Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
August 1, 2016 at 11:34 am (This post was last modified: August 1, 2016 at 11:35 am by bennyboy.)
1) That's not what cognitive dissonance means. Why do people on these forums use that term, when they don't know what it means? Google it, and get it right.
2) I'm not try to argue anything into existence. I live my life, and I experience what it's like to be human. Part of that is the freedom to express my intent in the world. That's free will. Is it really really, REALLY free, in the sense that it's free from itself, from the Universe, from causation, and from anything else that anything might possibly be said to be free from? Maybe not-- but I wouldn't abuse the word to that degree anyway.
As for the stuff about brain function-- this is an essential issue in talking about the nature of consciousness. Beauty, love, etc. all have physical correlates, specifically in brain structure and function. But you can't find "redness" anywhere in the universe, nor "love," unless you redefine them in physical terms. But many of our words are meant to talk about the experience of what things are like-- i.e. qualia-- and not about the physical correlates that may/may not underlie them. Even "Mom" exists only as an idea-- the real physical object-- fat, bone tissue, various fluids, etc. is supervenient on QM. But nobody goes around trying to prove that everyone's Mom is just a bunch of wave functions vibrating in a virtual space.
For better or worse, we are IN the Matrix, and it is the only perspective from which we can draw a world view, and it is the only context, ultimately that matters to us.
(July 31, 2016 at 10:33 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Let me ask you something. How does your view of the illusion of freedom actually affect your experience of life? Have you stopped eating snacks, because you are offended at your real lack of freedom in choosing what snack you want? Are you depressed because your wife didn't really freely choose you, but was predetermined beyond any control of hers to choose you? If someone killed your Dad or raped your mom, would you say, "Que sera sera, that was predestined, can't blame that guy." If you answer "yes" to any of these questions, then I'd have to say I suspect you'd be lying just to support your arguments in this thread. But if you say "no," then you have very little real belief in the idea you are selling here-- it is a belief on paper, not one about the reality in and around us.
The problem with the philosophical claim of the illusion of freedom is obvious-- it's useless in the actual living and experience of a human life. In my actual experience, I go out and choose my favorite flavor of ice cream, and I do so freely. I don't sit there in a philosophical bind, cursing the Universe for railroading me into 7-11 on a hot Sunday afternoon. And a philosophical idea that we can't actually apply to the living of life is about as useful as a bag of monkey farts.
No, I stopped eating snacks but not because of my lack of freedom (ultimately it was because I lack freedom). It is entirely correct that if I had an SO ultimately it wouldn't be our decision to love each other, if that is the case, that is the case. When you're with your wife and play with your kids the emotions you experience aren't under your control. They're simply chemicals firing off in the brain making you experience love. If you say it is your choice then you can even argue that you can cure depression caused by a chemical imbalance with your will. If someone did one of those sick things (please use less harsh examples next time) then I would be angry because it is a natural human reaction. It wouldn't be under my control if my neural net interacted in a way to make me experience anger. However, no matter how much I dislike this idea, I wouldn't agree with giving a very harsh sentence to the criminal e.g lifetime prison or the electric chair because the incident would ultimately be beyond our control. I'd instead agree with keeping him away from society and during that time reconditioning the criminal's brain to make him a good person and make him contribute to society in a positive way. I think this is important.
It doesn't matter if or how much I dislike this idea, I'm not going to deny it because I dislike it. Nor am I going to try and argue a free will into existence by playing word games. All definitions of free will are constricted and lack the free one way or another. Every single part and ounce of your free will is constricted by causality and all of the arguments for it lead to accepting the illusion of free will without acknowledging it but they don't deal with the physically free part itself, instead they avoid it.
It doesn't matter if it's useless or not, if it is the case, it is the case. And, no, it isn't trivial. And I don't sit there in a philosphical bind either, all depressed and crying over why I took vanilla over chocolate. In your experience, you're doing so freely. You're demonstrating the illusion yourself. It feels free, it does to me too, but it isn't free.
Take no offense, but the way you're expressing yourself makes me think you're trying to define and argue free will into existence either consciously or subconsciously because you dislike the idea of not having a free will. Cognitive dissonance comes into mind here.
No matter what you feel freedom should be defined as, just remember it's just your perspective. For a more objective answer, then a consensus among rational people should be made as to what is sufficient for a will to have freedom.
