INTENSITY²
Politics, Mature and taboo => Political Pundits => Topic started by: Pig on February 03, 2012, 12:16:44 AM
-
What do you guys think about Determinism? It's basically a scientific philosophy that takes cause and effect to its natural conclusion. But why should I explain it when Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism) already has:
Determinism is often taken to mean simply causal determinism: an idea known in physics as cause-and-effect. It is the concept that events within a given paradigm are bound by causality in such a way that any state (of an object or event) is completely, or at least to some large degree, determined by prior states.
Outside of some belly-who in quantum physics, this has been the true and honest scientific conclusion since Isaac Newton.
This is especially interesting because it means free will is an illusion. And if we do not have free will we cannot be morally accountable for our actions, thus both pride and shame are illogical.
-
Pig, can you buy a comic book or something? All your weighty topics are doing my head in.
-
I don't believe in free will
But I do believe that we have to live our lives as if free will DOES exist, so that society etc can function properly
but technically I believe free will is an illusion, yes
-
Pig, can you buy a comic book or something? All your weighty topics are doing my head in.
I like Mort Weisinger era Superman. If I can think clearly enough maybe I can dissect a plot of one of those stories.
I find comic books more threatening than death.
I don't believe in free will
But I do believe that we have to live our lives as if free will DOES exist, so that society etc can function properly
but technically I believe free will is an illusion, yes
Why must we believe in free will if it is an intellectually unsound concept?
-
We don't have to believe in it, but we have to act as if it does exist
People can't be excused everything they do, just because they have no control over things in the way people traditionally think
I mean there are reasons for saying it is wrong to do this or that, and putting people off acting in ways that are harmful to others. Therefore we need to respond to those things as if they ARE based on free will. to deter people as much as we can from doing it
-
Individually, people might have no control over their actions. But as a society we can influence people's behaviour by making things socially unacceptable or not worth the consequences
-
Pig, can you buy a comic book or something? All your weighty topics are doing my head in.
I like Mort Weisinger era Superman. If I can think clearly enough maybe I can dissect a plot of one of those stories.
I find comic books more threatening than death.
I was just trying to be a smart ass. I can't do deep thinking and couldn't argue my way out of a paper bag. Never could argue "intellectual" things.
-
We don't have to believe in it, but we have to act as if it does exist
People can't be excused everything they do, just because they have no control over things in the way people traditionally think
I mean there are reasons for saying it is wrong to do this or that, and putting people off acting in ways that are harmful to others. Therefore we need to respond to those things as if they ARE based on free will. to deter people as much as we can from doing it
Can't we just have a simple, non-judgmental rule and punishment system? We can still hurt people who break the law, let's just reduce the sanctimony.
I was just trying to be a smart ass. I can't do deep thinking and couldn't argue my way out of a paper bag. Never could argue "intellectual" things.
Haha, I can't be an intellectual either. But I'm feeling super charged with venom tonight and want to keep busy. Movies and games aren't doing to for me, so arguing about nonsense on the internet will have to be the distraction.
-
it's not just law and order. Even everyday things.
I live my life as if I have free will even when I'm on my own
i'm too tired for this conversation lol, it's nearly 7am so I'm gonna go to bed. night guys
-
I'm determined by factors in and around me to do what I see is good for me and for those I love. That's what you call the illusion of free will.
-
I believe that both Free will and Determinism exist
I think the fatalistic view that everything is preconcieved and planned. This is great for those that want to hold store in tarot cards, astrology and such but life is a bit more varied than that, for me to believe that whilst many factor may limit my choices or biase my thinking to a selected range of possibilities i still choose until the day I die and my choices will be mine and not predetiremined.
-
I think life is a combination of free will and determinism, and some patterns are easier to break than others.
-
Why is it a lot of people always "choose" to never kill those they hate? Where's the free will exactly?
Actually, what is free will? That is the question that I think must be answered first before any discussion about this should arise.
