[ 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: 56 KB, 281x320, 1399298407595.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4879768 No.4879768[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

All intelligent people know there is no such thing as free will. Why haven't we started to apply this perception in real life? Why is it perfectly acceptable, if not mandatory, to function solely on superstition?

Atheists don't live their lives as if there were a God. Why do people who don't believe in free will still live as if it does exist?

>> No.4879773

It's a moot point. Whether or not free will exists, one must live as if it does.

This is not the same with God's existence--one could live quite well without Him--but one won't ever live well (or live at all) without the illusion of free will.

>> No.4879778

Calvinists and other determinist strains of theology doesn't believe in free will. I don't get what you are on about. As if being atheist required some dogma of living a certain way and believing certain things.

>> No.4879782

OP, you're fucking retarded and should, by your own will, not making anymore posts

>> No.4879788

>>4879782
But he can't. He's stuck forever haunting the world with his questions.

>> No.4879798

>>4879773
There is something to be said for having to interpret one's own choices as free, but regarding others you can more easily do without. Why don't we try to diminish this domain of illusion as much as we can? Why don't we stop blaming criminals, for example? We can still punish them, but we don't need to blame them.

>>4879778
It was merely a comparison, I wasn't trying to suggest a definite connection between theism and the believe in free will.

>>4879782
If it's all so obvious, enlightening me with your superior intelligence would be very easy to do. Yet you don't have an answer for me.

>> No.4879802

>>4879768
>All intelligent people know there is no such thing as free will.

rofl please abstain from making posts on this board you're just embarassing yourself

>> No.4879810

>>4879798
>Why don't we stop blaming criminals, for example? We can still punish them, but we don't need to blame them.

Do you know anything at all about the field of criminal justice? "Blaming" is only done by crying families on local TV news. Attorneys, judges, police officers, and the like don't engage in this.

>> No.4879815

>>4879802
>i am an unmoved mover

Listen to yourself m8.

>> No.4879818

>>4879810
I realise that, I was referring to "blame culture" in general.

>> No.4879831
File: 35 KB, 500x670, back-side-of-a-trophy-horse.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4879831

>>4879768
i got... like a number of words for you that is as of yet indeterminate.

Free will exists if only because the argument that it does not exist only excludes it because of the nature of instinct. Living being the strongest instinct, the only thing i have to counter that is suicide. Suicides don't do it without free will, if there was none, they would never do it.

>> No.4879834

We don't know enough about the brain to make such radical proclamations, and it's far from being a consensus.

>> No.4879838

>>4879818
That's admirable, but you do realize that justice have a qualitative aspect that is the victims and/or their next of kin who needs to feel that justice have been served in the eye for an eye sense.

>> No.4879872

>>4879768
>Why do people who don't believe in free will still live as if it does exist?
What exactly do you mean by this? Should I behave a certain way just because I don't think we have free will in the overall scheme of things? When asked about the topic of free will, causality, time, etc. I'll certainly reply that we don't have free will and all that, and I'll try and shape my overall philosophy and goals in life to fit that understanding, but outside of this what else is there that it should have an impact on? Are you saying I'm not allowed to feel proud or responsible for anything ever?

>> No.4879875

>>4879831
That's a dumb argument. The materialist can easily say that free will exists, and suicidal thought is the result of a neurological problem (not yet understood)

>>4879810
It absolutely does.

>>4879838
There is no qualitative aspect. They can feel however they like, but we must respond to their emotional demands for vengeance with an insistence on justice. We can see which outcomes result in the greatest benefit to the wellbeing of society and make decisions accordingly, we do not place the law in the hands of grieving widows.

>> No.4879881
File: 196 KB, 499x497, 1362706241347.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4879881

The fact that the universe is a set timeline wouldn't defer from the fact you walking in front of a car in contest wouldn't result in you being killed.

Our perception of the universe is such that we have free will, so that is how we must necessitate action. Unless we could see into the future, its a moot point.

Nigga.

>> No.4879883

I wouldn't go so far as to say "there is no such thing as free will". Frankly, I doubt one can neither prove nor disprove that such a thing as free will exists, and I don't care. I'm still going to do what I'm going to do if everything is predetermined or not.

Besides, I only ever hear credible arguments against free will on a microcosmic scale. It's oft said that you can predict and determine individual's behaviour in a particular situation if you could evaluate their past experiences and such. But even if one's choices are determined by one's psychology; by the workings and machinations of their brain and developed through past experiences it is still "free" as it's determined by that individual - not somebody else. Of course, previous experiences are going to influence a decision.

>> No.4879884

Alright, so:
>men are not held responsible for anything since it's all determined
>the political system should not be based on personal opportunities, it's all determined
>nothing you do in life is good/admirable, it was all determined
>man kills himself with drug use, so what? it was all determined

Sounds like hell

>> No.4879888

>>4879831
The instinct to live/survive/procreate is present in all organic life. The existence of intellect is not required to support it on any level (e.g. plants). Intellect at human level is unique and supplies motives that are not available to other life throughout all their various gradations. These motives press against each other until one inevitably emerges as the stronger and thus a given act, for example suicide, unfurls. The suicide could not have been avoided. There is no free will.

