• Is free will possible, or are we always affect by some level of determinism
    354 replies, posted
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;43742249]Well actually most of it will be classical, and thus very much hard deterministic since most of your brain is made of atomic components, only a very small amount of it on the quantum level with be actual coin flips.[/QUOTE] My point still stands.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43742252]Lol, that is just Kantian Free will, and by those standards you do have free will. Someone who is a responsible being has free will. Humans are responsible beings when functioning at their full capacity. Therefore humans have free-will. By these standards you as a hard-determinist can froth and spit determinacies in my direction all you want, I will still hold you responsible for them because your are defined as an agent. You begin where other thing's will ends.[/QUOTE] But no not at all, if someone is stuck only following the path of what nature is doing then they are not 100% responsible, but in fact the natural laws that govern them would be responsible.
[QUOTE=Falubii;43742240]Your brain is just a bunch of coins flipping. How could you not follow the metaphor. You know what, you have to be trolling. Congrats. Nice job, you really got me.[/QUOTE] I am not trolling, I am arguing. I don't know why you are so quick to assume that. Fine, your brain is a bunch of coins flipping. You are your brain. Your brain's output's are indeterminate. Therefore Your outputs are indeterminate. If free will is the ability to give indeterminate output, then you have free will. If free will is being responsible. Then the thing which is responsible for the outputs is the brain which is constituted out of bunch of coin flips. If free will is the ability to do what one wants to do, and what one wants to do is the intelligent expression of a bunch of coin flips, then so long as you are free to do it, then you have free will.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43742291]I am not trolling, I am arguing. I don't know why you are so quick to assume that. Fine, your brain is a bunch of coins flipping. You are your brain. Your brain's output's are indeterminate. Therefore Your outputs are indeterminate. If free will is the ability to give indeterminate output, then you have free will. If free will is being responsible. Then the thing which is responsible for the outputs is the brain which is constituted out of bunch of coin flips. If free will is the ability to do what one wants to do, and what one wants to do is the intelligent expression of a bunch of coin flips, then so long as you are free to do it, then you have free will.[/QUOTE] Again not at all, this would suggest you could go against the natural laws that govern your brain which would make you 100% responsible. But this doesn't make any sense at all. I mean as in, if the brain has wired in a way that the person will say commit a theft, all the QM coin flips go that way as well, that somehow this person could go against their own brain.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43742291]I am not trolling, I am arguing. I don't know why you are so quick to assume that.[/QUOTE] I actually define a troll as someone who is participating in debate. Nobody else in the known universe defines it in this way, but I do, therefore you are a troll.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;43742277]But no not at all, if someone is stuck only following the path of what nature is doing then they are not 100% responsible, but in fact the natural laws that govern them would be responsible.[/QUOTE] Yes but you then group up those natural laws into an entity which has actions. In a video game (and I know there are problems with this analogy) you are shot by an npc. While the technical cause of this was the coding, you don't scream DAMN CODING! You curse the NPC, whether it be hitler, an alien or whatever. You say "Fucking alien", as if it is responsible. Although in the Video game it truly doesn't have free will as it isn't indeterminate, in real life humans are responsible because their identity represents the conglomeration of indeterminacy that we call a will.
You really are just redefining the outputs of deterministic objects as "free will" and calling it a day you know that right?