-
I believe that both Free will and Determinism exist
I think the fatalistic view that everything is preconcieved and planned. This is great for those that want to hold store in tarot cards, astrology and such but life is a bit more varied than that, for me to believe that whilst many factor may limit my choices or biase my thinking to a selected range of possibilities i still choose until the day I die and my choices will be mine and not predetiremined.
Not believing in free will doesn't mean everything is pre-conceived and planned, or that you have to buy into shit like astrology etc. It just means I don't think I actually CHOOSE to do any of the things I do. I do it (even down to the tiniest, most insignificant thing), becuase my brain weighs it up and tells me that doing that is better than not doing it.
-
I believe that both Free will and Determinism exist
I think the fatalistic view that everything is preconcieved and planned. This is great for those that want to hold store in tarot cards, astrology and such but life is a bit more varied than that, for me to believe that whilst many factor may limit my choices or biase my thinking to a selected range of possibilities i still choose until the day I die and my choices will be mine and not predetiremined.
Not believing in free will doesn't mean everything is pre-conceived and planned, or that you have to buy into shit like astrology etc. It just means I don't think I actually CHOOSE to do any of the things I do. I do it (even down to the tiniest, most insignificant thing), becuase my brain weighs it up and tells me that doing that is better than not doing it.
Yep, from an evolutionary point of view, it makes perfect sense.
In fact, free will looks to me like it's some magical entity that's basically impossible to define properly and that's just forced into existence through imagination and religious "reasoning". It's like believing you have a distinct soul that actually exists as something other than just an abstract. How many secular people believe in souls really? As far as I know, only a very few compared to the number that believe in free will.
Which leads me to wonder why free will must exist if it's ok for souls not to exist.
-
Yeah that's exactly the way I see it
I think it's a misunderstanding about what free will actually means, that leads people to make assumptions about how if you don't believe in it then you must believe there's some divine plan to everything
If anything, the whole free will idea is more like that, as it implies we're in some way "special" (unless other animals supposedly have this free will too)
If you sit and think properly about HOW you make every decision you believe you make, then I think it's pretty obvious that it actually just comes down to biology
-
The way i see it. it is like the cards are stacked and the odds against a free choice in things. That is detirminism. Free will is the magical x-factor. The thing that upsets a perectly well constructed culture, society, universe. It is the unplannable, the abstract, the adaptable. I think therefore i am .
-
The way I see it reality can be divided into two main categories: metaphysical reality and man-made reality. Metaphysical reality is highly deterministic and governed by things such as the laws of physics, etc. Man-made reality is realm of things such as concepts and ideas, this is the realm where free-will exists.
-
The way i see it. it is like the cards are stacked and the odds against a free choice in things. That is detirminism. Free will is the magical x-factor. The thing that upsets a perectly well constructed culture, society, universe. It is the unplannable, the abstract, the adaptable. I think therefore i am .
The way I see it, your brain tells you what to think, what to do, what to look at, what to consider, what to perceive, and so on. What your brain tells you is based on the information your brain has acquired for you (whether genetically through evolution and heredity and/or via your personal environment and situations). Just because we're unaware of every single detail involved in our personal lives that affects the personal decisions we make doesn't mean we should acknowledge free will.
I would say adapting to any new environment is not a result of free will but, rather, an effect of a process involving a set of related/unrelated factors that led to this adaptation. It was inevitable that you would adapt eventually. Nothing would've stopped you from adapting. The same could be said in the case you never adapted.
Also, what necessity is there in having an entity that has yet to be clearly defined and that has no real purpose if things can be explained without such an entity? Occam's razor suggests not to involve unnecessary and unneeded entities if things can be explained without them.
Then there is the matter of psychopaths/sociopaths (and clinical narcissists and histrionics and such). These people can't really change the kind of destructive people that they can be. Unless they undergo some extreme psychiatric treatment (which has yet to be discovered), they'll never ever change for the better and become genuinely loving people who actually care for people other than themselves due to their personality disorders. What free will do such people have?
Other than that, I do not see the concept of free will as destructive. Rather, I see it as a harmless illusion that's just not necessary for our existence and the existence of this planet and this universe.
