PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
 
|
Post by PanLeo on Jun 13, 2017 8:25:52 GMT
There is no empirical evidence that if you wind back the clock ten minute everything will turn out the same so how can you say such a thing? Time travel to the past is impossible, so we could never have experimental proof. But to even imagine that the conscious actor would be have differently is impossible. For a start, you would at least need to introduce dualism - there would need to be some kind of ethereal force directing the brain to behave differently than it otherwise would have done, most probably one that would need to transcend time. Secondly, you would then need to explain the why the ethereal 'soul' was caused to choose differently the second time, but the whole point of the free will argument is that behaviour isn't constrained by causality, so once you'd found what caused the soul (or whatever you would call it) to choose the way it did you would have defeated the argument in favour of free will. No it would just need to be that something different happens for whatever reason, maybe thats just how to universe works. Certain causes might lead to different effects. Maybe there is a metaphorical role of the dice. That whole wind the clock back argument is the equivalent of throwing a dice once and getting six and then claiming you can only get six if you role the dice. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2017 8:49:42 GMT
Time travel to the past is impossible, so we could never have experimental proof. But to even imagine that the conscious actor would be have differently is impossible. For a start, you would at least need to introduce dualism - there would need to be some kind of ethereal force directing the brain to behave differently than it otherwise would have done, most probably one that would need to transcend time. Secondly, you would then need to explain the why the ethereal 'soul' was caused to choose differently the second time, but the whole point of the free will argument is that behaviour isn't constrained by causality, so once you'd found what caused the soul (or whatever you would call it) to choose the way it did you would have defeated the argument in favour of free will. No it would just need to be that something different happens for whatever reason, maybe thats just how to universe works. Certain causes might lead to different effects. Maybe there is a metaphorical role of the dice. That whole wind the clock back argument is the equivalent of throwing a dice once and getting six and then claiming you can only get six if you role the dice. If it's a random 'throw of the dice' which would cause the actor to zig where previously they had zagged, then that also is not free will. If it's random, then it's not a process controlled by the conscious actor. Libertarian free will is equally disallowed by both hard determinism and quantum uncertainty. |
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jun 13, 2017 8:58:57 GMT
No it would just need to be that something different happens for whatever reason, maybe thats just how to universe works. Certain causes might lead to different effects. Maybe there is a metaphorical role of the dice. That whole wind the clock back argument is the equivalent of throwing a dice once and getting six and then claiming you can only get six if you role the dice. If it's a random 'throw of the dice' which would cause the actor to zig where previously they had zagged, then that also is not free will. If it's random, then it's not a process controlled by the conscious actor. Libertarian free will is equally disallowed by both hard determinism and quantum uncertainty. I never claimed it did I am just say we have no reason to except determinism. We should be agnostic about it. It could be true or could not be. We will never know. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jun 13, 2017 11:47:42 GMT
tpfkar Or "antinatalism goood" and "religion baaad" and really really wanting doesn't make it disappear. Processing is both active and overtly committed action, intentional in this case. Your incredulity and inability/resolved refusal to envisage without dualism and religion doesn't make your doctrinal pronouncements and overstatements here any less dopey than your other gross irrationalities, including "no humans no society" being a desired "fairest state of affairs for society", or of the form I can't change any outcome one whit no matter what I choose and what effort I expend, so I'm going to try extra hard.We make choices and act based on our preferences and traits. That's free will.  We are intentional creatures that that do things because we wanna - at least until somebody actually comes anywhere near to showing otherwise, frantic waves and hard-leaning manifestos excluded. And you can't blink yourself into a fairy princess, also irrelevant to free will. Whether with or without your "predetermined" overwork/lean. Your demand for it does however spotlight your inability to see good in humans w/o religion and significance w/o supernatural. You are in fact so rigidly constrained by your and a lack of perspicacity/coherency that you need to project it species-wide, if not even more so by your dogma and the concomitant willingness to tendentiously ever pronounce as so what you cannot know.