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;43742330]Again not at all, this would suggest you could go against the natural laws that govern your brain which would make you 100% responsible. But this doesn't make any sense at all.[/QUOTE] I can grant you that you aren't 100% responsible just as I can grant you that you are not 100% responsible for what comes out of your mouth because you didn't invent English. Even if you aren't 100% responsible, you are still responsible as moral agent for the things which your indeterminacy has control over. It is how we use the word responsible.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43742339]Yes but you then group up those natural laws into an entity which has actions. In a video game (and I know there are problems with this analogy) you are shot by an npc. While the technical cause of this was the coding, you don't scream DAMN CODING! You curse the NPC, whether it be hitler, an alien or whatever. You say "Fucking alien", as if it is responsible. Although in the Video game it truly doesn't have free will as it isn't indeterminate, in real life humans are responsible because their identity represents the conglomeration of indeterminacy that we call a will.[/QUOTE] In every day language you don't get pissed at the coding. If you were to think about it and apply basic logic, you would have to agree that everyone there is acting according to the coding.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43742339]Yes but you then group up those natural laws into an entity which has actions. In a video game (and I know there are problems with this analogy) you are shot by an npc. While the technical cause of this was the coding, you don't scream DAMN CODING! You curse the NPC, whether it be hitler, an alien or whatever. You say "Fucking alien", as if it is responsible. Although in the Video game it truly doesn't have free will as it isn't indeterminate, in real life humans are responsible because their identity represents the conglomeration of indeterminacy that we call a will.[/QUOTE] Free will would suggest that a person with social anxiety could suddenly at the click of your fingers, become an outgoing extravert through sheer choice. Of course this isn't how people work, people work in a deterministic way. And with the NPC thing, it doesn't matter what I scream (although sometimes I shout "shitty game", which is effectively the same as "damn coding"), I still understand that the AI is just doing what its doing, I don't try to argue that AI chose to kill me through free will.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43742367]I can grant you that you aren't 100% responsible just as I can grant you that you are not 100% responsible for what comes out of your mouth because you didn't invent English. Even if you aren't 100% responsible, you are still responsible as moral agent for the things which your indeterminacy has control over. It is how we use the word responsible.[/QUOTE] I know this debate doesn't directly concern religion, but I'm curious to know how you feel about hell. In your view of free will, do you really think it's fair that murderers and other sinners are punished in hell for eternity?
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43742367]I can grant you that you aren't 100% responsible just as I can grant you that you are not 100% responsible for what comes out of your mouth because you didn't invent English. Even if you aren't 100% responsible, you are still responsible as moral agent for the things which [B]your indeterminacy [/B]has control over. It is how we use the word responsible.[/QUOTE] please define this
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;43742343]You really are just redefining the outputs of deterministic objects as "free will" and calling it a day you know that right?[/QUOTE] No, I am saying that the entity known as a brain is a system which can produce indeterminate results. Since by brain we refer to all things constituting that mushy goo, but not beyond, then we have isolated a part of a whole system in order to refer to it. Identity draws distinctions between me and you and a rock that I just stubbed my toe on, and to those identities we ascibe characteristics. To the human identity we ascribe free-will because unlike the rock, if you poke it in a determinate way, it can potentially produce several results. When those results are given, we refer to the entity as being responsible for them. Woah, I feel like I am explaining reality to a linguistically capable newborn. [editline]31st January 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;43742412]please define this[/QUOTE] The indeterminate particles which directly constitute you as opposed to others. These particles, giving rise to events, which human decisions are a part of, can be referred to as your indeterminacy.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43742416]No, I am saying that the entity known as a brain is a system which can produce indeterminate results. Since by brain we refer to all things constituting that mushy goo, but not beyond, then we have isolated a part of a whole system in order to refer to it. Identity draws distinctions between me and you and a rock that I just stubbed my toe on, and to those identities we ascibe characteristics. To the human identity we ascribe free-will because unlike the rock, if you poke it in a determinate way, it can potentially produce several results. When those results are given, we refer to the entity as being responsible for them. Woah, I feel like I am explaining reality to a linguistically capable newborn.[/QUOTE] Could you try and be less condescending? I understand your problem with this is language based and trying to put agency to words but that's not something you need to speak down to me about. [editline]31st January 2014[/editline] I'm not sure how you define those as indeterminate without KNOWING first and foremost that there are in fact undetermined parts to what relates to our mental states.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43742416]Woah, I feel like I am explaining reality to a linguistically capable newborn. [/QUOTE] Trust me, I know the feeling.
[QUOTE=Falubii;43742389]I know this debate doesn't directly concern religion, but I'm curious to know how you feel about hell. In your view of free will, do you really think it's fair that murderers and other sinners are punished in hell for eternity?[/QUOTE] In my view of morality, what is good is defined by the highest of the high. Since I know that isn't the answer you are looking for let me say this; I see hell as the seperation of those who can live with the law for a seeming eternity, and those who can't. The torturing in hell is simply a by product of being in one place with all the other edgy frustrated rebels. In order to create such a being, it needs memories and reasons to act according to the law. Since creation of such a being in an instant seems contradictory, then the beings whether determined or not, will gradually develop to the point where they meet this standard. Unfortunately the consequence of achieving this state in some is that others do not achieve it. In the end it is a creation in the process, and you are only as damned as you are willing to give up trying to be good by the objective standard of existence. That standard being defined by the characteristics assigned to the entity which requires no previous justification for it's existence. [editline]31st January 2014[/editline] Frankly time could be an illusion and what we are doing now is just the memories playing out in order to produced the desired entities. For does not the creator of the world have the right to do with his creation as the potter does with the clay? [editline]31st January 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;43742427]Could you try and be less condescending? I understand your problem with this is language based and trying to put agency to words but that's not something you need to speak down to me about. [/QUOTE] You misunderstand. I didn't say you are one. I am saying that philosophy is like being thrown into existence and having to critically think about everything. When I said that I was reffering to the whole definition of people as entities and responsibility and whatnot. I think you are quite intelligent.