>> No.4879900

>>4879883
there are arguments against it at any scale

every decision you make is influenced to a boundless degree by events totally outside of your control. you did not choose to be born, let alone the where, when, or to whom you were born. consider the magnitude of the ramifications each of these has - how much your parents shape who you fundamentally are as a person. these restricting factors only grow in number, as you are arguably most free as a child. the power of social pressure adds another restriction, your finances another.

so even without making the materialist argument, there is a compatibilist case against a functional free will.

>> No.4879902
File: 43 KB, 400x400, arthur-schopenhauer.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4879902

Because you'll behave as if it exists regardless of whether you believe in it, so it ultimately doesn't matter.

Also, that totally groundbreaking revelation is not applied on a large scale in real life because no intelligent and sane person would want that.

>> No.4879910
File: 146 KB, 394x312, ok.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4879910

So, determinists are essentially the same as those people who say "everything happens for a reason?" or "It's all part of God's plan."

Ha.

>> No.4879922

>>4879910
no, that is the comical misconception that every non-determinist in this thread seems to have

>all determinism = calvinist predetermination

>> No.4879938

>>4879902
/thread

>> No.4879994

>>4879888
not picking up what you put down.

i agree with you on all points except the conclusion, all the motives are present and while some weaken others strengthen. The conclusion that they do this all by themselves without any interaction with the thoughts of the being they are within or their environment and the reactions they have to it are, in my opinion, bogus. we touch, we feel, we see, we think, we act. Tell me how we could have a conversation about free will without it.

>> No.4880001

>>4879922
If it isn't predetermined how is it determined in any sensible way? Aren't you just making another word mean free will? If the book of life is already written you're always doing what you are supposed to, that is the real determinist stance on living life. It's a big nothing and means you do the same as you do with free will except you call the choices you are making illusions and still make them.

>> No.4880013

>>4879768
>Why do people who don't believe in free will still live as if it does exist?
I don't.
I'm a Marxist.

>> No.4880019

>>4880013
What does marxism have to do with free fucking will happening in brain

>> No.4880027

>>4880001
You should at least learn the terminology of the debate before you jump in.

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

>> No.4880045

>>4879768
Please stop shit-posting.

>> No.4880059

>>4879902
Isn´t total predetermination a metaphysical and therefore unfalsifiable proposition?

But if we differentiate freedom of action and freedom of "will" then how COULDN`T practical application not benefit us?

Think of how just the penitentary systems would change...

>> No.4880075

>>4879994
The motives ARE the thoughts. You misunderstood. We're having this conversation because the motivation to write these posts is stronger than those in favour of not posting. This isn't free will. Hitting Post is my inescapable latest act.

>> No.4880090
File: 25 KB, 329x285, 1380445_10201796502548058_759313588_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4880090

>>4879902
once you understood that there is no free-will, one of the practical consequences should be to help each other more.
As I am actually left-pilled, I can't help but sigh everytime I see the same advice repeated ad nauseum on this website :
>"don't be a faggot
>"train harder
>"remember that you only live once
>"what's your excuse?
>"you have the power to change
>"stop thinking, just act
>ad lib...

have you noticed this is *always* right-wing advice, where the assumption is always that the individual can everything and is determined by nothing?

I wish I was not as lazy and could make better captioned pics (someone please tell me how I find a font in GIMP that would be the same as in memegenerator, i.e. white with big black borders?)

since I'm left-pilled, I have so many ideas for captions.

like,
>someone passes by a homeless.
>he doesn't stop
>caption : WHAT'S YOUR EXCUSE?

you think I get my bright ideas just because I'm awesum?
no.
it's because I had the priviledge to have an education, was introduced to great books, and once you're left-pilled about free-will, you become all creative and generous.
like someone said, I'm not an unmoved mover.

left-pilling also teaches you the humility that clearly lacks in dark places like /fit/.

if you're tech-priviledged, please teach me how to do memegenerator font myself with GIMP, if possible.

>> No.4880092

>>4880090
What teh fuck

Can I report this post for something?

>> No.4880097

>>4880019
Marx is a philosophy PhD.
his thesis is about Greek materialists.
you should check it out.

>> No.4880103

>>4880090
>once you understood that there is no free-will, one of the practical consequences should be to help each other more.
Clearly not, because there's fuck all reason to do anything different. Understanding that you're an automaton with no responsibility beyond the cards you're dealt shouldn't affect anything, nevermind for the positive.

>> No.4880108

>>4880097
I've read books about Marxism in law and economics and I cant figure out what the fuck is its tie into free will

>His thesis is about Greek materialists
Well I guess that takes it there then..

>> No.4880130

>All intelligent people know there is no such thing as free will.