Can neuroscience understand Donkey Kong? |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jun 14, 2017 14:11:26 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2017 12:14:32 GMT
Or "antinatalism goood" and "religion baaad" and really really wanting doesn't make it disappear. Processing is both active and overtly committed action, intentional in this case. Your incredulity and inability/resolved refusal to envisage without dualism and religion doesn't make your doctrinal pronouncements and overstatements here any less dopey than your other gross irrationalities, including "no humans no society" being a desired "fairest state of affairs for society", or of the form I can't change any outcome one whit no matter what I choose and what effort I expend, so I'm going to try extra hard.So now you're emulating your hero graham by misquoting me and then attacking the strawman argument that you have constructed. I never said anything about no humans being the fairest state of affairs for society. And I've certainly never claimed to be able to change any outcome from what it is predetermined to be; but my thoughts and actions are certainly part of the chain of events that will lead to the eventual outcome. But you've failed to describe why determinism cannot account for the fact that we make choices in accordance with our preferences and traits. If it is so constrained, then what are our choices free from? If you say external coercion, then you're just reiterating the compatibilist position of deterministic philosophers, but yet still trying to maintain that our choices aren't predetermined. You're adding an unwieldy layer of hypothesis which you cannot even explain; when there is a perfectly elegant and simple explanation for our conscious experience of decision making. My views on free will are well within the mainstream of secular scientific beliefs. It's certainly unscientific to insist that something exists without being able to explain how it works, what it adds or why it needs to be hypothesised. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jun 15, 2017 13:34:02 GMT
tpfkar Good lord you're an overwrought mental case. Your exact words were "And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society."The fact that you really don't see the utter madness in furiously trying to convince anyone of anything while knowing that no matter what you think, no matter what you do, that you cannot change the holy writ one whit. It's not the actions, it's the supposed knowing and not recognizing. It should give you a laugh just thinking about the irony of it. The same failure of basic reasoning that permeates a significant chunk of the ideas you share. "Determinism" as you attempt to overwork, has in no way been established. In any case, it really doesn't signify anything. After things are done, they were always going to happen only one way (if you must object over MW, then within one of the worlds). Our choices are components and instruments of that sequence of things, and out consciousness as part of our biology set directions within it. It is insanity to postulate, much less require the insanity of randomness in order for there to be free will; randomness of thought along with the related malady of non sequituritis is strictly the realm of mental illness, a pathology, not of a healthy human consciousness. Almost as mad to suggest that things should not have "reasons" to qualify for anything other than lunacy. I'm saying your use of "constrained" and "predetermined" is pointless yapittyap blown up for tendentious purpose. There's not any added layer, there's an outright rejection that in order for there to be free will that things would have to behave in a deranged fashion. Yes our brainand our biology exists as it is and at all because of "reasons". And yes, we as creatures have "free will" to decide and act according to what we want. The only meaningful or even sane depiction of "free will". Views on free will are all over the place within secular scientific and philosophic beliefs. And not a one has gone an iota beyond an unestablished belief. If you didn't have ardent overmotives, you could live with that.
And they shouldn't be expected to pay the price of everyone else's joy. Especially if nobody would be deprived of that joy in a universe with no sentient life. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2017 22:27:22 GMT
tpfkar Good lord you're an overwrought mental case. Your exact words were "And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society."So why mis-quote it in your previous post? Because nobody ever being able to change their mind about anything is not a requirement of determinism. I won't ever be able to change outcomes to anything other than what they are determined to be. But I am part of that chain of causality, and the outcome will be in some way different due to my existence than it would have been had I not existed. I think that it's fairly well accepted that macroscopic objects behave deterministically, and that would include human brains. But don't forget that anything other than strictly 'compatibilist' free will would be equally disallowed by indeterminism. Randomness is not a requirement for free will, it proves that free will does not exist. Determinism also proves that free will does not exist. There is no room for it on either side of the spectrum. Whether things behave sensibly or in a deranged fashion, it is impossible to shoe-horn in 'libertarian' free will. Either way, our behaviour can only ever be directed by processes outside of our conscious control. That makes us. So we have no more free will than a computer, regardless of what you believe about quantum mechanics. Except there is evidence that a machine can predict our choices before we know how we're going to choose. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jun 15, 2017 22:44:58 GMT
tpfkar I can only also credit this to you being insane. There is no misquote. Just more of your black is white and call it purple sprinkled with puerile dumpster dives. See the first response. Positively irrational. Which means little. And don't forget that anything other than reality will be equally disallowed by reality. "Determinism" neither has the significance that you tendentiously apply to it, nor has it been established. They don't, and they aren't required to. We have meaningful free will and not your demand for deranged incoherencies, so it is a non-issue. There are highly contested conclusions based upon positively manically contested assumptions that in no way establish even when we make the decision, much less your ludicrously fanciful "predict our choices before we know how we're going to choose".