So as far as you're concerned, Stalin was perfectly justified in what he did, since he was the head of state and thus the highest power. I know its off topic a bit but I had to bring that up because that is some messed up as hell logic. I mean you could justify torturing babies for fun with that logic.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;43742427] I'm not sure how you define those as indeterminate without KNOWING first and foremost that there are in fact undetermined parts to what relates to our mental states.[/QUOTE] Remember the frontal lateral pole? It is part of the system called the brain, which is part of you. When you go through sitation A. You make a decision and then your FLP tells you whether it was a good or bad decision and calculates new or alternative paths you could have taken. Now, this system, put exactly though situation A once again, has a new response which cannot be determined without appealing to inside the system. In this way the system has a freedom of will in it's ability to act otherwise. Free will under the non-compatabilist view, is the ability to do otherwise given the same circumstances soo.... [editline]31st January 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=carcarcargo;43742537]So as far as you're concerned, Stalin was perfectly justified in what he did, since he was the head of state and thus the highest power. I know its off topic a bit but I had to bring that up because that is some messed up as hell logic. I mean you could justify torturing babies for fun with that logic.[/QUOTE] Stalin is not nor will ever be the highest power so your counter-point is mute. There is one highest power and it doesn't resemble anything that Stalin could possibly be compared to fairly.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43742550] Stalin is not nor will ever be the highest power so your counter-point is mute. There is one highest power and it doesn't resemble anything that Stalin could possibly be compared to fairly.[/QUOTE] He was the highest power in Russia. Also you're presuming God exists, so if god doesn't exist, since Stalin was the highest power in Russia, it was perfectly justified for him to starve millions to death.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;43742575]He was the highest power in Russia. Also you're presuming God exists, so if god doesn't exist, since Stalin was the highest power in Russia, it was perfectly justified for him to starve millions to death.[/QUOTE] No because IF he doesn't then the highest power is the collective opinion of the people. Relativism If he exists then the highest power is him, and since he represents the basis of existence, then these principles too would be more objective than stalin could ever produce. Thing is, existence exists, and from this I can derive a higher power that can define this fact. Since that higher power is a higher power, I derive my morals, whether known or unknown, from his ideal.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43742606]No because IF he doesn't then the highest power is the collective opinion of the people. Relativism If he exists then the highest power is him, and since he represents the basis of existence, then these principles too would be more objective than stalin could ever produce. Thing is, existence exists, and from this I can derive a higher power that can define this fact. Since that higher power is a higher power, I derive my morals, whether known or unknown, from his ideal.[/QUOTE] Well clearly the collective opinion of the people wasn't the highest power in Russia, and Stalin was, since Stalin had all the power and no one could overthrow him. So by your logic the one with the most power gets to do what they want, which is true in practice I guess, but a pretty horrible morality by any means. So by this logic even though someone doesn't have free will its okay to torture them for eternity just because their circumstances were shit. Delightful.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;43742625]Well clearly the collective opinion of the people wasn't the highest power in Russia, and Stalin was, since Stalin had all the power and no one could overthrow him. So by your logic the one with the most power gets to do what they want, which is true in practice I guess, but a pretty horrible morality by any means. [/QUOTE] What alternate moral theory do you propose exactly? Because basically what I am saying is that the highest power decides the objective moral facts. Since my highest power is something beyond the earthly realm, and is basically part of the nature of reality, then his morals can be said to be the natural morals, or rather, the morals that should be. If you don't believe then yes, you would probably end up taking your morals from someone like Stalin because that's the PRACTICAL thing to do.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43742784]What alternate moral theory do you propose exactly? Because basically what I am saying is that the highest power decides the objective moral facts. Since my highest power is something beyond the earthly realm, and is basically part of the nature of reality, then his morals can be said to be the natural morals, or rather, the morals that should be. If you don't believe then yes, you would probably end up taking your morals from someone like Stalin because that's the PRACTICAL thing to do.[/QUOTE] Right well theres zero point in discussing morality any further with you, I've tried it before with Christians and they just move the goal posts every time, like how you just change the definition of free will to whatever you want it to be.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;43742834]Right well theres zero point in discussing morality any further with you, I've tried it before with Christians and they just move the goal posts every time, like how you just change the definition of free will to whatever you want it to be.[/QUOTE] I've addressed all the definitions you've given me. If I'm misunderstanding, please give me your definition.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43743012]I've addressed all the definitions you've given me. If I'm misunderstanding, please give me your definition.[/QUOTE] No, I described determinism and you just pretty much went "yeah thats free will" ie moving the goalposts.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;43743027]No, I described determinism and you just pretty much went "yeah thats free will" ie moving the goalposts.[/QUOTE] which goal posts did he move when you addressed morality?
