5b98bd No.1011
Do we truly have free will or are we just the current manifestations of a deterministic series of events that started with the big bang?
efd4da No.1017
Nobody knows. Effects emerge from multiple causes, and causes don't necessarily precede effects-- effects and causes can occur simultaneously. Also, a lot of materialist determinism is based on a classical understanding of physics, where things get much more complicated in modern physics.
I think what's more interesting is the concept of social determinism coupled with contrarian impulse/rebellion/subversion. Also, determinism in a dialectical understanding is interesting.
Enjoy yourself
5268e3 No.1033
How about you read up on the vast literature or post something about the determinism debate rather than posting yet another thread on determinism?
5b98bd No.1036
5268e3 No.1037
>>1036>receives valid criticism for posting poor quality, generic philosophy thread and contributing nothing to the board>le analdiscomfort maymay umadbro XDDDDSeriously, this thread didn't need to be made.
5268e3 No.1039
>>1038I'm sorry you can't accept that you aren't hot shit and that the omg2deep9you questions that you think you're
so unique for contemplating are things that literally hundreds of people have already written on. Welcome to philosophy.
f15a98 No.1042
Even if determinism is false, free will is not necessarily possible.
5b98bd No.1046
43e6a4 No.1052
>>1011Wouldn't our "choices" remain the same in either scenario? I don't see it making a huge difference either way.
>>1017>effects and causes can occur simultaneously.What? Can you give an example?
983193 No.1055
Soft Determinism. Things are as they are, consciousness is inherent to the universe this means that our behavior; being a product of consciousness, is predetermined to an extent.
The poorer our ability to act rationally the less free will we have. The universe dealt us a deck of cards when we were born. The more you know about living in accordance with nature the more wisely you can play those cards.
95a03d No.1059
I think we have our own free will. This universe isn't all pre-determined, it's a universe in chaos, one in which there is no absolute. Even time and space can be bent with enough force.
No, we are free.
7046c5 No.1068
>>1011The biggest problem with the notion of free will is that we equate the past with the future. If we look back, we see a rigid string of actions, interactions and reactions that, wer it for the smallest change, would result in a different present from which we look back. This is not the case when we look forward. Looking forward either means looking at nothing, or looking at a plethora of possibilities that may or may not be more or less likely. No matter how you 'chose', you will be able to afterwards look back and see it neatly suited into the string of events that necessarily form our perception of the past. But from that necessity it does not follow that the decision was ALWAYS a necessity.
The question gets complicated if we feel like there's a difference between merely assumed free will and 'actual' free will, i.e. whether our sense of choice is illusory or not. But I doubt that anyone would seriously advocate that there is not even an illusory notion of free will. So then the question becomes; "why should there be a difference?" Most would respond to that with some kind of essentialism or metaphysical assertion, which can be interesting, but essentially addresses a meta-problem.
>>1059Chaos does not imply freedom of will. At least not if freedom of will is understood in the conventional sense - there it's the other horn of the dilemma of determinism.
>>1036>>1038>>1046Not that guy, biut how can you not let a reasonable criticism slide, and instead post about the question itself, instead of being what I can only assume to be purpusefully inflammatory? You are on a philosophy board, and clearly find the thread to be valid and interesting. It would be great if your posts actually reflected that.
This goes for the other guy too, especially
>>1039. Tons of threads have mentioned the question of free will, but none of them is dedicated to it. So it's not per se a useless thread.
beaa28 No.1070
>>1017Even if randomness or possibility does exist, that doesn't necessarily put our "wills" in control though. It would just mean that we are the product if a chaotic and possibly random series of events, rather than caused ones.
0dd2a5 No.1074
>>1070>that doesn't necessarily put our "wills" in control thoughMore than that, free will necessarily impossible by definition (if we go by the usual agent x has free will if he is able to pick any epistemic option and exercise it without being forced by underlying physical forces, deterministic or completely random/probabilistic, to pick one or the other).
983193 No.1077
>>1074Just because your choices are conditioned by circumstances doesn't mean they aren't freely chosen. It's like saying that because when you're driving a car you don't have a choice to go up, down, left and right and only left and right means you aren't free to choose between those two options.
0dd2a5 No.1079
>>1077Only way you can hold on to this notion is to postulate a soul/ghost in the machine that is free from any and all influences during the decision-making process which is a load of shit.