-
Determinism is most likely our reality; but since humans cannot gather full knowledge of it, free will might as well exist for us.
-
Occam's razor.
What can free will explain in this reality that determinism cannot explain?
-
:include:
-
Fuck, tried to word my thoughts about determinism and free will several times now but keep failing to do so properly. Um, I might decide to make an effort again later on.
-
Occam's razor.
What can free will explain in this reality that determinism cannot explain?
Both can be argued for.
I think that it is like the religious debates.
"But what about Dinosaur bones"
"God put them there"
"Well show me anything that can't be exaplined by an omnipotent being that can do and be anything"
"I can't"
"Therefore my argument makes better sense"
Not being able to find evidence of something that can not be explained away by detirminism, in this instance, does not make it a necessarily stronger or better claim.
I will say that people believe it detirminism varyingdegrees and for varying reasons.
-
Occam's razor.
What can free will explain in this reality that determinism cannot explain?
Both can be argued for.
I think that it is like the religious debates.
"But what about Dinosaur bones"
"God put them there"
"Well show me anything that can't be exaplined by an omnipotent being that can do and be anything"
"I can't"
"Therefore my argument makes better sense"
Not being able to find evidence of something that can not be explained away by detirminism, in this instance, does not make it a necessarily stronger or better claim.
I will say that people believe it detirminism varyingdegrees and for varying reasons.
In the case of the dinosaur bones, even without scientific evidence, it would've still been better to say that the dinosaur bones exist and that, therefore, dinosaurs existed in the past because those bones would've belonged to such creatures. To impose an omnipotent being as an explanation for putting the bones there is to add an unnecessary entity that lacks the evidence needed for its existence anyway and to complicate and demolish a much simpler but more rational explanation. Even as an agnostic, I wouldn't find the existence of God to be a satisfying answer for this scenario. Science simply explains things better.
Free will is simply a concept that some humans believe they have. But it's way too complex to explain a lot of the things in this reality. Its absence makes things much simpler to understand for now.
Maybe in future studies, we'll have stronger evidence suggesting free will, but until then ...
-
Occam's razor.
What can free will explain in this reality that determinism cannot explain?
Both can be argued for.
I think that it is like the religious debates.
"But what about Dinosaur bones"
"God put them there"
"Well show me anything that can't be exaplined by an omnipotent being that can do and be anything"
"I can't"
"Therefore my argument makes better sense"
Not being able to find evidence of something that can not be explained away by detirminism, in this instance, does not make it a necessarily stronger or better claim.
I will say that people believe it detirminism varyingdegrees and for varying reasons.
In the case of the dinosaur bones, even without scientific evidence, it would've still been better to say that the dinosaur bones exist and that, therefore, dinosaurs existed in the past because those bones would've belonged to such creatures. To impose an omnipotent being as an explanation for putting the bones there is to add an unnecessary entity that lacks the evidence needed for its existence anyway and to complicate and demolish a much simpler but more rational explanation. Even as an agnostic, I wouldn't find the existence of God to be a satisfying answer for this scenario. Science simply explains things better.
Free will is simply a concept that some humans believe they have. But it's way too complex to explain a lot of the things in this reality. Its absence makes things much simpler to understand for now.
Maybe in future studies, we'll have stronger evidence suggesting free will, but until then ...
I'm not disagreeing with you, but I think that there are some religious people who believe that the Earth is less than 10000 years old who say that God put the dinosaur fossils at different places in the rock layers to test their faith.
-
Occam's razor.
What can free will explain in this reality that determinism cannot explain?
Both can be argued for.
I think that it is like the religious debates.
"But what about Dinosaur bones"
"God put them there"
"Well show me anything that can't be exaplined by an omnipotent being that can do and be anything"
"I can't"
"Therefore my argument makes better sense"
Not being able to find evidence of something that can not be explained away by detirminism, in this instance, does not make it a necessarily stronger or better claim.
I will say that people believe it detirminism varyingdegrees and for varying reasons.