[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;43745952]which goal posts did he move when you addressed morality?[/QUOTE] read the discussion. when pressed on what defines free will zeneron didn't give his own definition. when confronted what the available options are, he merged two incompatible versions seemingly and came up with what he did. this isn't about whatever you seem to think it is about.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;43746231]read the discussion. when pressed on what defines free will zeneron didn't give his own definition. when confronted what the available options are, he merged two incompatible versions seemingly and came up with what he did. this isn't about whatever you seem to think it is about.[/QUOTE] No, I addressed each definition and showed how it exists. I have given my own definition, I even used yours. I didn't merge a thing, I simply addressed the question from both sides of compatablism. [editline]1st February 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=carcarcargo;43743027]No, I described determinism and you just pretty much went "yeah thats free will" ie moving the goalposts.[/QUOTE] No I used your definition and showed it to exist. [editline]1st February 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Zenreon117;43739279]P1- If there are random variables in existence, then all events can possibly not turn out the same. P2- Human decisions are an event. P3- Free will, as you define it, is the possibility for human decisions not to turn out the same. P4- There are random variables in the universe C1- Therefore there is free will.[/QUOTE] Please refer to this argument. And for a more formal version; [quote] A) There are random variables in the working of the universe B) Events C) Have a possibility of turning out differently D) Human Decisions E) Free will (exists) 1. If A then (BC) 2. D = B 3. If DC then E 4. A ∴ BC ∴ DC ∴ E [/quote] Please show either which premises are false, or why it doesn't follow. [editline]1st February 2014[/editline] I mean so far the definitions of free will are; Kantian (Responsibility Based) Compatablist (Ability to express one's will) Incompatabilist (Ability for one to make different indeterminate decisions) And I've addressed all of them.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43746433] Kantian (Responsibility Based) Compatablist (Ability to express one's will) Incompatabilist (Ability for one to make different indeterminate decisions) [/QUOTE] Kantian as far as we can tell, doesn't exist. Compatabilist doesn't make sense in regards to the actual science of our brain as far as I understand from what I've read about it, which is a bit since you brought it up I felt the need to reread on it. Incompatabilist I don't think works in a determinist universe, I think it's just a re labeling of things happening. I know you want to label things the way you do for us to best understand it, but frankly I perfectly understand what is meant in both versions of the phrasing.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;43742182]the first one IS free will, but is impossible as far as we know. the second one ISN'T free will and doesn't happen anyways, again, as far as we know.[/QUOTE] You state this so categorically about my post; [quote="Zenreon"]I have used the definition of free will that "One can do what one wishes" and it was wrong. I then used the determinist version "One's decisions can turn out differently" and it's still wrong. Tell me then, how do you define the concept of Free-will.[/quote] If the first one is free will then you are admitting the compatibilist definition of free will which doesn't require determinism to be false, and so I don't even know where you are getting this "We know this is impossible herp". The second definition of free will is the one my recent argument above addresses, and it shows that if free will is defined under the in-compatibilist sense then we can have free will if there are any random workings in the universe as we can be an intelligent expression of that chance. To speak of our will is to speak of us as that which is constituted by those various indeterminacies within the temporal causality of our brain. Events can turn out differently, human actions are events and so humans can act indeterminately.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.