983193 No.1089
>>1079Really? How so?
Your rationality is not contained within your brain. it's a consequence of your brain's processes. Like how an engine gets hot while running. The point of an engine isn't to get hot and the point of your brain isn't to generate rational consequence. It's a side effect of the process.
983193 No.1090
>>1089>rational consequenceI meant rational conscious.
0dd2a5 No.1092
>>1089I think your engine metaphor fails because everything that happens to and via the engine is still grounded in physics, same thing with conscious humans who generally have been regarded as "moral agents". You might have the feeling of being free and all that, but you're not unless you're implying that emergent processes are magic and can break free of the ground they rise from.
f7ace6 No.1094
>>1046Youre a fucking faggit spaft
983193 No.1098
>>1092The point of the emergent process of consciousness is the fact that it allows us a dichotomy of choice. We can act in ways which are biological or rational.
If you are acting in ways which go against the goal of your brain which is to keep you alive and spread your genes then you are exercising the free will available to you as the only rational being we currently know of in the universe.
Free will is a possibility but it isn't an inherent quality possessed and exercised by everyone at all times.
0dd2a5 No.1099
>>1098>The point of the emergent process of consciousness is the fact that it allows us a dichotomy of choice.No?
983193 No.1100
>>1099Sadly that isn't a refutation.
0dd2a5 No.1101
>>1100It's a sufficient reply, no one with sufficient education in neuroscience and/or philosophy of mind takes the notion of free will seriously.
7046c5 No.1102
>>1098What you are postulating is that our ability of reflection or rationality in general allows us to be more than just limited to biological urges, and you frame this ability as offering a choice and thus demonstrating an understanding of free will (within natural limits though).
This boils down to the age-old question of whether or not percieved/assumed choice equals actual choice. Many regard this as a useless question because our sense of free will is so powerful and our evaluation of others hinges to a great extent upon it, but even so there is no argument aside from pragmatic convenience that could substantiate the claim that we actually do have a choice.
Not to mention the fact that many rational decisions are quite similar to biological ones, only on a social/interactive level. Though it is true that we tend to act against the notion of survival, indicating that we have some mechanism strong enough to overrule bilogical regulation. But again, this does not necessitate choice.
I'm fairly certain that is the position 0dd was coming from.
7046c5 No.1103
>>1011>>1036>>1038>>1046Also, due to the IDs being enabled (thanks mod), I see that not only were the inflammatory posts made by the OP, but that the OP has yet to post a meaningful comment relating the thread's topic.
I, for one, would be highly interested what your own thoughts are, or what prompted you to pose the question and what replies you expected it to get (and what you make of them now).
983193 No.1104
>>1101If that were the case you would be able to formulate a better rebuttal than "No?".
>>1102The fact that there is two avenues of choice open to us is enough. To get to the point where the "free" part of the will isn't free "enough" is quibbling on things that don't matter. It does not matter that I can't jump out of my window right now and fly. To place an arbitrary limit on our freedom of choice because it isn't completely without hindrance is perplexing.
The cognitive functions that drive my behaviour drive me in a very specific manner toward a very specific goal. As a rational being I am able to act against that in a way that a bacteria cell, a cat, or a plant is unable to because it cannot resist the compulsion of the consciousness which runs through it.
7046c5 No.1106
>>1104You misunderstand. The position I mention does not get its strength by postulating that we are limited in our possibilities. It merely observes that we can never tell whether or not our trivial, everyday sense of choice was truly a choice or not - i.e. if the decision was 'predetermined' or not. As I already mentioned, it is quite prudent to ignore this qualm for pragmatism's sake, but that still leaves the question unanswered, not concluded.
Further, the biological urge is not as linear as you seem to imply. Sure it's all abour 'survival', but an animal might ignore food it has in front of it in favour for the prospect of more or different food later on. Or it might not.
And saying that our minds can act against our biological urge (sometimes actually improving our chances of survival, btw) does not imply that we are presented with a choice. It only implies that there's an additional factor to consider.
I know what you're saying, and I essentially agree. But it is not a response to the question but an assertion, however pragmatic it may be.
(That said, the question has been largely ignored due to either compatibilism or quantum science, so this is all basically the equivalent of asking "do we exist?" It's safe to say that, in one way or another, our assuming that we do is logically justifiable.)
