[ 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: 10 KB, 383x382, kermit.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5059930 No.5059930[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

>2014
>Still believing in free will

>> No.5059933

>>5059930
But I don't really have any choice.

>> No.5059938

>∞
>Never determining one way or the other.

>> No.5059939

>>5059933
/thread
(didn't want to reply, but i had to)

>> No.5059958
File: 54 KB, 500x500, 95b8d152-6dd5-4a38-b208-f8926fa0c.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5059958

>>5059930

> 2014
> Not choosing free will

>> No.5060160

>i read 1984 today and now I'm going to tell everybody we live in a police state

>> No.5060186

>>5059930
But then who or what is making you say that? If we are all determined to be as we are, why does it even matter if there is free will? Do you just want people to act differently than they are now? Doesn't that contradict your implications that there is no free will, by proving that there is divergence from the determined will?

>> No.5060192

>>5059930

>2014
>still believing free will or its negation are logically sound ideas and not just philosophical transposes of mechanisms inherent to consciousness.

>> No.5060214

>2014
>Not realizing philosophy died in 1921.

>> No.5060225
File: 18 KB, 229x215, opmgrin.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5060225

>>5059958

>> No.5060233

>>5059958
>2112
>still believing in free will

>> No.5060259

>>5059930

Most philosophers believe in free will so I'm not sure why it would be seen as unusual to believe in free will.

>> No.5060288

>That feel when I had no free will writing this post or not.
>It's existence, and my word usage, were all decided long ago

>> No.5060327

>2014
>still thinking believes are a matter of conscious choice

>> No.5060331

>>5060327

Hit me right in the believes

>> No.5060335
File: 28 KB, 512x512, 1ef.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5060335

>>5060259
>Most philosophers
>Most outdated or extremely irrelevant philosophers

>> No.5060352

>>5060335

No, most current living philosophers. Get the crust out of your anus.

>> No.5060362

>>5060352
Give me one example. It doesn't count if his theories are laughable.

>> No.5060370

>>5060335

In case you're stupid enough to keep arguing this point, here's Dan Dennett with some stats: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/reflections-on-free-will

In case you're too lazy to actually read it, here is the relevant section:

"Compatibilism is the reigning view among philosophers (just over 59%, according to the 2009 Philpapers survey) with libertarians coming second with 13% and hard determinists only 12%."

In other words, combining compatibilists and libertarians, we have 72% arguing in favor of free will in 2009. I doubt that the past 5 years has produced a 23% drop.

>> No.5060374

>>5060362

Okay, I guess you were stupid enough. I'll use Dennett as my one example.

>> No.5060400

Like you OP, I choose the superior option and choose not to believe in free will.

*chooses to tip*

>> No.5060536

>>5060370
>>5060374
I asked for a particular example because I was afraid somebody was going to post some kind of statistic which puts on the same level people who know what they're talking about and people who don't (most philosophers' investigations DON'T directly address this specific problem, the subject of free will is often dealt with through vague intuitive beliefs, it's like religious beliefs, everybody has his personal opinion about it, this still doesn't imply they have a good argument to defend their opinion).
Dennett can be used as a good example, even though he's mostly attacking Harris' perspective (and some of his weak additional assumptions) on this article rather than giving good arguments against determinism. That whole point about intent isn't really that relevant when it comes to the existence of free will.
The difference between some minor random event and a decision made by me is the complexity of the chain of causes and effects from my motivation to my choice which includes lots of complex inferences and shit. This doesn't imply there's some extra element playing on this process, it only makes evident how complex the human brain is. And the difference between an involuntary slur shout by someone with Tourette's syndrome and rational and voluntary words is the same: only a matter of the cognitive system's complexity. Dennett's arguments don't really attack determinism, since determinism doesn't necessarily argue against the existence of intent.

>> No.5060593

>>5060536

>I asked for a particular example because I was afraid somebody was going to post some kind of statistic which puts on the same level people who know what they're talking about and people who don't

But my point that you originally responded to was that a large majority of philosophers believe in free will, which is correct. Therefore, it's stupid to imply, as OP does, that a person who believes in free will is somehow out of touch.

>(most philosophers' investigations DON'T directly address this specific problem, the subject of free will is often dealt with through vague intuitive beliefs, it's like religious beliefs, everybody has his personal opinion about it, this still doesn't imply they have a good argument to defend their opinion).

Sure but most philosophers have a significantly more educated view on the matter than the general public even if it's not a specialty of theirs. Also, if you had looked into the survey, you'd see that the largest chunks of the respondents are from phil of mind and metaphysics specialties. In which case, they certainly have addressed free will at some point. I suspect you haven't read an actual peer reviewed article related to free will because if you had you'd know that it has nothing to do with vague intuitive beliefs and personal opinions. Implying it does is disrespectful to those whose intelligence on this matter far exceeds anyone on this board. Among these phil of mind and metaphysics specialists many have undoubtedly published papers in peer reviewed journals. In which case, they definitely had good arguments. Regardless, this wasn't the point to begin with. The point related to whether or not people are out of touch if they believe in free will (clearly this isn't the case). If your point is now that people who believe in free will could only possibly have bad arguments, then it's your job to explain why that is, so we know whether or not you can be taken seriously or if you're just trolling. You'll be revolutionizing the discipline via 4chan if you can do so. Also, Dennett said repeatedly in the article that there is no way in which we can make sense of the kind of "deep" free will that libertarians think we have but we can make sense of a different kind of free will. This distinction seems to have escaped you since you apparently only took away the attacks on Sam Harris from the article.