How's that first year general intro to philosophy paper going?

>> No.4880135

>>4880103
can't you see that free-will, as Nietzsche puts it, is the ideology of the Executioner.
It's a blaming ideology, always blaming the individual.
If there is no free will, then successful people don't have merit, they have duty.
Unsuccessful people are not to blame, they should be helped and be offered better opportunities.

>>4880092
you mad?

>> No.4880142

>>4880135
>ideology of the Executioner
*Executioner's metaphysics

>> No.4880149

>>4880135
You invoke Nietzsche to put constraints upon the "successful". You realise how ridiculous that is?

>> No.4880405

>>4880149
That level of ridicoulsessness is proportional with the amount of teenage angst you project into him.

>> No.4880434

I'm so sick of these pop-sci retards saying there's no free will

>did you know that you're more likely to give money to the homeless outside a bakery than outside a bank?

>lel no free will

If your definition of free will is such that any biological/subconscious influence negates it, what's the point of even discussing it?

>> No.4880455

>>4880434

>Sam Harris Phd.
>Pop Sci

Bruh there is no free will. Do you have proof of free will?

>> No.4880460

I'm a slave to my own brain...

>> No.4880515

>>4880434
yeah that is a stupid argument

another is that your brain is made of matter and is governed by natural law and there is no magic

>> No.4880526

⇒Why do people who don't believe in free will still live as if it does exist?

Because they have no other choice.

>> No.4880528

>>4880405
That would explain his appeal to lefties.

>> No.4881737

>>4879881
>Our perception of the universe is such that we have free will, so that is how we must necessitate action. Unless we could see into the future, its a moot point.
Brain monitoring actually already allows us to see what people will choose before they make up their mind. Human decision making is wholly predictable.

>> No.4881739

>>4881737
>Brain monitoring actually already allows us to see what people will choose before they make up their mind.
what?

>> No.4881740

>>4879884
Sounds like reality.

>> No.4881783

If determinism is true, then neither is there such a thing as intelligence.

Anyway, both free will and determinism are bullshit because the future doesn't exist.

>> No.4881793

>>4881739
http://www.nber.org/papers/w19270
Best I can do now, too sleepy and drunk to find proper sources.

I can't help it pls don't judge.

>> No.4881798

>>4879768
if there's no free will the concept of applying a perception is absurd

>> No.4881803

>>4881783
>If determinism is true, then neither is there such a thing as intelligence.
Why'd you say that? Muscular strength is still real with determinism. Why not mental capability?

Also, if future behaviour can be predicted, which is more and more the case, then determinism does real.

>> No.4881810

>>4880528
You seem to misunderstand. Nietzsche was well aware that people clinging to social notions of 'success' like money or fame was weak, undeserving and ignoble.

>> No.4881820

>>4881803
You can only predict the future insofar 'history repeats itself' that is the past reproduces itself, when it doesn't our models are shit, hence probability.

>> No.4881838

>>4881783
>If determinism is true, then neither is there such a thing as intelligence.
This is incredibly dumb

>> No.4881854

>>4881838
How can you be intelligent if you can't make choices there's no decisions to make which makes you intelligent or stupid? You are just a vessel on auto pilot?

>> No.4881868

>>4881854
Superior choices are still superior whether they are voluntary or not. Decisions still exist for determinists. I don't see why you think they shouldn't. Just because someone can't help that he's smart doesn't make him any less smart.

>> No.4881907

>>4881868
No decision can be smart, if it's bound to be made, it just happened that way.

>> No.4881955

>>4881810
Sounds awfully resentful.

>> No.4882004

>>4881907
That doesn't make it any less smart. I don't see why you feel this connection is mandatory.

>> No.4882020

>>4882004
Because smart is meaningless, there's no reason to judge for value if no one is in control anyways, you are not 'being smart' as you are not 'doing' anything actively, you couldn't have done it any other way.

>> No.4882029

>>4882020
Isn't in control*

>> No.4882052

>>4882020
That doesn't in any way make someone less smart. Usain Bolt runs fast whether he does so voluntarily or not. Beyonce has a nice ass whether she chose to or not. Hitler was good at influencing people whether he deliberately decided to do so or not. And people can be smart regardless of their decision to be smart.

Hot is still hot, cold is still hot, delicious is still delicious and what sucks doth suck the same. Value judgement isn't prohibited by determination. Please demonstrate how it is. I grasp the intuition behind your point, but it's flawed.

>> No.4882055

>>4882052
*cold is still cold

we late

>> No.4882057

anyone who tries to approach life only with logic is going to get depressed real fuckin quick, the key is not to take yourself seriously(because you're not) and do what you enjoy doing

if you sit idle and let your mind stagnant you'll create nonexistent problems for yourself

>> No.4882080

>>4882052
He's not smart as he didn't have the choice between dumb and smart and chose smart. If you can't be stupid you can't be smart. If determinism is true you just is, you can't act smart or stupid, that's implying it could have been another way, as you need something to compare it against for it to be meaningful. Like why decision A was better than decision B or C. It's not the same as having a 'nice ass' or some other physical attribute outside yourself.

