist determinists really had in mind when denying 'free will'.

[Anonymous No.2778618]

>>2778577
If we live in a causal universe then nothing is an "agent" except god.

So there's no real choice seeing as all our actions are predetermined in the causal chain. Unless you're an existentialist and you're like "I'm free because I feel free fuck metaphysics etc etc"

[Anonymous No.2778623]

I'm a fatalistic solipsist, OP.

:)

[Anonymous No.2778626]

>>2778623
XDDDD

[Anonymous No.2778633]

>>2778618
> "I'm free because I feel free fuck metaphysics etc etc"

laughed heartily, thanks

[Anonymous No.2778642]

>>2778554
>this cluster-fuck of stupid may very well be the worst post to ever grace this piss-soaked board


funny, at no point did you actually respond to anything that was said. at no point did you explain your argument (your argument being 'it is stupid')

[Anonymous No.2778656]

>>2778618
>So there's no real choice seeing as all our actions are predetermined in the causal chain
How does that make it not a real choice? My brain is a tiny part of the universe, but it's definitely the most important one when it comes to my choices. Whether it works by causal laws or not, what I do is free unless under duress or compulsion.

All determinism does is tell us "our choices aren't random". "Free" does not mean "random".

[Anonymous No.2778665]

>>2778656
are you trolling? Be honest

[Anonymous No.2778666]

>>2778618
you're defining 'agent' by limiting it to 'something that has absolute free will'. So it's no wonder you have to reach into metaphysics to find your agent.

But that's not what 'agency' is. An agent is just whoever performs a deliberative action.

You define individuals so that they can't have free will and then conclude that they don't have free will.

it's absolutely useless limiting free will to the domain of Gods since we are not Gods, we do not exist in a divine plane and we are not discussing metaphysics. Free will is not a metaphysical concept. We have to consider free will, as with everything, within the range of the world we know, the one we exist in and the one that matters to us.

that's why the existentialists are right and you are just misdefining the concept so you can pretend science has something interesting to contribute here.

You are out of your fucking league, son.

[Anonymous No.2778671]

>>2778656
> All determinism does is tell us "our choices aren't random". "Free" does not mean "random".

New guy here; if you destroy determinism I will worship your lotus feet for the rest of my life in some really cool way.

Unfortunately, I'd have to say that determinism means more than "Our choices aren't random." It means that you only have one possible course of action. There is no choice, because the chain of causality inside your brain makes you rule out all choices but one without you being able to do anything about it.

[Anonymous No.2778672]

>>2778665
Are you lobotomized? Be honest.

[Anonymous No.2778682]

where to begin, many of you seem so naive.
with the understanding of the universe, not placing our brains in some abstract untouchable box- but acknowledging that WE are susceptible to the same laws, we should have glimpsed the bigger picture by now. the same way a "mountain" can't help but continue rising upwards until folding over, and a drop of water could be placed anywhere in the infinite but it is coursing down a river due to the shape of the banks and river floor and the water molecules around it, we've had all our "decisions" made for us already. heisenberg aside, i think all that can be settled once physicists have a wider agreement on and understanding of duality, anti-particles and sub-molecular "particles," all just waves rippling outwards into the positive AND the negative space. all actions are the result of each other.

thanks to determinism, you have no choice what to do, so do nothing, if you are going to do so then the choice is already made. and you will be doing what you were always going to do. ya dig?

[Anonymous No.2778687]

it doesn't matter that our 'choices' pale in comparison to what the 'free will' of a God would look like. making that observation or comparison is irrelevant. The only thing that is of concern to us is the thing on our side of the equation: the stuff performed by humans, the limited existence that we are. The decisions we perform are not diminished by the fact that there could be somewhere a being more free than ourselves. because that being doesn't even figure.

[Anonymous No.2778688]

>>2778656
If you acknowledge that choices are part of the causal chain then you can't subscribe to any values like personal responsibility or egoistic pride because you are just the product of causes and not a separate ego with any real power. But yeah I agree with you pretty much.

[Anonymous No.2778694]

>>2778688
>If you acknowledge that choices are part of the causal chain then you can't subscribe to any values like personal responsibility

wtf that makes no sense. it doesn't follow.

it should actually be the other way round.

if choices are part of the causal chain then yes there is personal responsibility.


>expecting people to understand their own arguments in an internet discussion

[Anonymous No.2778695]

>>2778672
guess I confirm that as a yes then. relieving, in a way, because I would hate to think that there are people living in the world that hold positions as retarded as that one, haha. you did get me for a bit there!

[Anonymous No.2778702]

>>2778671
I don't hold an opinion either way when it comes to determinism, seems pretty ridiculous to do when we know so little about reality.