In the case of the dinosaur bones, even without scientific evidence, it would've still been better to say that the dinosaur bones exist and that, therefore, dinosaurs existed in the past because those bones would've belonged to such creatures. To impose an omnipotent being as an explanation for putting the bones there is to add an unnecessary entity that lacks the evidence needed for its existence anyway and to complicate and demolish a much simpler but more rational explanation. Even as an agnostic, I wouldn't find the existence of God to be a satisfying answer for this scenario. Science simply explains things better.
Free will is simply a concept that some humans believe they have. But it's way too complex to explain a lot of the things in this reality. Its absence makes things much simpler to understand for now.
Maybe in future studies, we'll have stronger evidence suggesting free will, but until then ...
Yes but in the case of a god, we say 'But the bones are from creatures that lived and ..."
"No they are not. God put them there"
"Yes but the carbon dating can prove that"
"God makes that appear to happen because he wants there to be a test of faith now and again. He is testing you"
"That doesn't make sense."
"Could in theory an omnipotent being do this?"
"Yes, I guess"
'God did it to test you"
I think the evidence for everything to be detirmined and without free will is certainly able to be argued. As God being the answer behind everything can as seen above.
We are subject to our situation. Our environment and our genetics. Our upbringing and social status. Our nationality and religious beliefs.
All of these things will bias and weigh on everything we do and everything we are. That is determinism. To say that this is all we can do.... make a set number of possible choices without the ability to act above or beyond or around this is a limiting concession to make and does not seem in line with what i have experienced in life.
Not saying you are wrong but that it or that you similar coul disclaim every arguement with an argument of that is detirminist because... But it would in my mind be simialr to the faith like belief of but god....
-
I'm not sure why you're putting a belief in some omnipotent being behind everything on the same level as believing in determinism. On the contrary, it's adding free will to the equation that makes it very similar to adding God to the equation.
Neither free will nor God have been shown to be necessary in their respective scenarios.
If, with the absence of free will, everything in this reality can be sufficiently explained, then determinism (the absence of free will) should be the most rational approach to take and accept (even if it does turn out to be wrong at the end).
It's the same with God and the dinosaur bones. If, with his absence. the existence of the dinosaur bones can be explained, then there is no need to impose an unnecessary entity for such a scenario. Nature alone explains it.
-
I think that both free will and determinism exist.
I think that exercising free will is kind of like swimming against the current while determinism is more like swimming with the current.
-
You brain obviously sees areason to "go against the current" tho and tells you to do that.
-
You brain obviously sees areason to "go against the current" tho and tells you to do that.
Obviously.
-
I think that both free will and determinism exist.
I think that exercising free will is kind of like swimming against the current while determinism is more like swimming with the current.
Swimming against the current is most likely an illusion. You're always swimming with it regardless of how you perceive it.
Besides, free will itself seems like something that's defined and redefined multiple times to suit one's needs and arguments.
In fact, when you think deeper about it, it's just illogical.
I mean, think of it this way:
If free will is an independently 50/50 probability, then any choice you make is going to be random and not based on any past experience and such. Otherwise, as soon as you invoke past experience, it becomes determinism, not free will.
If free will is not necessarily a 50/50 probability, but can be something like 30/70 in favor of one of the options to choose from, then one would want to know why there's this 70% bias in favor of one of the options. What exactly is the reason that it's not a 50/50 thing? And as soon as you ask for the reason, then you implicitly and inadvertently admit against free will.
See where I'm getting at here?
-
You brain obviously sees areason to "go against the current" tho and tells you to do that.
Obviously.
:facepalm2:
So how is that free will?
-
Here's a good explanation of what I believe:
Steven Pinker on Free Will (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQxJi0COTBo#)
-
(http://t.qkme.me/3581h6.jpg)
-
Here's a good explanation of what I believe:
Steven Pinker on Free Will (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQxJi0COTBo#)
Determinism doesn't deny the fact that we actually go through what is called the process of choosing. After all, the brain can't just give you the "right" choice to make without investigating things in mind (pun not intended). It's just that if one were omniscient, such a being would know the choice you make even before you make it (as there's always going to be one path only).