>> No.4882094

The illusion of free will is free will.

>> No.4882114

>>4882080
You can still be stupid in a determined world view, since decisions are considered stupid by their quality rather than their being voluntary. You can still compare hypothetical alternatives without their possibility to be real in that particular circumstance. It actually is precisely the same as having a nice ass, since smartness or dumbness is a judgement regarding the quality of a person's behaviour a posteriori. The way a person goes about things is observed and considered dumb by not living up to certain standards. An ass is observed and considered nice by living up to certain standards. The ass is not nice by having the ability to be not nice, it's nice by the qualities it possesses as it is. Saying that the niceness of the ass is meaningless because the ass couldn't have been horrible is a non sequitur.

>> No.4883318

>>4882094
I laughed hard when I heard that one of the Wachowski brothers (who did The Matrix, a film defending the idea of free-will) was in a relationship with a Dominatrix (i.e. his fetish is lifestyle sexual submission to cruel women) (I guess it was the one who later became a transsexual).

Also, when I was in school I've always heard that the difference between humans and animals is freedom, which is consciousness.
Even in college, the main argument of the professor (for free-will) was :

>wait for the deterministic student to end his long soliloquy
>wait until he's tired

wait 5 seconds, and always reply, condescending :

"yes, it's all true. But....
you are aware (conscious) of it".

which was supposed to be the counter-argument working everytime for everything (it's bait for more aguments for the proponent of determinism, who goes from crazy to mad as you repeat the "one-liner" : I hear you, I hear you... but you are... *conscious* of this)

btw, this is what Freud writes word for word :

>once you become aware (conscious) of something, you are freed from it.
(he then goes on that nothing else is necessary : to become aware (conscious) of something means that you are freed of it)

>btw I read Freud in a french translation, so I don't know the best way to say in English "prendre conscience de", which word for word would be "to take conscience of"

I'm aware that saying "become aware" might sound retarded, like Jean-Claude Van Damme (btw notice the parallel between /fit/, stupid, and partisans of free-will)

in french we also say "méthode Coué" to make fun of behaviorism (pharmacist who had invented a method at the turn of the XIXth / XXth century : repeat to yourself everyday : I am the master of my life and captain of my soul)

of course you need balance in all this, still, I'm a Spinozist non-compatibilist.

>> No.4883330

How would you even live as if free will didn't exist?

>> No.4883347

>>4879768
"Act as if what you do makes a difference" -William James

This discussion doesn't matter at all. Even scientismofists have faith that their experiments will find predictions even though they can't know it before the data has been collected and processed unless they are doing very bad science. Soft determinism is free will.

>> No.4883353

Michio Kaku says he believes in free will and he's a scientist AND chinese so you know he's gotta be smart, m8

>> No.4883359

>>4883353
You probably don't understand what sort of a shitstorm would ensue if a pop sci icon would state unpleasant truths to the masses.

>> No.4883362

>>4883359
>determinism
>unpleasant
lmao. Determinism means that nationalism is the best, and I'm fine with that

>> No.4883366

>>4883362
What the flying fuck?

>> No.4883367

>>4883359
>determinism
>unpleasant

It's the most lax, since you are not 'really' responsible for your misery, torment and suffering.

>> No.4883373

>>4883367
It also means that there's no real reason for our existence in the first place if no God and all our attempts to make our existence tolerable are just rationalizations that we can't help making due to our naure as programmed carrier machines for DNA. We all know how much the average Joe and Jane wants to be the center of the universe.

>> No.4883374

Just like all intelligent people think homosexuality isn't a mental illness and women should be allowed to vote, am I right guys?

>> No.4883376

>>4883367
And neither can you do anything about it. It's the death blow to hopefags.

>> No.4883379

>>4883376
Yeah and a pretty good excuse for obese neckbeard a to stay fat and unattractive.

>> No.4883385
File: 987 KB, 229x176, 1367859241617.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4883385

>>4883379
And there it is.

>> No.4883386

>>4879768
>All intelligent people know there is no such thing as free will.

60% of academia within the field of Philosophy believe in a form of Compatibilism. 15% believe in Libertarianism. It's a very small minority that leaves it simply at determinism.

Stop trying to justify your shit life by saying "it's not my fault! I have no control" faggot.

>> No.4883387

>>4883367
Is this why the people with deterministic ideologies always assume people blame their ideological opposition for all of their problems?

>> No.4883388

>>4883373
They can't want anything. They are determined to feel like the center of the universe just let them.