983193 No.1108
>>1106I think the question is answered by the nature of the choices made.
No animal which wishes to live will ignore any food which is edible, no matter what it is, if that means it will starve to death.
My notions are based off of Stoicism, Phenomenology and Integrated Information Theory. Regarding consciousness as a universal aspect as the latter two posit leads me to believe in the sort of soft determinism I speak of today.
7046c5 No.1109
>>1108>if that means it will starve to deathYes. But suppose it's not going to outright die any moment. The 'direction' the biological urge can spur a being on is not linear. So how are the 'choices' made? Are they even choices? This is the question of free will. The distinction between the physical drive to live and some rational drive to do whatever seems to me a bit reductionistic.
>>1108>I think the question is answered by the nature of the choices made.How so? If it's not directly caused by a biological desire to live it's a free choice?
I'm personally quite fond of 'soft determinism' (though I think it's a misnomer) and phenomenology, but I don't at all think it can validate what it assumes to be choice to unambiguously mean 'free' choice.
983193 No.1110
>>1109Choices are decisions made based off of the discrimination of reality provided to us by our brains.
Given that, in my view, what we consider ourselves to be is the not thing which processes reality. (That is our brain which passes this information on to our rational consciousness to govern; hence why it is an emergent process of the brain and not contained within the brain itself) This means that as rational beings we are free to choose avenues of thought which can either be "biological" or "rational".
I'd like to formulate my thoughts better than that but I have to go for now. When I return if anything was unclear I'll clarify. I'd be willing for hard determinism to be true if I could see proof of that but given my view of consciousness and the emergent nature of awareness I do not think it is as cut and dry as that.
7046c5 No.1111
>>1110>the not thing which processes reality'Not thing' is an interesting choice of words. I assume it roughly equates to 'non external thing'?
>That is our brain which passes this information on to our rational consciousness to governThis is the crux, though. What and how exactly does our rational consciousness 'govern' the information it's provided with? Those who deny free will would argue that the information is not passed on to be governed by our consciousness, but are either predetermined, or subconsciously 'pre-governed' - in both cases the notion of 'choice' becomes mute.
If this is even a possibility, then you do not need positive proof for it in order to throw a shadow onto the idea of free choice.
Not sure I'm fully capable of expressing my position well either, but I think it's likely a question of differing premises.
983193 No.1126
>>1111It's more of a 'non-existent' thing. In the same way that an idea doesn't exist in reality but nonetheless exists so does our rational awareness. It is not through the processes of the brain that awareness arises but because of the complexity of the process.
This is why choice can be free. The way we choose to interpret the data processed by our brain is not fixed in the same way a non-rational animal's is.
55c37d No.1241
How can you have free will if you don't have the will to be free?
A trick question, men have become action-less reactors.
cf0e05 No.1249
>conversing about free will
>ignoring German Idealist developments on subjectivity and freedom
>ignoring my philosophy shattering essay on human freedom which launched continental philosophy post-Hegel
Disgusting.
983193 No.1403
I've done some more thinking of the subject and I've wondered.
Determinism is based off of a cause and effect relationship of real actions, right? Even if, to some degree, our available actions are predetermined. Are we still not free to choose between the ones available to us based on our circumstances?
If we are free to choose between the decisions available to us, don't those decisions have observable affective outcomes on reality? So if our decisions can influence reality that means they can also influence the other things that happen to us.
From more immediate things like, "if I eat I won't be hungry." to more abstract and distant gains from actions like, "If I save for retirement I won't have to work one day."
This seems to me that even if we aren't free to literally choose anything we are still free to manipulate the determined chain of events to be in our favour.
3d6deb No.1404
Gaming profile Athene and his friends on the subject of Free Will
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37ZBLF-RpuY cf0e05 No.1405
>>1404Don't ever post Athene. Seriously, he's full of shit. I know because there was a time I thought he might be on to something, but then I studied the philosophical matters deeper and realized he really doesn't know anything. Athene is, sad to say, a pop-sci philosotard.
aa7ca9 No.1406
>>1405Sorry, I'm just getting in to this whole philosophy thing, got to start somewhere I guess. Where would you redirect me, any authors, debaters or other people that I can draw good information from?
cf0e05 No.1407
>>1406I would direct you to go to your local college/university and check out their course compilation texts for the intro to philosophy courses. This will consist in a mix of simple classical and modern essays concerning general topics of philosophy, under which free will fall.