And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society. |
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Jun 15, 2017 23:44:50 GMT
Have you ever played Populous? It's fun to be a God and cause death and destruction.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2017 0:03:32 GMT
tpfkar I can only also credit this to you being insane. There is no misquote. Just more of your black is white and call it purple sprinkled with puerile dumpster dives. From above ""fairest state of affairs for society" compared to the actual quote: "And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society." Those are not identical and have different meanings, therefore it is misquoted. It means that the effects cannot precede the cause. Our will cannot precede the events that created our will, therefore it is not meaningfully 'free'. For free will to exist in anything beyond the strictest compatibilist sense, we would need to have chosen our will before having a will with which to choose. A logical as well as physical impossibility. A computer produces output which follows on in a deterministic fashion from what is input. All evidence, as well as logic, indicates that our brains do the same. But that isn't good enough for you, because you want to see yourself as the protagonist in some grand cosmic game of Cowboys and Indians. You demand a heroic and grandiose narrative where it's you and your free will taking on the universe. I diagnose a case of repressed existential angst. There are several experiments, indicating that the decision may be made up to 10 seconds prior to entering awareness. documents.mx/documents/soon-et-al-2008-unconscious-determinants-of-free-decisions-in-the-human-brain.html |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jun 16, 2017 0:19:43 GMT
tpfkar Sure, you're insane. They don't. The fact that everything happened because of reasons has no consequential impact on free will. Our decision-making and choices are components and instruments in those events. Absolutely meaningful free will. Even you ascribe significance to your choosing to do certain things and not others before you careen back off the cuckoo cliff of working extra hard because nothing tried nor done can possibly make any difference whatsoever to the sacred scrolls. A computer is a glorified clockwork piece that we know how it works to beyond the atomic level and we have absolutely no reason to think has any consciousness or what we mean by decision-making as occurs in humans. I deal with what we have. I don't try to magnify and distort and overstate in order to accomplish a fervently desired mission of the macabre. That's all you in your wild-eyed zealotry. And you couldn't diagnose your ass, that is what's going on in your own head, much less what's going on with other people. All with both assumptions and conclusions and even basic logic highly contested. Just not by the religious of mission.
And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society. |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jun 16, 2017 6:28:54 GMT
We don't contribute to the process; our brain processes inputs and produces the only output it can from those strands of input. Or if the output is random due to quantum mechanics, then that also isn't attributable to 'free will'. Said the poster who, in another thread, advocated antinatalist positions. You can't make this up. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2017 6:54:33 GMT
We don't contribute to the process; our brain processes inputs and produces the only output it can from those strands of input. Or if the output is random due to quantum mechanics, then that also isn't attributable to 'free will'. Said the poster who, in another thread, advocated antinatalist positions. You can't make this up. And what point are you trying to make? |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jun 16, 2017 7:00:58 GMT
Said the poster who, in another thread, advocated antinatalist positions. You can't make this up. And what point are you trying to make? Thanks for proving my point. I might explain it later; but for now, I'm off to work. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2017 7:30:01 GMT
And what point are you trying to make? Thanks for proving my point. I might explain it later; but for now, I'm off to work. That doesn't help. But just to clarify, I don't think that we are morally culpable for perpetuating the species, because each of us makes the only decision that he or she can. I just feel compelled to play my part in exposing people to the reasons why they shouldn't bear children. And it's possible that if antinatalism becomes a well known philosophy, it may prevent some births in the future, and could eventually become an entrenched talking point within the atheist community. It was certainly a shock to me to learn how many atheists still believe in free will, and I'm certain that will have to change in the future. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jun 16, 2017 13:55:56 GMT
tpfkar We're morally culpable for everything we do, as long as we know and understand ramifications. We are, after all, the doers of the deeds. And even if deemed mentally not responsible due to defect it's still not consequence-free. How do you not recognize the derangement (great irony + tragedy) of passionately embracing your compulsion while "knowing" that regardless of whether you lie down on the motorway or become Earth's Supreme Sovereign for Life it will make no difference whatsoever to the pre-writ outcome. The gospel according to Mic.