>> No.4883389

>>4883386
source btw: http://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl

>> No.4883393

>>4883374
Allowing women the same level of power as men is completely retarded if you're a heterosexual male. Homosexuality is as much a mental illness as sociopathy, schizotypal personality disorder or bi-polar disorder: that is, mental illness is mostly a social construct and it depends on who you're asking whether or not somebody's mentally sick.
Hope this helps

>> No.4883394

>>4883386
>>4883389
>argument from authority
Step up. Not one of these fuckers (most of whom probably deal in logic, ethics and the history of phil and such) has a bullet-proof explanation for how they're not being contradictory by believing that something that exists in a causal universe can be free of those causal influences.

>> No.4883395

this thread just screams "i watch anime"

the worst part is you probably do have a modicum of a social life and are known in your circle for these absolutely wild ideas

>> No.4883400

>>4883394
because uncertainty and consciousness, silly-pants. when you move your hand forward consciously, you're purposefully manipulating the uncertain events of the universe. probably only the biggest alfa males have actual full free-will, though, lesser specimens live in a society impressed by such men's will

>> No.4883403

>>4883379
Resignation is the sweetest joy.

>> No.4883405

>>4883400
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GxY559Qfbc#t=8s

>> No.4883407

>>4883387
In a way.

if we just stuck to 'gods plan' everything would be so nice it's those damn progressives meddling. Also, niggers!

Capitalism reproduces all it's subjects relation to capital throughout classes and thereby reproduces oppression by one class on another. Therefore we need a revolution to stop the vicious cycle. The opposition to this have a false consciousness as they don't know they are doing it!

>> No.4883409

>>4883405
Laugh, m8, laugh all you want as long as you get to blame your troubles on everything but yourself

>> No.4883411
File: 141 KB, 591x750, 1397407416022.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4883411

>>4883409
What are these troubles you're talking about? Being right?

>> No.4883415

>>4883393
>Allowing women the same level of power as men is completely retarded

This is retarded? Are you advocating a species infight? Why are you waging war on women, they are the most important part of our reproduction and their concerns ought to be heard in a system?

>> No.4883418

The struggle I feel when I decide what toppings I want on my pizza, and ultimately my decision, is proof of free will.

You can read my neurons firing right before I physically make the decision but those ten minutes before that are something that come deep from our divine human soul.

>> No.4883420

>>4883411
How does it feel that the revolutions of the late 1700's were a freak accident, and that even they prove nationalism is the best thing ever?

>> No.4883423

>>4883415

>implying taking their voting rights would lead to them blockading their wombs in protest

friendzoned assburger

>> No.4883427

>>4883415
Women prefer dominant men. Why are you waging war on human nature, silly determinist?

>> No.4883430

>>4883423
I bet they are blockading your access to their wombs this very moment that is called sexual selection. I have no words that you actually used the friend zone argument, grow up and remember the internet makes you stupid.

>> No.4883432

>>4883427
>invoking human nature against determinism

You are not a smart one are you?

>> No.4883447

>>4883430
>the internet makes you stupid.

no u

>> No.4883450

>>4883432
Nay, I invoked it against giving women the vote within a deterministic system. I believe some people have free will and some don't, and that generally only one person in a group has it at once unless there's some rebellion going on

>> No.4883454

>>4883430
People say "friend zone" in real life all the time to make fun of their friend-zoned friends for hanging out with girls they don't bang

>> No.4883459

>>4883450
This system is the best possible of all systems up to this point. The choice to give women voting rights was made because it was the most rational of all possible alternatives. You are just a buttmad censorfag angry that your word isn't law.

>> No.4883462

>>4883454
That says a lot about your social circles, doesn't it?

>> No.4883470

>>4883459
>best possible of all systems up to this point
Says the hardline progressive determinist retard :--))))

>> No.4883474

>>4883462
My social circles could probably beat up your social circles and fuck all their womyn

>> No.4883475

>>4883470
Nice non-argument

>schooled

>> No.4883483

>>4883474
My social circles are a denim gang and all of them are men we'll literally fuck your boipussies.

>> No.4883496

>>4883475
I merely said I disagree with your apparent idea that each new system is the best system ever. What if a sex-positive fascism took hold in the west, would that be the best system ever? What if communism took hold, actual communism, and then a random high-T dude rekt it and brought about a new age of Empire? Would that prove Empire is the best system? You know WWII itself was by the grace of historical freak accidents according to uncertainty, right? Even the existence of our Christian culture is thanks to the efforts of some guy named Paul

>> No.4883501

>>4883430
>I have no words that you actually used the friend zone argument.

Calm down. No need for hysteria.

>> No.4883504

>>4883483
I don't think we'd get beat up by fags, even if they are Village People rapefags, though I must admit that would be a bit embarassing. What kind of MMA do you guys do?

>> No.4883514

>there is no such thing as free will
>Why haven't we started to apply this perception in real life?
because we don't have free will

>> No.4883526

>>4883496
>What if a sex-positive fascism took hold in the west, would that be the best system ever?

Let me put it this way. That system will be a rational reaction to something and the alternatives will have been qualitatively deemed worse by the inhabitants of said system. Social systems belong to the world of opinion and can't be true or false as it's ever changing. If it's inhabitants will be worse off by it, it'll just produce a new reaction.

