[ 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: 61 KB, 800x459, DeterminismXFreeWill.svg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3532359 No.3532359 [Reply] [Original]

The only rule is that you must use PHILOSOPHY to argue for or against free will. No physics, no neuroscience, no biology, no science of any kind. We already know what those dumbass fuckers believe.

>> No.3532366

What difference does it make?

>> No.3532370
File: 4 KB, 157x163, 1360116563562.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3532370

>debate without facts

>> No.3532374 [DELETED] 

>being anti-science when it's discoveries conflict with your beliefs
glad you're using your free will to be as ignorant as possible

>> No.3532376
File: 123 KB, 546x590, stirner16.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3532376

>>3532359
I'm right at the centre of the cross. I don't give a fuck, it's of no relevance to me.

>> No.3532380

dumb op
old news thread

>> No.3532385

>>3532370
>philosophy
>not a more accurate than science which relies on simple phenomena (physical)

go read your dawkins and shut up faggot

>> No.3532401

The question doesn't make sense. We act, and thereby interpret the world. We can't say anything about whether action is 'determined' out not, it isn't an actual quality of action.

You might appropriate me to be a compatibilist, but that's more a concession to the question than a positive statement.

>> No.3532406

>>3532401
your mom is my positive statement

>> No.3532407

>>3532385
Not using empirical data to support your ideas is an easy way to get nowhere.

>> No.3532411

>>3532407
Come on, what are you doing on /lit/?

>> No.3532421

>>3532411
I'm a philosophy major. Care to tell me what you think the merits of not using this information would be?

>> No.3532432

>>3532385
>physical phenomena
>simple
You have never even seen a differential equation, right? Let alone solved one...

And how should we discuss brain activity without taking data about the structure of the brain and matter into account? And what is a scientific statement and what is a philosophical one (for example actio-reactio)?

>> No.3532440

>>3532359
what's with all the science haters recently? since when has anti-intellecutalism become a source of pride on /lit/?

>> No.3532449

demonstrative vs descriptive reference. no metaphysical conflict with any scientific theory but full range of freedom in the first person decisions

>> No.3532450

>>3532440
Stupid people like to think that there should be wall between philosophy and science. It makes them feel edgy and smart.

>> No.3532462

>>3532450

Well there is a difference right? Like science is just empiricism and experiments about the real world. Philosophy is typically more abstract in its subject matter.

>> No.3532472

>>3532462
There is a difference but the transition is fluid and both build upon one another.

>> No.3532476

>>3532462
>about the real world
>real world
There is no such thing as a real world and you're stupid to think that the only truly objectively real things are physical things.

>> No.3532480

>>3532476
>callin my nigga aristotle stupid

>> No.3532478

>>3532440
science is nihilistic so fuck science

>> No.3532482

>>3532476

>There is no such thing as a real world

There is a world, AKA reality. "real world' is a way of refering to this.

> you're stupid to think that the only truly objectively real things are physical

Objective and real are two seperate words. Real things are things which are in the world. The only things in the world are physical.

>> No.3532483

>>3532478
Science isn't nihilistic. Science doesn't chime in on whether or not meaning exists.

Calling science nihilistic is like calling a photograph of an orange nihilistic.

>> No.3532488

>>3532482
>The only things in the world are physical.
>being this much of a materialist

>being unaware of the immaterial

do you even evoke entities from other "worlds"?

>> No.3532497

>>3532407
Using a dead philosophy like empiricism won't do any better.

>> No.3532498

>>3532488

If its immaterial, its not in the world. That has nothing to do with awareness.

>> No.3532501

>>3532476
Yes he is at least as stupid as Einstein, Feynman... well most of the scientific Nobel prize winners. How does one live, when one thinks there is no real world?

>>3532488
What is immaterial? Chi? A soul?

>>3532478
nihilism:

1. (philosophy) Extreme skepticism, maintaining that nothing has a real existence.

Well science is anything other than nihilism, try to do physics if you think there is no real existence.

>> No.3532503

How the fuck is compatibilism or incompatibilism logical at all?

>> No.3532508

>>3532498
you cant prove that

>> No.3532512

>>3532503
Nice buzzword you got there.

Why don't you read a book on logic?

>> No.3532514

>>3532508

Cant prove what?