I suspect given your clear lack of knowledge of the discipline earlier, combined with your confused view of Dennett's position, that you don't actually know what you're talking about and are just excited about some idea or another.

>> No.5060653

>>5060593
>the largest chunks of the respondents are from phil of mind and metaphysics specialties. In which case, they certainly have addressed free will at some point
I've never seen addressed this subject (maybe indirectly on some history of philosophy subject) at my university and I've taken all metaphysics and philosophy of mind related subjects. The free will debate doesn't seem to be that relevant outside of the pop-ish sections of philosophy.
>because if you had you'd know that it has nothing to do with vague intuitive beliefs and personal opinions.
Well, I've read the article you linked. His arguments aren't very sounding themselves (even though I agree with most of his critique to Harris). The whole fucking point of my initial post could have been easily refuted if you had linked me one of this huge amount of interesting articles instead.
>intelligence on this matter
That's not their intelligence what I'm doubting.
>Among these phil of mind and metaphysics specialists
which you still have to show me
>many have undoubtedly published papers in peer reviewed journals. In which case, they definitely had good arguments.
Heh, nice non-sequitur.
>The point related to whether or not people are out of touch if they believe in free will
The point isn't what they believe in, I don't give a fuck about it. The point is the quality of their arguments. Free will reminds me a lot of religion. the point isn't you believing in something or not, the point is what arguments do you have to defend it rationally.
>If your point is now that people who believe in free will could only possibly have bad arguments,
Not exactly. But close.
>then it's your job to explain why that is,
Give me one specific argument in favor of free will and I'll tell you.
>so we know whether or not you can be taken seriously or if you're just trolling.
Just assume I'm a stupid troll, it will make you happier.

>> No.5060654

>>5060593
>You'll be revolutionizing the discipline via 4chan if you can do so.
lol I don't think so. Nobody seems to care that much about it. note, for example, how Harris and Dennett are well known and not specially because of their opinions on free will.
>Dennett said repeatedly in the article that there is no way in which we can make sense of the kind of "deep" free will that libertarians think we have
I don't give a fuck about libertarians and their theories. That's not what we are talking about here.
>This distinction seems to have escaped you since you apparently only took away the attacks on Sam Harris from the article.
Escaped? More like purposely ignored. I thought the point was compatibilism vs determinism. I know the differences between compatibilism and libertarian free will. These last ones are easier to debate.
>I suspect given your clear lack of knowledge of the discipline earlier, combined with your confused view of Dennett's position, that you don't actually know what you're talking about and are just excited about some idea or another.
Nice ad hominem, breh. You can now take your suspections, put them on a cage, lock it and insert the key far inside your rectum since they are 100% irrelevant to me.

>> No.5060666

>>5060214
It died long before that. It died with Stirner.

>> No.5060696

>>5060593
whether determinism is valid is a matter of science and not philosophy

>> No.5060701
File: 18 KB, 232x301, 1396925800172.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5060701

>>5059933
most witty response I've ever seen to one of these

>> No.5060706

How does it make you feel being destined to shitpost?

>> No.5060719

Schopenhauer proved that determinism is true and there's no free will (if you avoid his bullshit metaphysical Kantianesque asspull conclusion at the end). Why are you people even still posting?

>> No.5060752

I believed in free will until I read Spinoza.

His theories were very theistic when he talks about essence but when he talks of a unifying thread between all things and predetermination it is not hard to connect that to atomic theory. If everything is just a bunch of atoms bouncing off each other how could we have free will.

Personally I see the illusion of free will as an evolutionary mechanisms to stay sane. If ever there was someone without the constant illusion of free will they must certainly have jumped off a cliff before passing on their genes.

>> No.5060759

the people who keep arguing about the relationship between free will and determinism don't understand either the brain or determinism. determinism denies the existence of free will because the human brain is simply a biochemical system that behaves according to physical and chemical laws. the brain is just a very very complex system, and it allows for consciousness to exist and for the illusion of free will.

think about a computer generating a random number. just because the output is so unpredictable doesn't mean it wasn't there all along. if you had the initial parameters the computer had you could have predicted the number.

anyways, the bigger question, especially in the light of relatively recent discoveries in the field of quantum mechanics, is if there is one single path set out for the entire universe to walk, or that there are only smaller domains that are determined. that's what determinism is about, not whether monkeys can choose when to eat a banana or not.

>> No.5060760

>>5059930
>filthy frank
saged, reported, called the cops
>>t>/umbl/r

>> No.5060763

>>5060752
>evolutionary mechanism to stay sane

this

consciousness itself is mindbogglingly crazy. in a world that consists of atoms and molecules bouncing and flying for a system to create this complex idea is so crazy I must stop thinking about it now. one something has gone as far as to convince itself it exists, it is only a small step to convince itself it has control over itself.