Interestingly enough, when we think free in the usual sense, it's almost never defined in the way it is often defined in the context of debates on free will. It's like you've already assumed that libertarian free will is the official definition of free will. But when you look at what the majority of philosophers believe about free will, it's a different definition. And honestly, I'm not sure most laypeople view free will in the libertarian sense either. Has there ever been a systemic poll surveying what laypeople defined free will to be?
(August 1, 2016 at 11:26 am)RozKek Wrote: However, no matter how much I dislike this idea, I wouldn't agree with giving a very harsh sentence to the criminal e.g lifetime prison or the electric chair because the incident would ultimately be beyond our control. I'd instead agree with keeping him away from society and during that time reconditioning the criminal's brain to make him a good person and make him contribute to society in a positive way. I think this is important.
Really? Not if he raped your mom or killed your sister? See, for me personally, if someone did that to someone I cared about, I'd consider them an evil fuck, and want them to burn at the stake.
That being said, I respect your statement, because you've shown that your view on free will can be applied to ideas about justice-- it's not completely useless after all.
August 1, 2016 at 11:47 am (This post was last modified: August 1, 2016 at 11:48 am by RozKek.)
(July 31, 2016 at 10:18 pm)bennyboy Wrote:
(July 31, 2016 at 3:24 pm)RozKek Wrote: Many many people are arguing the kind of free will I'm talking about, yours is irrelevant.
Nobody who SUPPORTS the free will idea is using your definition. You and several others are strawmanning by sticking to it. If I'm wrong, then quote someone who is arguing by the definition you're using.
Quote: Who cares if a thief is holding a gun to my head, of fucking course by your definition the answer is going to be "well a thief isn't holding a gun to my head therefore I have free will" If the answer was so simple it wouldn't have been a hot topic for three thousands of years. It's only your irrelevant definition that has a simple answer. Also if people aren't debating my definition of free will why are they classified under determinism and indeterministim? Because people generally want to know if it ultimately is their decision. Have you ever watched Sam Harris talk about it? He even mentioned in one of his talks how his friend Daniel Dennett completely shifts the meaning of free will and then says, it exists.
You are making a subtle mistake-- you are treating the brain as part of the environment, and not part of the self. If the brain makes a decision, that IS the self making a decision. If the brain can make a decision and ACT on it without compulsion or obstruction from a foreign agent, then the brain is deciding freely.
Will is the expression of intent, a kind of decision, and free will is the capacity to express intent without compulsion or obstruction. Your definition, the freedom from causality, is incoherent. Obviously, we like things because of our lives, and this affects our desires and ultimately our intent. So why would you even argue in a thread about such an incoherent idea of free will?
Quote:And usually the compatibilist ideas of free will are dumbed down to "a thief isn't holding a gun to my head = free will, wow! problem solved!"
Only by you.
Quote:The free will I'm talking about is much more relevant when you're e.g going to sentence a criminal. That's what people are interested in, if one really ultimately is responsible for his actions. Your definition doesn't adress the question if one is ultimately responsible for ones action i.e if they could've done otherwise. Because if they cannot break the causal chain they couldn't have done otherwise at all, they might've been "capable" to, but what they were going to do was already determined. Your definition doesn't adress that question, that's why it's problematic.
It totally does address it-- in fact, it's perfectly designed to address it-- since will is the expression of intent, and since the law is predicated on intent. If someone has no intent, then he will be charged with a lesser crime. If his intent is formed under compulsion-- for example involuntary drug use by someone slipping something in a drink-- leads him to go crazy, he may not be charged with a crime at all. It doesn't matter whether ultimately we believe his acts were a product of a chain of deterministic events starting at the Big Bang. What matters is whether he was able to form and act on intent.
That is THE useful definition of free will, and is the only one that is applicable to real world situations like the execution of criminal justice.
Quote:In the end, if you can't break the causal chain, every single thing you do was bound to happen, you had no way of doing otherwise therefore your will still isn't free. Free will is an illusion in other words, it feels real, but it isn't real. Your intentions, will, they way you express yourself or intentions, everything is determined. How is it possibly free if it's already determined?
In your view, then, since everything is determined, we should not blame rapists or serial killers-- since they had no chance to act other than they did. In my view, they formed and acted on improper intent, and must be dealt with. My view is better than your view.
Nope, go check a Sam Harris debate. He is one of the biggest free will debaters and he debates the free will I'm talking about, go watch his debate if you're interested.