And yeah, that things can only happen in exactly one way is a corollary to the lack of randomness. But what then are determinists denying? I don't get it. It's not as if some vast outside force is just plucking us up and tossing us here and there in a determinist universe - we too are part of it. We're also that vast force. Our will is a tiny little bit of it, and it decides things. That if we rewound time, we would once again choose the exact same things given that exactly everything was the same, seems to me to be more like a truism than a proof of lack of free will, unless you mean free will to be totally arbitrary (which seems almost as scary to me as being ap uppet on strings).

[Anonymous No.2778705]

>>2778666
>We have to consider free will, as with everything, within the range of the world we know, the one we exist in and the one that matters to us

>within the range of the world we know, the one we exist in and the one that matters to us

>"I'm free in the reality I experience"
There you go, you're free because you feel free. No misrepresentation, no judgement and I agree with you. Don't take things so seriously, friend.

[Anonymous No.2778709]

>>2778705
"Free will" doesn't have any meaning to electrons. Of course you can only judge it in the human frame of reference.

[Anonymous No.2778711]

>>2778694

There isn't personal responsibility, you aren't responsible for your actions because you're not the true cause of them. The same amount of responsibility belongs to the bullet, the shooter and the shooter's mother.

[Anonymous No.2778710]

>>2778687
so stupid.

[Anonymous No.2778714]

>>2778705
That 'reality' is the only thing that matters and the only context within which free will should be considered.
The tickles me that it's the scientists who want to reach out to supernatural conceptions of free will in order to explain why it doesn't exist. You are doing the same thing.

[Anonymous No.2778717]

>>2778714
Not a part of this discussion, nor do I want to be, but this guy is clearly trolling. Stop feeding him replies.

[Anonymous No.2778718]

>>2778710
see: >>2778705 and >>2778714

[Anonymous No.2778720]

>>2778711
>There isn't personal responsibility, you aren't responsible for your actions because you're not the true cause of them.

But I am. I too am a part of the causal chain. I'm my brain, and my brain processes the information it receives and spits out a response. That processing and spitting-out is what free will is.

[Anonymous No.2778721]

>>2778714
I'm not trying to disprove anything. Metaphysical free will and existential free will are separate concepts. Existential free will is self-evident, metaphysical free will is just an abstract concept like all metaphysical discussions.

[Anonymous No.2778722]

>>2778717
so you're one of the morons who thinks that because we can define an absolute free will belonging to supernatural frame of reference, then our free will isn't free? I suppose you think that we can define Gods into existence as well then.

Fucking idiot.


>I'll just call him stupid. That should prove my point

[Anonymous No.2778726]

>>2778721
free will is one concept, the one that matters, not the supernatural one.

why is it the scientific hard determinists who want to discuss free will as a supernatural concept?

[Anonymous No.2778728]

>>2778720
But you have no concious say in that process! Reaction to stimulus is decided on a sub-concious level before you are even aware the stimulus occurred. How are you not getting this

[Anonymous No.2778730]

>>2778722
Not the guy you're referring to, but you should stop punctuating your posts with insults. Unless you actually are a troll in which case - 8/10, relatively unrustled but responded several times.

[Anonymous No.2778732]

>>2778730
That's the first insult I've used. 3 people before me have called me stupid without explanation. take a shot at them. oh wait you're trolling

[Anonymous No.2778735]

>>2778728
That depends on the stimulus, actually. But yes, sure, an awful lot of our decisions occur before we're conscious of the cause, and I don't think there's anything like "conscious say". But consciousness was never will, consciousness is self-awareness, a quite different thing. That self-awareness and will aren't the same is a great discovery, but it isn't that relevant.

I mean, I don't really identify with my consciousness alone. Maybe others do.

[Anonymous No.2778736]

>>2778728
it doesnt matter if its conscious or not, it's still the same person and the same point in the causal chain. responsibility is simply identifying key moments along that causal chain.

fucking scientific determinists thinking free will is supernatural and concious/subconcious decisions devide you into two people. wtf

[Anonymous No.2778738]

>>2778736
the point is that you could not have made another choice.

[Anonymous No.2778740]

I'm determined to be free.

[Anonymous No.2778744]

>>2778738

You're forgetting that he's an existentialist, it doesn't matter if he could have made another choice. He has the power to conjur stuff like value and responsibility out of the ether with no justification because they're 'part of his experience'.

[Anonymous No.2778746]

>>2778738
That's still a nonsequitor. 'unconcious decisions' don't mean nothing else could have happened.

[Anonymous No.2778749]

>>2778744
straw man

>>2778738
first of all. unconcious decisions don't mean we know for a fact that things couldn't occur differently and second even if they can only go one way, so what? it doesn't diminish responsibility because responsibility is just cause and effect

[Anonymous No.2778753]

>>2778504
>some wiggle room
Ever heard of sensitive dependence on initial conditions?

[Anonymous No.2778786]

My basic intuition or whatever tells me fiercely that the world is deterministic. Then comes quantum physics and says something I can't argue with that goes completely opposite to any good sense. So I'm not sure...


Doesn't metaphysical free will has to be causa Sui?