The fact that the human brain is complex only shows that we (along with our brains) are a product of zillions of years of evolution throughout this planet. Just because we're not omniscient and, therefore, fully aware of the outcomes of whatever choices we make doesn't mean "free will" is involved. It just means we're not gods to know every single detail concerning every decision we make.
Also, keep in mind he actually admits the brain takes note of the consequences of possible choices one can make. And based on the way it's been conditioned to work throughout the years of evolution, the brain then tells us exactly what choice to make.
The concept of free will can be a very satisfying concept to take hold of, but it can't stand itself in the face of a simpler and better explanation: determinism.
-
Why is it a lot of people always "choose" to never kill those they hate? Where's the free will exactly?
Actually, what is free will? That is the question that I think must be answered first before any discussion about this should arise.
This. I cannot even come up with an well thought out answer because I cannot define free will.
However, from what I know I have to agree free will is an illusion of the mind's ability to experience feedback from it's own actions and surroundings; and assess contradictions to respond to accordingly. But then there's an interesting thought, how does determinism handle a paradox? Could free-will be the ability to resolve paradoxes with an illogical answer a person can willingly choose?
So if I say 1/0 = 38, is that free-will to choose a ridiculously illogical answer, or is there a underlying determinism to why I chose that answer?
-
Why is it a lot of people always "choose" to never kill those they hate? Where's the free will exactly?
Actually, what is free will? That is the question that I think must be answered first before any discussion about this should arise.
This. I cannot even come up with an well thought out answer because I cannot define free will.
However, from what I know I have to agree free will is an illusion of the mind's ability to experience feedback from it's own actions and surroundings; and assess contradictions to respond to accordingly. But then there's an interesting thought, how does determinism handle a paradox? Could free-will be the ability to resolve paradoxes with an illogical answer a person can willingly choose?
So if I say 1/0 = 38, is that free-will to choose a ridiculously illogical answer, or is there a underlying determinism to why I chose that answer?
That's a very good question to ponder on.
Methinks there must be something in the mind that coincidentally ticked the number 38 based on hidden patterns "unconsciously" observed by the person himself and taken note of by the brain - patterns that we're unaware of.
But this definitely requires a lot of studies and experiments to find out for us what the real answer to the question might be.
Either way, even free will cannot explain this properly as free will requires conscious thinking and is more to do with moral decisions rather than coming up with illogical numbers to an undefined mathematical operation.
This is more a determinism vs. pure randomness sort of question, not a determinism vs. free will.
-
This is more a determinism vs. pure randomness sort of question, not a determinism vs. free will.
There is supposed to be some true randomness in reality. Randomness is not free will though, it is just a very small part of a mostly-deterministic universe.
That's what duh smart people told me! I can't trust em tho, so I think the world is a raisin turning into a prune that will turn into a Will Vinton tv special.
-
This is more a determinism vs. pure randomness sort of question, not a determinism vs. free will.
There is supposed to be some true randomness in reality. Randomness is not free will though, it is just a very small part of a mostly-deterministic universe.
That's what I said basically.
-
This is more a determinism vs. pure randomness sort of question, not a determinism vs. free will.
There is supposed to be some true randomness in reality. Randomness is not free will though, it is just a very small part of a mostly-deterministic universe.
That's what I said basically.
Oh okay. Sorry, I usually just think about what I want to say instead of paying attention to what I'm reading. :green:
-
Why is it a lot of people always "choose" to never kill those they hate? Where's the free will exactly?
Actually, what is free will? That is the question that I think must be answered first before any discussion about this should arise.
This. I cannot even come up with an well thought out answer because I cannot define free will.
However, from what I know I have to agree free will is an illusion of the mind's ability to experience feedback from it's own actions and surroundings; and assess contradictions to respond to accordingly. But then there's an interesting thought, how does determinism handle a paradox? Could free-will be the ability to resolve paradoxes with an illogical answer a person can willingly choose?
So if I say 1/0 = 38, is that free-will to choose a ridiculously illogical answer, or is there a underlying determinism to why I chose that answer?