>> No.5060765

>>5060706
I've seen a video once a long time ago about the bombing of Hiroshima. I remember that they said that when the fires first started after the initial blast all started to congeal together. All these little flames all collected and they started to grow in size and shape until an unstoppable firestorm started to overwhelm the landscape, most of the actual damage came from that fire. The thing that killed the most people was actually that fire that couldn't be quenched until it had burned out. Hiroshima was a bright and shining star on the horizon because of this fire. Most of the people who survived this holocaust were the ones indoors at the time, even though the walls were made of paper and all those homes burned, it was the people outside who had no defense who really got the worst of it.

The footage of those burn victims would be the worst that I'd ever seen, but then there was that sick as hell burn you gave OP that I think might be the most intense I'd ever heard of.

>> No.5060771

>>5060765
10/10 did not see it coming

>> No.5060774

>>5060759
IT. MATTERS. FOR. THE. MONKEYS. TOO.

>> No.5060787

>>5060706
wow.2good

>> No.5060824

>>5060719
Um because I was determined to you fucking cunt

oh shit I'm sorry that was bit rude you fucking whore

shit sorry I can't fucking help being rude you kikeing cunt fucker I was determined to

but then, I was determined to apologise nigger cunt

so is it really an apology if I didn't choose to do it?

Is this even a question, if I'm not even choosing to ask it?

w-what am I?

Oh yeah that's right bitch I'm the fucking BOSS killa who chooses to fucking waste faggots on the fucking internet so fuck you mother fucker fuck OP fuck the goddamm fuck world bitch I'M THE FUCKIN BEST

I earnt this shit nigga I earned this fuckin title because of the choices I made in my fucking life that's how I'm the fucking G.O.A.T. bitch and you're nothing you aint fucking nothin you are literal shit and you are double literal shit because this is what you have fucking chosen for yourself. The choices you have made in your life have lead you to become literal diahreah you are liquid shit you are a fucking shit smear I drink shit like you for my fucking protein shake I just pour some runs in my fucking cup and gulp that shit bitch you are NOTHING

FUCKING SNUFF YOURSELF

>> No.5060826

>>5060719
I don't even know why he added that.

I don't even think he knows why he did.

>> No.5060827

>>5060824
>implying we choose freely and can just magically will it and it becomes true
lol

>> No.5060832

>>5060827
>implying you're not choosing to imply that we can't

>> No.5060834

>>5060832
>implying will can exist without causes
>implying the fact that we choose contains free will and says anything about the freedom of the mental choice
>implying we arent governed by our thoughts and motives

>> No.5060839

>>5060834
>implying if something is caused it isn't free
>implying your second sentence makes sense
>implying we are something separate over and above those things

>> No.5060844

>>5060839
>implying if something is caused it is free
That's the whole point of free, you moron.

>implying my second sentence doesnt make sense
You say we choose, but it isnt a choice in the sense that we are free to just randomply pick. The mental process is as guided by a weighing of thought and can not have any other conclusion than the one it ends up with.

So you're saying we are our thoughts and motives, and those govern us, and yet you propose free will? What the fuck is wrong with you?

>> No.5060846

>>5059930
ITT: shitposters and shitresponders. No mods or janitors for this board?

>> No.5060848

>>5060839
>if something is caused it isn't free

Not >>5060834 but that's how I would define free: not being caused. If something is a product of causes, there is no freedom, so to speak.

>> No.5060905

>>5060848
>>5060844
>I define free so shit that only pure randomness is true freedom

yeah fuck off

>> No.5060907

>>5060763

Yeah there are things that we know through reason but our instincts and habits are always one step ahead.

>> No.5060911

>>5060905
How do you define freedom?

>> No.5060915

>>5060905
Yeah, exactly, that's the only definition that makes sense.

>> No.5060919

>>5060915
And in fact, pure randomness isnt necessarily freedom either. As long as the randomness is a sufficient condition for its effects at a given time, there still is no free will. You still can't roll both a 1 and a 6 on a dice at the same time. You can't will one thing and another even if it is fully up to chance.

>> No.5060935

>>5059933
damn

>> No.5060945

>>5060759
God does not play dice with the universe.

>> No.5060946

>>5059930
>2014
>still posting content unrelated to literature on /lit/

>> No.5060955

>>5059930
If free will is just an invention it means that I'm determined to believe in it. Therefore, I don't see why you are mocking me since my belief is just a product of determinism, I didn't chose to do so...

Oh wait

>> No.5060960

>>5060945
well that was what Einstein indeed believed, but didn't Bell bust this? and is this like general randomness or only in very abstract situations?

>> No.5061692

>>5060160
the problem of free will OP is talking about has nothing to do with totalitarianism

>> No.5061703

>>5059930
> Thinking that what year it is is logically related to what you believe
> mfw Thinking that human culture is always advancing

Understand the origins of progressive thought is based in the Christian doctrine of linear time and judgement day.

>> No.5062012

>>5060666
what about renzo?

>> No.5062027
File: 27 KB, 495x173, Zeno.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5062027

>> No.5062045

>>5059930
Go to bed, frank