[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 2.47 MB, 1251x2000, [ARIA ED].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3128933 No.3128933 [Reply] [Original]

So we all agree that both free will and determinism exist simultaneously and are sort of like a "light cannot exist without darkness" thing right?

[ara ara]

>> No.3128955

we can do as we will but we can't will what we will or whatever explains it well enough

>> No.3128987

I don't agree to that shit, that's retarded.

>> No.3128993

>>3128955
This.

If I remember correctly, this is the video in which Sam Harris explains it nicely:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRIcbsRXQ0o

>> No.3128998

>>3128987
What is your idea of the way things work with consciousness

>> No.3129009

>>3128998
I think therefore I am

>> No.3129016

I have never understood determinsim.

Let me try to put my limited understanding on this topic into words, and someone who is more familiar with this topic maybe will tell me where I'm getting this idea wrong:

All of our thoughts and actions are the result of observable chemical reactions taking place in our brain. So, our thoughts and actions adhere to some physical laws of determinism.

Let me imagine a hypothetical situation. I am standing in front of a ball in my backyard at exactly 1:00 PM. Maybe I will kick the ball, maybe I will ignore the ball and go inside and watch Roseanne, maybe I will pick the ball up and throw it. I can do anything I want because I have free will. I can only perform one of these actions at exactly 1:00 PM. I choose to kick the ball. It was already determined in the cosmic order of things that I would kick the ball. Assuming the conditions of this universe were set in the exact same way in some alternate reality parallel to ours, I would kick the ball again at 1:00 PM.

So, I can't change my decision at 1:00PM, ever. But, saying that I don't have "free will" doesn't make any sense to me, because performing any of the other alternatives at the time(Throwing the ball, going back inside and watching Roseanne) would not be too strange or unnatural.

Am I retarded?

>> No.3129017

>>3129009
Don't know if this is an lolirony troll or if you're just fucking retarded.

(I'm not >>3128998, btw.)

>> No.3129026

>>3129016
How is it truly free when it's determined and your free will is just an illusion

>> No.3129038
File: 142 KB, 432x432, philosoraptor free will.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3129038

>> No.3129054
File: 9 KB, 256x197, gimli.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3129054

>>3129038
>still conflating the mind with the brain

>> No.3129058

>>3129054
then who was mind

>> No.3129059

>>3129054
What is the mind if it isn't physical?

>> No.3129063

we are determined to have free-will, like it or not, you have no say over it.

>> No.3129076

>>3129063
huehue

>> No.3129095

>>3129059
>What is the mind if it isn't physical?
Not physical, of course.

>> No.3129116

>>3129076
He's right though. There is no absolute freedom in consciousness because you HAVE to make choices. You can't choose not to choose, because that in itself is a choice.

choose sounds weird if you repeat it a lot out loud

>> No.3129125

>>3129054
>dualism
I have some news you may not want to hear.

>> No.3129141

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwnefUaKCbc

>> No.3129147

At a high-level perspective it's easy to see how one could be tricked by the illusion of free will. Because we are relatively intelligent creatures (by our standards, anyway), we can predict the outcomes of possible ventures (such as roughly how a ball would travel when thrown, or not should you choose to watch TV, etc). This makes us think, then, that we can pick and choose between these different outcomes when in reality, we only ever are allowed one course of action, based on our previous experiences and predispositions. So it's all a convenient falsehood that we delude ourselves with. Thankfully so, too, or else we'd be a lot less 'human' should we have been completely logical.

>> No.3129151

>>3129095
So how can you determine what it is or even define it

>> No.3129153

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_R9fId_Rqo

>> No.3129365

>>3129059
Magic

>> No.3129534

Determinism is the adherence to a certain view of how things SHOULD be. How they actually are is something else entirely. For example, I believe that if I let a ball drop from my hand, it will go towards the center of gravity of the earth. But note there is nothing in the universe that makes this a necessary conclusion. Admittedly, assuming determinism is useful for a variety of things but if you feel restricted by it you're doing it wrong.

>> No.3129554

>>3129116

Surely if "freedom" meant anything, it would have to be something logically /possible/. I don't see why anyone would think that freedom consists in performing a logical contradiction in reality. That doesn't make any sense at all.

>> No.3129558

>adhering to either free-will or determinism
>not realizing that indeterminism is true
>not realizing that the deterministic realities of the world are such because of many incredibly small random occurrences, and reality is simply the most likely way things could be

>> No.3129568

Free will is an illusion but no more so than the rest of our perception.

>> No.3129579

>>3129568

That's silly. Saying that all perception is illusion merely means: your definition of "illusion" destroys the concept of "illusion" itself. The only way you can use "illusion" meaningfully is if you have some way of determining what is NOT an illusion.

>> No.3129599

>>3129558

Out of curiosity: how does one come to the conclusion that indeterminism is true? Probability?`

>> No.3130272

>>3128933
7/10, jimmies are rustled.

>> No.3130282

>>3128993
Why does he say 'scientifically and philosophically' when talking about free will, as if the two are somehow functionally equivalent?

>> No.3130287

>>3128993
His arguments are very shallow and weak.

>> No.3130351

>>3129599
Well, the course of events we perceive as "deterministic" is a result of Newtonian physics, which certainly suggest a deterministic universe. As we attain a greater understanding of how particles behave at the quantum level, we've realized that they behave essentially randomly. That's quantum indeterminism, and its two sources are the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and an occurrence called "vector collapse." The condition of quantum-level particles is best described in terms of probability. Uncountable numbers of particles at the quantum level behave randomly, and the more particles you consider the more stable the system appears to be at the Newtonian level. However, the Newtonian-level world doesn't actually behave deterministically, it's just overwhelmingly likely that the universe will behave the way we expect it to when it is observed the way Newton did.

I think I just did a pretty awful job of explaining it, but hopefully you either see what I'm trying to express or someone more versed in quantum indeterminacy can take up the banner.

>> No.3131273

>>3130351

The problem I brought up is not with what you've stated, really, but with how you know them. Basically, if you are saying that the universe is indeterministic based on your past observations, you run into the problem of induction and are unable to say more than "to the best of my knowledge, it LOOKS like it's indeterministic.". But that isn't really a proof one way or another.