>> No.3532516

>>3532501
>getting your philosophical definitions from a dictionary
>choosing the first thing you come across and just assume that's what the other guy meant
>using dictionary definitions as "rules" as to what concepts truly mean

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wy8Rz0mRQ6E

>> No.3532517

damn this thread is shitty

>> No.3532518

>>3532503
Compatibilism is the only defensible position. The idea is that there is no definition of free will that makes any sense that does not rely on determinism holding true. Honestly, there is no reason to think that determinism even conflicts with a notion of free action.

>> No.3532526

>>3532501
> How does one live, when one thinks there is no real world?

Not the anon you are replying to, but the idea is that describing the "physical" universe as the real one will get you into a huge variety of philosophical problems. We have no right to say that any one world is more "real" than another. A better way of doing things would be to drop this dubious notion of "reality" as a measuring stick.

>> No.3532539

>>3532526

If there was another universe that is real, then there is only one universe.

Am I missing something. Your post makes no sense.

>> No.3532541

>>3532407
Where empirical data is sensory data, what observable trait is inherent in a thing that is pre-determined?

There's some shit in Quantum dynamics that I don't understand that some have told me that things below a certain scale are absolutely random, but there can still be a skepticism of that characterization of it as 'random' when it's said that we can't explicate the structure by which things are determined when we ourselves operate as things according to that structure.

That all said, the question of 'free will' is silly, any sort of Calvinistic determinism is especially silly, and the answer is implicit in our actions.

>>3532440
Any 'science haters' naively misread tertiary criticisms of empricism and positivism and assume scientific answers have no philosophical answers. There's also a group of people who don't exactly 'hate science' but recognize that there are *hard limits* to the things we are able to come to by science, and you might be misinterpreting them. I think OP may fall into the first, though.

>> No.3532544

>>3532541
no philosophical validity*

Writing from my phone, pardon the wonkiness.

>> No.3532546

>>3532508
You can't prove a negative 99.9% of the time.
The burden of proof is on you because you claim there is something else than physical entities (Matter, Anti-matter, Energy etc).

>>3532516
I don't start reading books about a philosophy I don't care about.
And you make a logical fallacy: Just because you don't like the claims of nihilism (for the sake of argument I accept for the moment that science is nihilistic) you say it is false and can be ignored.
And saying fuck science on the internet in the 21st century just kills me. (I guess you are the same guy)

>>3532526
I don't know how philosophy defines reality but I don't claim that the 3 colors I see is the reality. It is my brain's interpretation of reality. Truth must be free from bias, that's why you make experiments and collect and compare data.

>> No.3532547

>>3532518
We are talking about free will not free action.

>> No.3532550

Cause and effect is not a law of physics. There does not have to be a priori in the brain for decisions and chooses and so on. Therefore we have free will.

>> No.3532552

>>3532550
choices*

>> No.3532556

>>3532550
>Cause and effect is not a law of physics
Wat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_%28physics%29

>There does not have to be a priori in the brain for decisions and chooses and so on.
How do you know that?

>> No.3532557

>>3532550
So is it caused by prior events or is it completely random?

>> No.3532559

>there is no quantum world. There is only an abstract physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature... ~bohr

>> No.3532562

>The withdrawal of philosophy into a "professional" shell of its own has had disastrous consequences. The younger generation of physicists, the Feynmans, the Schwingers, etc., may be very bright; they may be more intelligent than their predecessors, than Bohr, Einstein, Schrödinger, Boltzmann, Mach and so on. But they are uncivilized savages, they lack in philosophical depth – and this is the fault of the very same idea of professionalism which you are now defending. ~ feyerabend

>> No.3532565

>>3532557
Neither.

>> No.3532572

>>3532385
>>3532359
Looks like someone got butthurt from being told too many times.

>> No.3532578

>>3532359
it doesnt matter whether free will exists or not

>but if free will doesnt exist then people arent responsible for their actions
and?
>then we should chose other than to jail them
so, because people cant choose X we must choose Y?

there a no consequences either way.
a free-willed world and a no-willed world would like identical.
have you never considered this?

>> No.3532584

>>3532562
>But they are uncivilized savages
Wow, what an asshole. So everyone is a subhuman to him (even nobel prize-winning physicists) who didn't have a philosophical education?