I'd also recommend you to look into philosophy of science to see what's wrong with Athene's bizarre mystical scientism (and the naivité of pop-science and scientists in general).
If you're interested in science, and are mainly exposed to pop-science, I suggest The Scientific Worldview by Glenn Borchardt. It's a no name book by a no name author who isn't a qualified philosopher, but I found it a big eye opener. I don't accept his own philosophy anymore, but I still recommend it because it's not a hard read, yet for a layman it provides a really powerful entry into critical thinking concerning science.
cf0e05 No.1408
>>1407To add, the reason I suggest stuff concerning philosophy of science is because of the abuse of determinism/indeterminism supposedly backed up by "science" by people who aren't philosophically nor scientifically literate.
When I was thinking about free will, I immediately turned to the question of determinism and found myself sucked into a completely different debate concerning the truth of scientific theory. That's how i came upon Borchardt's book. It definitely changed my views.
53da49 No.1410
Free will does not exist.
I call myself a determinist. I believe the universe is just a large and complicated Rube Goldberg machine. Atoms and particles are bound by the laws of physics and absolutely nothing aside from divine power could change anything. Most would agree that in a universe where every outcome could be predicted with absolute certainty, it would be impossible for free will to exist. However, some try to counter this through quantum mechanics and radioactive decay. Even though a large majority of theoretical physicists believe that the outcome quantum events are impossible to predict with absolute certainty, I still deep down believe there is a yet to be discovered way to predict quantum events with absolute certainty. However, my study of physics ended in high school so I will not dismiss this claim as false for my arguments.
Even if the universe is not deterministic humans would still not have free will. Humans and the human mind have zero agency in controlling the outcome of quantum events and therefore have zero agency on their decisions. Having agency in decisions means having complete control of your decisions. If quantum events are impossible to predict with certainty, then of course it is impossible to control the outcome of quantum events. We may be able to nudge the probabilities of quantum events, but we will never be able to have absolute control over them. It is impossible to free quantum events from their inherit randomness, and so if human decisions were freed from being deterministic thanks to quantum events they would be shackled by the incontrollable randomness of quantum events. Free will would still not exist as our conscious not be able to control the random outcome of the mind's quantum events.
In fact, our entire notion of free will comes from our conscious. I would bet some here are familiar with the term "p-zombie." A p-zombie briefly explained, is exactly the same as a human. P-zombies would look, talk, act, and make decisions indistinguishably from other humans. The only catch is p-zombies do not have a conscious. There is no "self" looking behind the eyes. No one would say the p-zombie has free will. However, the only difference between a p-zombie and a normal human is the conscious, and I say the human conscious has absolutely no control over human decisions. The conscious merely "views" the mind's decisions. The only effect the conscious has on the mind is that the mind knows it's being watched, and thus sometimes creates dialogs like this one. However a p-zombie who believed it had a conscious would be able to philosophize about the conscious exactly like others do. Human rationale and decision making comes from evolutionary product of our physical brain, if we did not have a conscious our minds would make decisions the exact same way it already does. The existence of the conscious does not mean the existence free will.
cf0e05 No.1411
>>1410
Compatibilism disagrees. We're not autists like you and libertarians, and as such don't use a clearly incoherent condition for free will to be necessary.
53da49 No.1412
>>1411
You act in accordance to your motivation, but you can't control your motivatoin or even how you act in accordance to your motivation. "Where is the freedom in doing what one wants when one's wants are the product of prior causes which one cannot inspect and therefore could not choose and one had absolutely no hand in creating?" Your not free just because you see the puppet strings and claim them as your own doing.
cf0e05 No.1414
>>1412
Yes, you are. Do you not see how willing your will is an incoherent concept of freedom which no one but theologians could come up with?
Compatibilism is a different conception of freedom than what you are arguing.
e8b060 No.1416
>>1414
Compatibilism still gets raped by the Consequence Argument.
Give the sufficient definition for whatever moral values you are pushing, and someone will inevitably come around and debunk this "hundred-times refuted theory of free will".
cf0e05 No.1418
>>1416
>gets raped by the consequence argument
No one is arguing for ultimate source of a decision, if they are it's retarded.