Your brain is part of the environment. What differs you from a planet? Are you a special little snowflake because you're a human? You're built of the same things, you follow the same laws, you are a part of the universe, you're just particles, nothing more.
Why are you free only if you're not being constricted by a foreign agent? Why a foreign agent, can you adress this? You're constrained by the laws of physics. "Will is the expression of intent, a kind of decision, and free will is the capacity to express intent without compulsion or obstruction." Well then, even by your definition a free will doesn't exist. You're constricted by the laws of physics, by the fact that you're physical. I'm still wondering why in order for your will to not be free you must be constricted by a foreign agent.
The way he forms and acts on intent isn't his decision ultimately. Why his intention is to do what he intends to do is not ultimately not his decision either. And it does matter if it traces back to the Big Bang even if it's far fetched, even if you dislike the idea. Even your definition of free will plays by the rules of my definition of free will. Intention, expression everything is ultimately not your decision either. I don't like repeating myself, I've said this several times and you adress it in the exact same way.
Exactly, of course we should hold them responsible but not in same sense we do in the everyday life. It wasn't possible for them to act any other way than they did, we accept that and instead of giving them the electric chair or lifetime prison it would be correct if we instead reconditioned their brains so their intentions become good and make them contribute to society in a positive way. The did form and act on improper intent. But the way they formed, the way the acted, and their intention, none of that was ultimately under their control. It doesn't matter if you think your view is better than my view. Your view is not correct, therefore we don't go by your view.
(August 1, 2016 at 11:26 am)RozKek Wrote: However, no matter how much I dislike this idea, I wouldn't agree with giving a very harsh sentence to the criminal e.g lifetime prison or the electric chair because the incident would ultimately be beyond our control. I'd instead agree with keeping him away from society and during that time reconditioning the criminal's brain to make him a good person and make him contribute to society in a positive way. I think this is important.
Really? Not if he raped your mom or killed your sister? See, for me personally, if someone did that to someone I cared about, I'd consider them an evil fuck, and want them to burn at the stake.
That being said, I respect your statement, because you've shown that your view on free will can be applied to ideas about justice-- it's not completely useless after all.
Can you stop using sick examples like that? It provokes shitty intrusive thoughts, stop, seriously. They'd be an evil fuck, I agree. But it wouldn't be their decision ultimately and I can't blame them for being evil and even if I'd want the same thing as you do; burn them on stake, I still do not agree that it would be the correct thing to do.
August 1, 2016 at 11:51 am (This post was last modified: August 1, 2016 at 11:51 am by GrandizerII.)
(August 1, 2016 at 11:40 am)bennyboy Wrote:
(August 1, 2016 at 11:26 am)RozKek Wrote: However, no matter how much I dislike this idea, I wouldn't agree with giving a very harsh sentence to the criminal e.g lifetime prison or the electric chair because the incident would ultimately be beyond our control. I'd instead agree with keeping him away from society and during that time reconditioning the criminal's brain to make him a good person and make him contribute to society in a positive way. I think this is important.
Really? Not if he raped your mom or killed your sister? See, for me personally, if someone did that to someone I cared about, I'd consider them an evil fuck, and want them to burn at the stake.
That being said, I respect your statement, because you've shown that your view on free will can be applied to ideas about justice-- it's not completely useless after all.
Even if they didn't have free will of any kind, I'd still be furious enough to want to hurt them. I don't ponder whether they were free to not do what they did.
That said, when I'm being rational instead, obviously the retribution idea of punishment is often always, if not always, a bad idea. Rozkek's point on punishment is one I somewhat agree with. But I just don't believe it's easy to recondition their brain to do "good" instead.
(August 1, 2016 at 11:34 am)bennyboy Wrote: 1) That's not what cognitive dissonance means. Why do people on these forums use that term, when they don't know what it means? Google it, and get it right.
2) I'm not try to argue anything into existence. I live my life, and I experience what it's like to be human. Part of that is the freedom to express my intent in the world. That's free will. Is it really really, REALLY free, in the sense that it's free from itself, from the Universe, from causation, and from anything else that anything might possibly be said to be free from? Maybe not-- but I wouldn't abuse the word to that degree anyway.