>> No.4883534

>>4883504
The ancient ass to mouth technique.

>> No.4883579

>>4883514
I love you.

>> No.4883586

>>4883526
Only if the rulers don't know what they're doing is any system overthrown from the inside, or if they hit the power limit.

>> No.4883606

>>4883586
You're giving 'rulers' too much credit. Rulers are an ancient human custom, that we may have someone to blame when everything turns to shit or praise in the times of prosperity.

Rulers are just a part of a complex system which in its totality is the real "ruler" systems can easily reproduce without its former rulers and still be a replica of the earlier system which is what happens when I king dies or a CEO resigns. Even revolutions reproduce some measure of the old system it replaced.

>> No.4883927

What does it mean to live as though free will exists, vs as though it doesn't exist? I'm not clear on that.

>> No.4883934

>>4879768
>All intelligent people know there is no such thing as free will.
Determinists bring nothing to the table of ideas but their own dissatisfaction with their lives and the need to blame something else, in the language of pseudo-science, for their choices.

>> No.4883965

>>4883934
>Determinists bring nothing to the table of ideas but their own dissatisfaction with their lives
Every intellectually honest scientist is a determinist and they bring nothing to the table?

>> No.4883967

If free will exists stick a fist up your ass right now.

>inb4 I can, but I don't want to

>> No.4883972

>>4883965
>Every intellectually honest
kek. Why do determinists do this to themselves?

>> No.4883976

>>4883972
Until you have the thorough explanation for how conscious is formed and why this process isn't directed by the causal laws of the universe implying free will is nothing but a slightly more plausible alternative for religion.
>I feel free, thus I am! I could eat that pile of shit off the ground, I just dont wanna!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYpnINrZM_M#t=50s

>> No.4883978

>>4883967
>But your Honor, I'm not responsible for the rapes and murders I've committed; free-will doesn't exist!

>> No.4883986

>>4883976
Until you have a thorough explanation for how thinking isn't an activity and 100% at all times predict all the actions, choices, and thoughts any individual has determinism is nothing but the pseudo-scientific religion that it is.
>Physics! SCIENCE! Even though I know I think and I make choices it's more convenient if I blame it all on some outside force!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRmc9IPGmiA

>> No.4883992

>>4883986
>Until you have a thorough explanation for how thinking isn't an activity and 100% at all times predict all the actions, choices, and thoughts any individual has
Read some journals on neuroscience, chemical biology and computationalism.

>> No.4883998

>>4883992
>Read some journals on neuroscience, chemical biology and computationalism.
None of which has accomplished this goal. Sorry, this is the age of science- bring results, not dogma.

>> No.4884222

>>4883362
lel

>> No.4884229

>>4883978
>I wish I could not send you to prison

>> No.4884234

>>4883978
maybe "I'm not responsible" means he couldn't help it, and that society also should have to answer for (respond) the crimes it produces.

watch the german film "The Free Will" (Freie Wille) about a man who comes out of jail after serving 9 years for several rapes.

>> No.4884241

>>4884234
not to be confused with "Free Willy", btw, on a whole different subject.

>> No.4884301

>>4883986
>i don't have to prove the positive, you have to prove the negative

What's at issue is whether or not our choices represent a fundamental exception to the normal course of things. 'Determinism' is simply the concept of causality taken to its logical conclusions (and if you even dream of mentioning Hume here you had better wake up and apologise).

>> No.4884311
File: 61 KB, 625x626, a48.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4884311

>>4883393
>>4883427
>>4883450

>> No.4884314

Surely choosing to not be free would be as much of a false act of free will as... anything else.

Anyway - I think you might be missing the point of a lot of determinstic views. The idea isn't that you are some fucking puppet being made to act by the evil forces of fate.

>> No.4884319

>>4884311
But women do prefer dominant men. Women want a guy who will dominate them.

>> No.4884345

>>4879884
as if anything matters
obviously there is no 'objective good' just what society defines as good noob
learn2relativism

>> No.4884348

Why do people try to know things in themselves?
I know it's tired,
but hedonism is the one and only right path.
Truth is dull and simple;
Is the van red?
The van is red.
That is truth.
Basis of society is anarchy.
Either exist nowhere or create activity.
Shouldn't that activity point toward your fantasy?
It's simple.

>> No.4884358

Also,
contrary to popular belief,
the extermination of conciousness is not at all possible.
If a root didn't exist, nothing would exist.
The nature of existence is existence.
There is no such thing as nothingness,
it is just a notion.

>> No.4884365

>>4884348
>perception
"red" is your subjective view m8
check your non-colourblind privilege

>> No.4884444

>>4884365
Suck my cock.

>> No.4884450

>>4884365
red is any predicate.
Deal with it.

>> No.4884455

>>4884319
I think people want whats hard for them to have. But I wouldent narrow it down to "dominant men". Everyone likes someone who's maybe a little hard to get, a little distant, maybe even kind of a jerk sometimes, but its hardly a one-gender thing. Thats why you've got so many guys complaining about girls only going for douchebags, they just want those girls because they're not interested in them.