>>3532578
>>then we should chose other than to jail them
I never understood that argument.
We would put earthquakes in jail to protect the public if we could.

>> No.3532595

>>3532584
>>3532572
THIS IS THE PHILOSOPHY BOARD YOU JACKASSES WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING HERE

KANT WAS A GENIUS AND 100% RIGHT

>> No.3532596

>>3532584
>I never understood that argument.
its the one i see the most when discussing will.

like that praise and blame are so necessary to life that the simple-minded cant entertain the thought of a world without them.
it is a salve against the spectre of an unjust and arbitrary world.

i read this into their feeble attempts at philosophy, they never ever seem to understand my point.

>> No.3532598 [DELETED] 

>>3532407

What about mathematics?

>> No.3532600

>>3532595
>says Kant was 100% right
>not treating people as ends in themselves

whatamievenreading?

>> No.3532601

>>3532596
Retribution is a glorious thing. Don't you want to gut those sociopaths you see everyday on TV? Let's make the world just or just destroy it all once and for all.

>> No.3532606

Determinism is nihilistic so fuck determinism.

>> No.3532607

>>3532596
>being this much of a blowhard
and what are your credentials, faggot?

>> No.3532609

>>3532596
>being a moral nihilist
>2013
>implying you can say what the world is or is not

>> No.3532611

>>3532606
>>3532609
I am beginning to think that nihilism/nihilistic is just a swearword for philosophers. Like socialism is for the American religious right.

>> No.3532614

>>3532546
>I don't claim that the 3 colors I see is the reality.

Then you'd be wrong. There is no reality outside that reality. There is no "world" prior to humans dividing it into one.

>> No.3532615

>>3532611
I'm pretty sure the average self-proclaimed nihilist has serious mental issues.

>> No.3532625 [DELETED] 

The problem with hard determinism is that it claims every event has a cause. It is already impossible to make bulletproof inferences about the external world a la Hume's Enquiry, Sextus Empiricus fragments, etc. More, as far as I can intuit, the beginning of the universe necessarily was uncaused- in other words, there was a first cause, which was itself uncaused. So there we have at least one event which is uncaused along with the difficulty of pinning causes in the first place.

Next, the claim that the only thing that exists is the physical world does not really work out. What is the difference between you and a corpse? How do numbers exist? These words on this screen- are we to say their content exists in "a series of subatomic particles"?

Setting aside the metaphysics in anticipation to a critique of my first two statements, I do not think that all humans are free. I think that rather social determinism is strong in most (i.e. being patterned into walking/talking/acting a certain way) and biological determinism exists universally in humans. You cannot begin to act freely until you have fulfilled your basic biological desires, such as eating, drinking, sleeping... these will always have a grip on you. So maybe it's that humans have evolved to be free as they built markets for food and wells for water, that we could only develop high-level reason once we freed ourselves from nature's necessity.

What do you guys think?

>> No.3532630

>>3532625
>basic biological desires, such as eating, drinking, sleeping
I wouldn't call those "desires". As you have to do them or you will die.

>> No.3532631

>>3532611
Pretty much.

Even the 'nihilist' philosophers hate outright nihilism. Hasn't been used right in this thread though.

>>3532615
Every existentialist is a moral nihilist. Moral nihilism is the only absolutely defensible moral stance, that morality isn't objectively inherent in things.

It doesn't necessarily mean morality isn't real, only that everything is permissible from the point of view of a rock.

>> No.3532636 [DELETED] 

>>3532630

You're right, "needs" would be apt here.

>> No.3532640

>>3532516
You got me excited. I thought that link was to something that would make me more smarter.

>> No.3532642

In the absence of physical coercion etc.; human beings have free-will or agent: their decisions and actions are their own. The case of the Libertarian Thesis essentially boils down to the experience of deliberation, making Libertarianism incompatible with determinism.
Libertarianists rebut the argument of determinism by claiming that “I could have done otherwise had I so chosen.” For example, a Libertarianist, in defense of their belief, could say that a Determinist chose their belief in becoming a Determinist. As well as this, one could claim that just because X caused Y, it does not necessarily mean that X is the cause of Y.

>> No.3532643

>>3532614
It is interesting that you write in absolutes. You apparently know exactly how this universe operates and what is true or not. You are as sure of your believes as the average Taliban-fighter is.
That is a dangerous mindset to think that there is no reality outside of what you experience. How can you justify altruism and empathy if the feelings of your fellow human being (and animals) aren't real?