Once again, "free will" in compatibilism (fuck modern analytic theories of it) is not free from fundamental determination. It is freedom in the sense of acknowledging determination and using that knowledge. "Freely willed" choices are, even by this deflated standard, few and far between.
53da49 No.1424
>>1414
>Do you not see how willing your will is an incoherent concept
Your desires are predetermined and you have no control over them. Just because they are your wills doesn't mean they are your free wills. You act in accordance to your wills not freely.
What about this is incoherent? I say you have to have agency in the decisions of your actions for you to be free in the making of your decisions. When I say "you" I mean your conscious not your body or even your physical brain. For instance a p-zombie would not have an actual self much like how a clock, despite its complexity, does not have a self. Your conscious has no control over your decisions. Your decision making process is merely just a bunch of atoms bouncing around in your skull bound and determined by the laws of physics. Your conscious has no control over them. You have no control over them.
cf0e05 No.1425
>>1424
It's incoherent because
>willing your will
>willing before you will
>are you retarded? This goes ad infinitum because to be "free" you would need to always qualify willing to will the last will
Incompatibilists are just arguing a retarded concept. UItimate responsibility isn't what any notion of free will is. You aren't some ghost, you ARE your bodily existence. What your body wills is YOUR will. So long as no one else coerced you, you are responsible for what you choose given that you were fully aware of your choosing.
You can keep saying, hurr durr no free wells, but you don't live your life like you're not in control. It's a pragmatic principle in society, as well as for personal psychological well-being, you retard.
53da49 No.1428
>>1425
Would you say a that a tree has the free will to grow? No other being forces the tree to grow. It's body,it's genectic code, acts on its own to absorb the sunlight and nutrients to grow. This isn't rhetorical. I'm genuinely asking.
cf0e05 No.1431
>>1428
What part of self-reflection in which one recognizes one's actions and affirms them as their own don't you understand? I even said it earlier.
You're arguing for some bizarro world incoherent concept of free will which no one believes in but religious idiots and anti-religious philosophers. Most people have no problem with the compatibilist pragmatic concept because they're not autists.
a0d56b No.1499
>>1011
>or
there is where you went wrong anon!
beaa28 No.1501
>>1011
Probably the latter, even if chance existed though, there still would be no reason to believe that the human brain influenced its outcomes at all.
e8b060 No.1503
>>1418
Free will is not free. That is what you said, so we are in agreement.
The problem always comes down to the definition of free will in free will debates. Either the definition is too strong and cannot hold up against "fundamental determination", or is too weak and can give none of the moral certitudes that are wanted. It is a lose lose proposition on the side of people who believe in free will.
Come to the dark side, you know you want to
8dddf2 No.1505
>>1503
>cannot give the moral certitude wanted
But it does. Our judicial system is functions on compatibilism. Intention and understanding matter in moral judgment. Once again, quit being an asspie.
e8b060 No.1516
>>1505
What does intention have to do with free will? I'm not a fan of excessive hypotheticals, but Frankfurt cases kind of mess with that notion don't they? That you can be morally responsible, and have intention, but have no free will(defined as ability to do otherwise). Also by "our justice system" do you mean human justice? United States? E.U.? Chinese? Some but not all? I would argue the U.S. justice system functions not on compatibilism but on pragmatic functionalism.
Intention and understanding matter, but my question is does free will matter in moral judgement?
1a7ce9 No.2919
I have a thought experiment regarding free will.
Let's say we all, that is, all humanity, agrees that there's no such thing as free will. What changes?
Would we not punish rapists and other criminals? Would we simply let them go free? I don't think so.
I think nothing would change.
We would still attempt to influence mass behavior through propaganda/education. We would still punish those who did evil.
Is it possible that we live in a world that acknowledges a lack of free will?
If we all agreed that there was a such thing as free will, would we attempt to alter anyone's behavior? In a free will world, you have extremely little influence on others' behavior. In a world lacking free will, you have tremendous influence on others' behavior and therefore try to manipulate it constantly.
Which world do we live in? I think the latter. In our world, there is a tacit acknowledgement that humans have no free will. Why? Because it must be the truth.
8c93fa No.2925
>>2919
People say it will give others an excuse to do bad things,
>I couldn't help raping my dog to death and then using its carcass to strangle the milkman! I have no free will!