>> No.4884763
File: 21 KB, 261x320, Bohr_Niels_7.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4884763

Dialectics 101: Unity of opposites

Sociology 101: Structure/Agency

Protip: Bourdieu solved the problem 30+ years ago (social agency)

Brotip: Vygotsky paved the way.

Also: Niels Bohr because Copenhagen interpretation FTW..

PS:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/bourdieu-forms-capital.htm

>> No.4884783

>>4879768
>All intelligent people know there is no such thing as free will.
>All intelligent people
I think Alvin Plantinga is very intelligent, and uses sound logic to show that to believe there is no free will, you must believe that free will exists.

Let me give you the tl;dr reasoning. To assume free will does not exist, you rely on your mental faculties to determine it. However, once you come to the conclusion that there is no free will, you also conclude that all mental processes are devoid of any driving force behind them and thus do not conform to logic but any kind of programming. For example, studies show that if you hold a blanket over certain breeds of dogs' heads, they believe the world around them stops existing. This is obviously not true, their brains are merely programmed to believe that. Could the same not apply to us as well, in the absense of free will? In other words, wouldn't the science that implies there is no free will be completely arbitary and unreliable if there were no free will?

You must believe in rationality before you can practice science, and you must believe in free will before you can act and think rationally. Otherwise you're just spinning around in an arbitrary circle of ignorance.

>Why haven't we started to apply this perception in real life?
Because that would be impossible. For any kind of civilization to exist, there must be accountability. For accountability to exist, there must be free will.

>Atheists don't live their lives as if there were a God
Define "live their lives as if there were a God". Some would say that materialists who act morally out of their own decision (in as far as they believe it exists), behave against their beliefs because materialism implies (I'm paraphrasing Richard Dawkins) that there is no good, no evil, no right, no wrong, merely cold indifference.

tl;dr: Materialism is both logically and ethically self-defeating.

>> No.4884827

>>4884783
>I think Alvin Plantinga is very intelligent, and uses sound logic to show that to believe there is no free will, you must believe that free will exists.

His argument doesn't show that at all and amounts to at best an ad consequentiam: How much would it totally fucking suck if there were no free will, amirite? Therefore, free will, ldo.

We can only confidently conclude things to the extent that we can confidently conclude them. Exciting news! Plantinga shows - SHOCK - HORROR - that we are incapable of perfect certainty and falsely ties this to our purported lack of free will: he does not anywhere justify the notion that acausal, sui generis ratiocination is any less subject to error than fully determined reasoning. The operations of mechanical calculators do not operate in some grey space where their results are neither true nor false simply because mechanical calculators lack free will; good calculators perform correct operations and bad calculators do not.

>> No.4884887

>>4884827
>His argument doesn't show that at all and amounts to at best an ad consequentiam: How much would it totally fucking suck if there were no free will, amirite? Therefore, free will, ldo.
Not really. It takes the "no free will" world view to its logical extreme: without free will, the means by which we establish the absense of free will are unreliable. Relying on the means by which we establish the lack of free will when those means rely on the existence of free will should lead to cognitive dissonance.

>fully determined reasoning
Which is not "reasoning" but merely a determined action.

>The operations of mechanical calculators do not operate in some grey space where their results are neither true nor false simply because mechanical calculators lack free will
That is because calculators are programmed by (let's assume for the sake of argument) free actors with the intention of calculating (which also relies on the idea of mathematical realism, which already means we have a foot in the metaphysical). Humans, on the other hand, are not "programmed" for a certain purpose. We cannot know whether or not our determined processes are correct because we were not "designed" with the "purpose" of doing science. We may merely believe in the "logic" we use because our brains are determined to believe it.

I don't see why it's so hard to understand that logic cannot be used when all our thoughts are already pre-determined.

>> No.4884919

>>4884887
>. It takes the "no free will" world view to its logical extreme: without free will, the means by which we establish the absense of free will are unreliable.

They are unreliable whether free will exists or not. There is nothing about 'free will' that implies 'immune to error'. There isn't even anything about 'free will' that implies 'immune to inbuilt, systemic error'. It's just a total non-sequitur.

Imagine I told you that free will had to exist because without free will, each of our eyes would have a blind spot. This is similar to how Plantinga's argument strikes me - not only is free will irrelevant to our eyes having blind spots, but each of our eyes fucking DO have a blind spot!

>Which is not "reasoning" but merely a determined action.

The mistake lies (or at least is clearly expressed) in the modifier 'merely'. We reason - this we know. And if we have free will, then maybe - MAYBE - that is necessary for reasoning. But if we don't have free will, and if we had hitherto imagined free will to be necessary for 'reasoning', then it's not the case that we don't reason but that we have hitherto been *mistaken about the nature of reasoning*.