>> No.3532659

>>3532483
Science isn't nihilistic because it uses loads of math, and ask any mathematician what a number is and they'll say something akin to the Platonic interpretation.

>> No.3532674

>>3532631
kill all the rocks then

>> No.3532675

>>3532674
ROCKS HAVE RIGHTS TOO!

>> No.3532680

I'm a four-dimensionalist, whatever that means.
I just like the thought of the universe as a tapestry.
I think that means I believe determinism is true.
I haven't ever heard a good definition of free will. They all boil down to labyrinths of meaning built around an empty center.

>> No.3532684
File: 60 KB, 417x500, portrait_schopenhauer.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3532684

>implying this debate hasn't been over for 200 years

A man can DO what he wills, he cannot CHOOSE what he wills.

>> No.3532687

>>3532684
Look and laugh at this drone.

>> No.3532693

>>3532680
>i don't know what dimensions are
>muh pseudoscience

>> No.3532696

>>3532687
he's right
this thread should be dated as fuck
lrn2anything

>> No.3532704

thank god /phil/ never got off the ground. i dont think 4chan could have handled another hangout for university flunkies and armchair intellectuals

>> No.3532709

>>3532684
Schopenhauer looks like an evil motherfucker. I wouldn't fuck with him

>> No.3532711

>>3532696
He's wrong.

>> No.3532712

>>3532687

come back when you get done with Philosophy 101

>> No.3532713

>>3532709
looks more like the autist he is

>> No.3532715

>>3532712
I'm pretty sure the average schop drone are the phil 101 types here.

>> No.3532718

>>3532687

oh boy, do i know how to weed faggots like you out.

please define 'freedom' so everyone can see how ill-equipped you really are for this sort of thinking

>> No.3532719

>>3532643
Woah, slow down, kid. You shouldn't run around with a post that edgy, you could hurt someone. You were in such a rush to make out your opponent as somehow fundamentalist in his thought (for some reason), you missed the point, and put words in his mouth.

Solipism isn't what we are discussing here. The notion that is being put into doubt, is that there is a reality outside that which is carved up by humans. It is an absurdly anthropocentric idea.

On the other side, it has both been claimed that 'the 3 colors I see" are not real, and that holding them to be would mean the feelings of "your fellow human being" are unreal. This is not the thrust of my argument. I hold that both of these things are real, but it is absurd to speculate of an physical world and suppose -that- real, and feelings somehow part of a world containing less reality.

>> No.3532721

>>3532684
It's been going on a lot, lot longer than that

Read the Nicomachean Ethics. You might find it helpful.

>> No.3532722

>>3532718
I choose not to.

u so mad now

>average edgy faggot determinist detected

MUH NITSHIT
MUH SCHOPENFAG

>> No.3532723

>>3532722
Where did people like this come from? They didn't used to be here. It's strange.

>> No.3532725

If there is anything more tedious on this board than this sort of thread, I haven't seen it

>> No.3532729

>>3532723
>go on /sci/
>they actually defend free will
>faggots on here don't

edgy kid detected

>> No.3532730

>>3532721

Aristotle is a very shallow philosopher. Immense breadth, but not much depth.

>> No.3532731

>>3532547
Action is the exercise of will. If a will can't act, it isn't free. The two are interchangeable in this discussion.

>> No.3532733

>>3532730
There's a reason no serious modern philosopher takes schopenfaggot seriously.

>> No.3532735

>>3532730
This couldn't be much further from the truth. You should really give him a go.

>> No.3532737

>>3532730
>implying you cant have one and not the other

>> No.3532742

>>3532733

There is not a single modern philosopher who even rates the title. Don't be an imbecile.

>> No.3532746

>>3532742
Let me guess, you're probably a misogynist too?

>> No.3532747

>>3532742
Which title?

>> No.3532753

>>3532746

>muh assumptions

You're so predictable it's humorous. No, I am the opposite of a misogynist.

>>3532747

That of a philosopher

>> No.3532757

>>3532753
So you are saying there are no modern philosophers?

..when did you drop out, out of interest?