You chose 38 because something in your mind preconceived it to be a reasonable answer. It is not the ultimate answer for dividing one by zero, but it is one.
-
I haven't decided. I can choose my own fate short term but if my choices conflict with that of others then it becomes win or lose or hope that that "something else" decides that neither has control of.
-
The will is determined, but it is "free" in the sense that it's individual.
-
No such thing as free will
-
No such thing as free will
It's always at least $1.25/lb
-
According to Schopenhauer, there is nothing but will, but the will is split up in quadrillions of illusions that it produces for itself, just to reveal the vanity of its striving.
-
No such thing as free will
When did you choose to believe that?
-
No such thing as free will
When did you choose to believe that?
Choose to believe... choose to believe what do you mean choose to believe every knows that we are all controlled by the Worldwide Mad Deadly Communist Gangster Computer God :tinfoil:
-
I think Will is locked up these days.
-
The worst thing is that that is true :-\
-
No such thing as free will
Free will is a construct of concepts.
Reality is we all do what we do when we do it - in connection with survival instincts.
There is nothing we do, that is unrelated to nature. Everything can be traced back to an active survival instinct.
In that sense, there is no such thing as "free will" - but it is also the only kind of will we have. So IF we are to call something "free will", when we are to synonymize "instinct" with "free will".
If so, we do have "free will", we just call it many things, among them "survival instinct"
And before someone challenges my statement:
Playing tennis - proving your physique - attaining a mate - survival instinct
Eating a snickers - energy consumption (sugars and fats are highly valued) - survival instinct
Watching tv - natural curiousity for new impressions - consistent with an oportunistic lifestyle - exploring new regions/foods/methods - survival instinct
Masturbating - ... ok, you got me there.
-
Or from a strictly physical point of view: ball A gives an impact to ball B which gives an impact to ball C. None of these balls can chose and neither can the particles in our brains.
Indetermination, like in quantum physics, isn't free will either. It's will at will but not at our will.
-
The movie Free Willy was about this, wasn't it?
-
No such thing as free will
When did you choose to believe that?
I didnt
-
The movie Free Willy was about this, wasn't it?
:indeed: A modern classic. :nerd!: Using the Michael Jackson music was not inadvertent. Willy as a Black and White Killer Whale was a metaphor for Jackson's :shamone: own yearning to be a proper :hitler: Aryan. And the young boy Nevermind, we will not discuss that. :christ:
-
The movie Free Willy was about this, wasn't it?
:indeed: A modern classic. :nerd!: Using the Michael Jackson music was not inadvertent. Willy as a Black and White Killer Whale was a metaphor for Jackson's :shamone: own yearning to be a proper :hitler: Aryan. And the young boy Nevermind, we will not discuss that. :christ:
Or maybe it was about Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky's little affair. :zoinks:
-
:indeed: that is a workable alternate theory. :thumbup:
-
In which case it ties neatly into the topic at hand.
-
Tried to make a (sorta sensible) post in this thread but failed a couple of times doing so. Decided (free willing) not to post and chose (e.g.) to make myself a cup of coffee instead. Or the other time when I decided to just fed the birds outside.
Another example of ja, free will.. that has nothing to do with my survival instincts is e.g. me 'choosing' to like irises and don't give much of a fart about roses. Oh oh, shitty song on the radio.. quick change channels.. don't want that song in my head.
Okay, I understand in the bigger scheme those examples might be quite futile but for me it proves I do have free will on a micro scale, maybe, but still..
-
Even if there was Free Will.... how will we know if we choose are paths, or if our paths are already a choice for us? Is it that we are :pwned: to be in one path, while we were meant to be in the other?
Just whose decision is it.... You.... or the Man that lives upstairs?
-
Even if there was Free Will.... how will we know if we choose are paths, or if our paths are already a choice for us? Is it that we are :pwned: to be in one path, while we were meant to be in the other?
Just whose decision is it.... You.... or the Man that lives upstairs?
Jim? He moved months ago.