>That is because calculators are programmed by (let's assume for the sake of argument) free actors

Petitio principii. If a Boltzmann Brain is conceivable then so is a Boltzmann Casio. And a Boltzmann Casio performs operations just as reliably as a regular Casio. Plantinga has to put the magic dust in at the start of the reasoning process to make sure it pops out at the end.

>> No.4884943

>>4884919
>each of our eyes fucking DO

'Does'. I'm drunk, forgive me.

>> No.4884954

>>4884919
>They are unreliable whether free will exists or not. There is nothing about 'free will' that implies 'immune to error'.
No, but free will at least implies the possibility to understand and reason. There is of course always a possibility that we can be wrong, but that would (under sound logic) be because of insufficient data. A lack of free will simply means that we cannot reason at all.

>Imagine I told you that free will had to exist because without free will, each of our eyes would have a blind spot. This is similar to how Plantinga's argument strikes me
Except that's not how the argument works. The argument is more that materialist determinism is akin to the statement "I see that I can't see". Establishing that you cannot see relies on your ability to see, just like establishing that you cannot reason relies on your ability to reason (which presupposes free will).

>We reason - this we know.
I think the problem here is how you classify "reasoning". Can a predetermined process really be called reasoning? It's a pre-established process. To go back to your calculator analogy, a calculator cannot reason. It can merely do what it was programmed to do. In that same way we have no reason to understand that we are even capable of understanding anything if all our thought processes are already predetermined. There is no understanding or learning involved, our beliefs were already fixed before we were even born.

>But if we don't have free will, and if we had hitherto imagined free will to be necessary for 'reasoning', then it's not the case that we don't reason but that we have hitherto been *mistaken about the nature of reasoning*.
Or perhaps mistaken about the existence of reasoning. The problem here is that the way we established the nature/existence of reasoning instantly collapses as well.

>Petitio principii. If a Boltzmann Brain is conceivable then so is a Boltzmann Casio. And a Boltzmann Casio performs operations just as reliably as a regular Casio.
Again, the issue here is probably how we define reasoning. I see reasoning as something more open ended, something that demands observation and thought to come to a certain solution that follows a metaphysical, shared concept of logic. You seem to be under the impression that predetermined beliefs and patterns can also fall under reasoning, even though we have no reason to believe that these predetermined processes are accurate or even logical in any way. Especially when so much of our scientific observation relies on observing and interpreting the outside world.

>> No.4884961

>>4884943
>I'm drunk
Please tell me that was a joke

>> No.4884969

I am tired of seeing this kcufing thread on /lit/

your will is free at the point of your perception end of fucking story

>> No.4885005

>>4884954
>No, but free will at least implies the possibility to understand and reason.
>A lack of free will simply means that we cannot reason at all.

Yeah, you/he keep SAYING that, but you never say why!

>The argument is more that materialist determinism is akin to the statement "I see that I can't see". Establishing that you cannot see relies on your ability to see

I'd argue that it doesn't, but I can see that this is just an analogy. I think the analogy fails, but more importantly I think the argument it's an analogue for fails.

>I think the problem here is how you classify "reasoning". Can a predetermined process really be called reasoning?

I say it can be. It may be called reasoning if we have free will and it 100% super-no-doubt-at-all MUST be if we don't.

It's unimportant that a calculator can't reason. What's important is that there is as yet no justification for differentiating between 'reasoning' as we do and 'performing operations' as calculators do. Plantinga just TELLS us that there is an important, meaningful difference and then TELLS us that that difference is 'free will'.

>In that same way we have no reason to understand that we are even capable of understanding anything if all our thought processes are already predetermined.

Again, I just think this is a complete non-sequitur. If we have no free will, we shouldn't conclude that we can't "understand" things, we should conclude that we've previously made mistakes about what "understanding" things entails.

>Or perhaps mistaken about the existence of reasoning. The problem here is that the way we established the nature/existence of reasoning instantly collapses as well.

Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps. Suppose we had this particular, elaborate notion of 'reasoning' and pointed to various phenomena as evidence of its existence, supposing all the while that free will was essential to the process. We then (let's assume) discover that we have no free will and... what? Have the phenomena we pointed to vanished? Shouldn't we, rather than concluding that 'reasoning' simply doesn't exist, conclude rather that we have been wrong to identify free will as essential to it?

We used to think that phlogiston was necessary for things to burn and that the luminiferous aether was necessary for light to travel. We found that neither existed and we did not conclude from this that things don't burn or that light doesn't travel; we concluded that we'd been mistaken about the nature of burning and about the nature of light.

> I see reasoning as something more open ended, something that demands observation and thought to come to a certain solution that follows a metaphysical, shared concept of logic.

Yes, this is the source of our disagreement. I reject your claim that observation and thought necessitate free will.

>Please tell me that was a joke

Five cans deep and happy as a pig in shit. #mondaynightfun #ironichashtagseventhoughidontusetwitter

>> No.4885061
File: 947 KB, 480x270, kesha.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4885061