>> No.3532758

>>3532753
>That of a philosopher

you are incredibly ignorant

>> No.3532765

>>3532757

That's exactly what I'm saying. Nothing of consequence has been done in philosophy since 1900. Incidentally, the hard sciences have seen extreme progress in the time between then and now. It is clear that man's passions have changed.

>> No.3532767 [DELETED] 

>>3532625

You are so wrong. Hurr durr muh freedom. Typical c/lit/.

>> No.3532768

>>3532765
Oh boy, another science-fan.

>> No.3532773

>>3532765
Go troll a different board. We were trying to have a conversation here.

>> No.3532775

>>3532765
>what is wittgenstein

>> No.3532779

>>3532768

Not a fan, just giving credit where credit is due and pointing out an important observation.

Schopenhauer was a wonderful thinker by the way, and had you had read anything besides his controversial texts, you would concur.

>>3532773

Not that I can see

>> No.3533782

>>3532609
>>3532607

you dont even approach the argument.
does a world with free will look different than a world without?

>>3532601
so people hate honey boo boo. thats fine.
you arent paying to see something you like.

you are paying to see something disgusting.
jerry springer doesnt make his show to help people.
he makes his show to sell you a ticket to the circus in your living room.

whether you watch it to sympathize or to demonize, your still watching honey boo boo.
and thats all that matters.

>> No.3533824 [SPOILER] 
File: 80 KB, 491x331, 1337803518885.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3533824

>>3532359
Wow! Let's argue without any evidence whatsoever! Whoever can red pill all other voices into submission clearly can explain whether or not we have free will.

>> No.3533832

>>3532366
That's what I thought, too as soon as I read 'free will'.

>> No.3533844 [DELETED] 

IF YOU FEEL COMPELLED TO "ARGUE" RE "FREE WILL", THEN YOU DO NOT HAVE "FREE WILL".

>> No.3533847

>>3533832
I believe that when people don't believe they have free will, it tends to have a marked (negative) effect on their mood/behavior.

[spoiiler] Not to mention nobody would be responsible for anything, making the penal system an unfair persecution of helpless individuals; but we won't go there [/spoiler]

You could just as easily ask what difference any philosophy makes. Does people accepting that they exist change the fact of their existence?

>> No.3533860

>>3533847
>I believe that when people don't believe they have free will, it tends to have a marked (negative) effect on their mood/behavior.

a testable hypothesis!

>nobody would be responsible for anything
they couldnt choose to change, so we must choose to change our systems?
your premise is broke.

>Does people accepting that they exist change the fact of their existence?
whether or not a person exists is a difference.
im not convinced that a world with free will looks any different than a world without.
what would be different?

>> No.3533863

>>3533844
Oh shit.

>> No.3533873

>>3533847
>I believe that when people don't believe they have free will, it tends to have a marked (negative) effect on their mood/behavior.

lets suppose this is true.
should we tell people that something is true "you have free will" even though we dont know it to be true?

should we allow people to believe things that may not be true, only because these beliefs have better outcomes?

once we decide what is morally appropriate/necessary can we choose to do otherwise? of have our unchallenged assumptions been making the previous choices with a predetermined goal in mind?

>> No.3533879

>this thread
>103 posts and 4 image replies omitted

you retards have to be fucking shitting me

>> No.3533977

>>3532359

roflmao that's pretty good troll, bro

9/10!

>> No.3534127

>>3533847
To me it is very obvious that even if everyone on this planet would know that free will does not exist, nothing would change.

Do you seriously think that people would care about it? It'll be like:

"Oh well, so, if that's the case... ...let's move on / So, why should I care? / I'm not intereseted in philosophical things / Should I cry now, or what? I've got my life and I couldn't care less about anything what you call free will / Shut up already with that shit / I don't know [and I don't want to know] what that means / I've got better things to do than thinking about such non-sense"

>> No.3534585

>>3532359
If I understand smart people - physicists - correctly, there is some randomness embeded into reality, on a quantum level, which makes basically all forms of determinism impossible at that level. I'm not sure if this translates to the macro scale, sucks being humanities dumbo.

>> No.3534614

>>3532611
A nihilist is often just someone who dismisses something you like.

>> No.3535308

>>3534585
randomness and determinism arent incompatible.

inputs may be random but if a function resolves to the same result give a set of rules then all outcomes are determined.

randomness and free will are incompatible.