And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society. |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jun 16, 2017 20:06:49 GMT
Thanks for proving my point. I might explain it later; but for now, I'm off to work. That doesn't help. But just to clarify, I don't think that we are morally culpable for perpetuating the species, because each of us makes the only decision that he or she can. I just feel compelled to play my part in exposing people to the reasons why they shouldn't bear children. And it's possible that if antinatalism becomes a well known philosophy, it may prevent some births in the future, and could eventually become an entrenched talking point within the atheist community. It was certainly a shock to me to learn how many atheists still believe in free will, and I'm certain that will have to change in the future. My point is quite simple. On the one hand, you pretend that people are just following a process of input and markup. On the other hand, you are trying to persuade people to stop reproducing. Meaning: You are trying to influence people to make a choice that goes against their programming: after all, the internal program of life means: Reproduction. So you are on the one hand trying to get people to make a choice against perpetuating life; while on the other hand pretending that people can't make choices. Conclusion: Your position is both irrational and logically inconsistent. In my opinion you should stop pretending that your position is rational. EDIT: This gem: is also illogical. Because if atheists don't have free will (your position) but pretend they have free will, then they don't have a choice in believing to have free will. But saying that it "will have to change in the future" is pretending that they can make choices, and therefore saying that atheists have free will; and you want them to use this free will to pretend that they don't have free will. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2017 20:34:18 GMT
That doesn't help. But just to clarify, I don't think that we are morally culpable for perpetuating the species, because each of us makes the only decision that he or she can. I just feel compelled to play my part in exposing people to the reasons why they shouldn't bear children. And it's possible that if antinatalism becomes a well known philosophy, it may prevent some births in the future, and could eventually become an entrenched talking point within the atheist community. It was certainly a shock to me to learn how many atheists still believe in free will, and I'm certain that will have to change in the future. My point is quite simple. On the one hand, you pretend that people are just following a process of input and markup. On the other hand, you are trying to persuade people to stop reproducing. Meaning: You are trying to influence people to make a choice that goes against their programming: after all, the internal program of life means: Reproduction. So you are on the one hand trying to get people to make a choice against perpetuating life; while on the other hand pretending that people can't make choices. Conclusion: Your position is both irrational and logically inconsistent. In my opinion you should stop pretending that your position is rational. The fact that free will doesn't exist doesn't mean that nothing causes anything. What you're describing has absolutely nothing to do with free will, it has to do with the fact that people are influenced by what happens around them, including other viewpoints to which they are exposed. The drive for reproduction is fundamental to animal nature, but unlike other mammals, humans are exposed to a wider range of inputs and have more complex brains to process these. Therefore, we're more likely to be able to prioritise other considerations over primal biological urges, in a way that doesn't require some kind of disembodied 'soul' floating around our heads. And if my position is irrational and logically inconsistent, then how come no free will proponents are ever able to describe even in the most rudimentary terms how free will functions and how we are able to distinguish freely willed actions from deterministic ones? I'm not saying anything about being unable to make choices, I'm saying that the choices are predetermined. But that doesn't mean that everyone throughout history and eternity will always make the same choices; because the inputs to which atheists will be exposed in the future are (in all likelihood) more likely to cause them to reject free will. None of this requires that decision making occur in some kind of metaphysical cloud. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2017 20:42:15 GMT
tpfka
They don't. The fact that everything happened because of reasons has no consequential impact on free will. Our decision-making and choices are components and instruments in those events. Absolutely meaningful free will. Even you ascribe significance to your choosing to do certain things and not others before you careen back off the cuckoo cliff of working extra hard because nothing tried nor done can possibly make any difference whatsoever to the sacred scrolls. If all of the causes of our decision were things over which we had no conscious control, then that is not free will, that is a case of our will being determined by events. A brain is essentially a very complex organic computer. And Artificial Intelligence does in fact have decision making capacity. You don't deal with what we have; you follow your own preferred interpretation of conscious experience even though you can't explain how it works. We're legally accountable, as there are consequences for our actions. But not morally culpable, as any completed action was an inevitable one. It won't, because whatever I do is the only thing that I could have done. But I can recognise that whatever I inevitably do is going to be part of the inevitable outcome. |
|