[Anonymous No.2778911]

>>2778786
yep

[Anonymous No.2779155]

It amazes me that 4chan as a whole is so sure of determinism. It's also incredible how people think they need to read on quantum physics or well, any physics really, as this subject doesn't need us to go that far.

That is because it's not about how much we can determine today or how much we can't. Without any knowledge on what science has discovered you'd already see people going to both sides of the issue, because it's metaphysical in nature. What science can determine today, the trajectory of a bullet or the trajectory of a particle, it doesn't matter, because our comprehension of determinism would just extrapolate that knowledge to fit our metaphysical conclusion.

"As we can predict how the bullet behaves, it is likely that, if we went further, we would see everything is predetermined to be" or "As we can't predict the position of that particle without interferring, than free will has been proven". Do you see the issue? Both can be said at any given time of scientific discovery, change particle for the movement of a bird in ancient times and still, you could interpret it in both ways.

Determinism is not if "we can determine things", but if "things can be determined". That's why religious and anti-religious people will include God in the discussion, though that's a whole other problem.

cont.

[Anonymous No.2779158]

>>2779155 cont.

The thing with determinism is that it "blames" the past for our present position. In a world in which we can see a few moves into the future, it's as if we're already living that future, so the past seems bigger, it feels like we can blame it. The choice appears when, from the dot of the present, a number of possibilities appear in front of us, it could be any of them and it depends on the present selves to choose. Determinism will say that, by the trajectory of the past, by our previous motion, by our momentum, it is already chosen which path we are going to fall on. Determinism says that because we are effects of a cause, there is nothing we can do to cause unexpected effects.

Now, free will. Let's focus on the will for now. As we live in a more materialistic society, it's easy to see how people can simply erase the idea of will from their heads. We are not people anymore, we are a colony of cells with no choice, we are compounds and electricity, particles jiggling without sentience. This is what most people here think and for that, they forget about themselves as humans with a will. What is interesting is that the concept in itself becomes meaningless. Because, for example, you can go the other way around and study the particles not by their trajectory, but by their will, by their personality. And that seems absurd, atoms have no personality, right? But the dynamics is the same, for the atom and for us, it is just the words we use in both cases that separate their qualities. One seems ridiculous because we are humanizing particles, but a lot of people overlook that seeing ourselves as particles is just as ridiculous.

cont.

[CLEMENCEAU ! !SiGGXb2q1Y No.2779163]

Nah I'm not for Determinism, I am subject to external Impressionism so suck my dick.

[Anonymous No.2779164]

>>2779158 cont

Will exists as much as we can make an agent out of something or someone. As long as you can see that something is a cause for a future effect, it can be said to have will, depending only on the way you see it. But, "free" will? Free from which chains? The chains of the past that is, what link us to everything else. In that I don't believe, as you can't separate a thing from its context, and the context is what gives you a position for a start. However, just like it was mentioned for the other things, this depends on our perspective. The moment you have a choice that is absolutely free is the moment you become aware of the past and the future possibilities, giving you an equal inclination to all of them. I'll get back to this.

Is the criminal to be judged for what he is, because it was his choice, or is he merely a fruit of the conditions surrounding him? Are you depressed because you can't move forward or can't you move forward because you are depressed? What came first, the egg or the chicken? These are where it’s at. A psychologist will often mention that whatever causes your problem, instead of focusing on how it came to be it is important to think of where our attitudes might lead to. The same mindset can be applied here.

cont.

[Anonymous No.2779166]

>>2779164 cont

Awareness. Say you have A and B from which to choose. A man next to you has a deterministic device, working on the premise that yes, all is predetermined. You choose B. The man chuckles and shows you the device, which predicted you would choose B. Now you have C and D in front of you. You ask him what's going to be and the device says it's C. As you know that and indeed you were going to choose C, you rebel and choose D instead. He shows the device and it was saying D. You ask him why he lied and he explains that he didn't lie, it was really showing C at first, but the moment he told you that, a new loop factor had to work its way into the device, which was then able to predict that, in case you knew of the outcome, it was of your nature to rebel against it.

You see how the loop is the key here? That by knowing our past, that by knowing our inclinations we gain the possibility to choose? It's a two way road. If you want to see how that affects our way to live in a more real way, think of this other example. You had awful parents and a terrible childhood, because of that, you unconsciously develop a bunch of issues you don't realize. That will make you a murderer some day. But just like with the other example, the moment someone sheds a light on the issue and brings forth the causes and the possible consequences to it, your actions will be put in terms of a choice. From then on, by being aware of what you are meant to do, doing it becomes following it and not doing it becomes rebelling against it.

cont

[Anonymous No.2779168]

>>2779166 cont.

>“Half victim, half accomplice, like everyone.”
>Sartre

tl;dr:
We have a choice because we can predict outcomes, we can determine things because we can predict choice, science has very little to do with this discussion, it's all about the way we relate to the future and to the past, determinism vs free will is like egg vs chicken.