I don't think it adds up. Even if we are controlled entirely by desire or fate or w/e then we are still justified in punishing the person. After all, we couldn't help but punish them.
50ab1c No.2931
Everyone here has so far ignored the determinate aspect that knowledge plays in judgment and choice.
>>2925
This, for example, assumes that whoever is judging and punishing is aware that they aren't really doing anything the action's meaning requires. If you know there is no moral responsibility nor freedom you really can't care one way or the other because you know it's a belief that grounds this activity of so-called justice. Yet notice that knowing this suddenly removes you from the cycle of inane and pointless moral judgment.
How can you ignore that knowing something itself turns around and determines anew what it s known to determine?
1a7ce9 No.2944
>>2931
I think knowing and caring are different things.
You may know orgasms are pointless, but you still want them. You may know that it's pointless to punish the man who killed your child, but you still want to punish him.
> Yet notice that knowing this suddenly removes you from the cycle of inane and pointless moral judgment.
I would argue that this isn't the case at all. You are arguing that knowledge alone leads me to take revenge on my child's murderer. I would argue that there is something much more basic at work.
I would argue that humans attribute to morality basic drives and desires. It's a cop out or rationalization. We invoke morality on a number of issues, but I'd say morality is an after the fact semantic argument.
Science supports me. The study of morality shows that it is indeed much more basic than a rational judgement and instead comes from deep seated feelings of disgust.
If humans were rational, free will could possibly exist. Humans are rational to the extent that evolution has made us rational through trial and error. Our rationality is an illusion. Morality is a semantic gloss over basic instinctual drives. There is no free will.
Another thought experiment, how would the world be different if we were rational? If there were free will, human civilization would be rational. Human civilization is not rational, therefore there is no free will.
d157f0 No.2993
>>2944
>you may know it's pointless to punish
If you don't take the the problem seriously, you don't actually know anything about it. Being able to recite sentences does not constitute knowledge, there is a need to understand it, and someone who understands the unreality of morality either ceases to speak of morality outright and withdraw from judgment like a skeptic, or gives up the concept of morality and does as he wills like a cynical hedonist.
Your example has to be one of a cynic hedonist who has given up all pretense of morality and does not bother to think nor act according to such concept. He knows that there is no responsibility, hence that very knowledge he uses as justification for his own unrestrained action, i.e. the knowledge of his own unfreedom he >freely< uses to justify his unrestrained action and nothing else.
>Science supports me. The study of morality shows that it is indeed much more basic than a rational judgement and instead comes from deep seated feelings of disgust.
Except that's not where moral law comes from. Morality is not personal, it's communal. Even when you aren't disgusted you must act according to the moral law of community, and when you >are< disgusted it is also the case that the moral law does not function according to your personal feeling, but communal judgment. Lay off the evo-psych.
d157f0 No.2994
>>2944
>If humans were rational, free will could possibly exist.
There is no such thing as being rational qua logic. To be rational actually means to be >rationalizing<. We seek to give and demand reasons for actions and events, that is the meaning of being rational, and that is exactly what we are. It is once we stop being rational, i.e. admit to having no understanding of why we do things, determinism, that freedom disappears.
Freedom is self-determination according to one's understanding of what determines one and whether one accepts that as one's reason or not.
56e0e6 No.3730
>>1411
compatibilism is the most autistic one
>I have a apple
>but I want a banana
>So i call my apple a banana
^that's pretty much compatibilism
235e52 No.3731
>>2944
>I would argue that humans attribute to morality basic drives and desires
and what would those desires be, the cessation of pain and the pursuit of pleasure?
>Science supports me
wew
>Another thought experiment, how would the world be different if we were rational? If there were free will, human civilization would be rational. Human civilization is not rational, therefore there is no free will.
i dont follow your logic. allow me to expound on this by replacing a few words.
If there were free hamburgers, all of human civilization would have hamburgers. Human civilization does not all have hamburgers, therefore there is no free hamburgers.
dd237f No.3732
>>2944
>science supports me
You're right, but as John Gray would argue in Straw Dogs you shouldn't say such things because science is more often used to the ends of human achievement, and so progresses from useful error. It may discover truth but this is secondary relative to the primary objective. Furthermore liberal humanists often use science of naturalism in a bunch of mental gymnastics to try and justify the idea of progress.