As for the stuff about brain function-- this is an essential issue in talking about the nature of consciousness. Beauty, love, etc. all have physical correlates, specifically in brain structure and function. But you can't find "redness" anywhere in the universe, nor "love," unless you redefine them in physical terms. But many of our words are meant to talk about the experience of what things are like-- i.e. qualia-- and not about the physical correlates that may/may not underlie them. Even "Mom" exists only as an idea-- the real physical object-- fat, bone tissue, various fluids, etc. is supervenient on QM. But nobody goes around trying to prove that everyone's Mom is just a bunch of wave functions vibrating in a virtual space.
For better or worse, we are IN the Matrix, and it is the only perspective from which we can draw a world view, and it is the only context, ultimately that matters to us.
1) I might've got it wrong, I don't care enough to google it. However, my bad if I used it in the wrong context.
2) That's what the illusion is about and it is important if it's not free from causality, the universe and such.
I don't know how this is relevant and objective reality still exists. If they have physical correlates then you're not deciding how your experience will be. You just observe and experience. And of course, when I say mom I don't refer to the real physical object, that's unnecessary. But the lack of free will isn't unnecessary in some contexts.
No, I stopped eating snacks but not because of my lack of freedom (ultimately it was because I lack freedom). It is entirely correct that if I had an SO ultimately it wouldn't be our decision to love each other, if that is the case, that is the case. When you're with your wife and play with your kids the emotions you experience aren't under your control. They're simply chemicals firing off in the brain making you experience love. If you say it is your choice then you can even argue that you can cure depression caused by a chemical imbalance with your will. If someone did one of those sick things (please use less harsh examples next time) then I would be angry because it is a natural human reaction. It wouldn't be under my control if my neural net interacted in a way to make me experience anger. However, no matter how much I dislike this idea, I wouldn't agree with giving a very harsh sentence to the criminal e.g lifetime prison or the electric chair because the incident would ultimately be beyond our control. I'd instead agree with keeping him away from society and during that time reconditioning the criminal's brain to make him a good person and make him contribute to society in a positive way. I think this is important.
It doesn't matter if or how much I dislike this idea, I'm not going to deny it because I dislike it. Nor am I going to try and argue a free will into existence by playing word games. All definitions of free will are constricted and lack the free one way or another. Every single part and ounce of your free will is constricted by causality and all of the arguments for it lead to accepting the illusion of free will without acknowledging it but they don't deal with the physically free part itself, instead they avoid it.
It doesn't matter if it's useless or not, if it is the case, it is the case. And, no, it isn't trivial. And I don't sit there in a philosphical bind either, all depressed and crying over why I took vanilla over chocolate. In your experience, you're doing so freely. You're demonstrating the illusion yourself. It feels free, it does to me too, but it isn't free.
Take no offense, but the way you're expressing yourself makes me think you're trying to define and argue free will into existence either consciously or subconsciously because you dislike the idea of not having a free will. Cognitive dissonance comes into mind here.
No matter what you feel freedom should be defined as, just remember it's just your perspective. For a more objective answer, then a consensus among rational people should be made as to what is sufficient for a will to have freedom.
Interestingly enough, when we think free in the usual sense, it's almost never defined in the way it is often defined in the context of debates on free will. It's like you've already assumed that libertarian free will is the official definition of free will. But when you look at what the majority of philosophers believe about free will, it's a different definition. And honestly, I'm not sure most laypeople view free will in the libertarian sense either. Has there ever been a systemic poll surveying what laypeople defined free will to be?
It doesn't really matter what other people are debating. Let's say no one is debating the free will I'm talking about, but I am and I think it's important and has a basis in reality. And what gets more objective than physics? I'm using physics, the physical reality and the laws of physics to argue against free will, it doesn't get more objective than that. You're made of particles just like planet earth is, both of you are governed by the laws of physics, both of you are going to move and act only in one possible way, but you can always dream of other things you could've done, sure.
(August 1, 2016 at 11:39 am)Irrational Wrote: No matter what you feel freedom should be defined as, just remember it's just your perspective. For a more objective answer, then a consensus among rational people should be made as to what is sufficient for a will to have freedom.
Interestingly enough, when we think free in the usual sense, it's almost never defined in the way it is often defined in the context of debates on free will. It's like you've already assumed that libertarian free will is the official definition of free will. But when you look at what the majority of philosophers believe about free will, it's a different definition. And honestly, I'm not sure most laypeople view free will in the libertarian sense either. Has there ever been a systemic poll surveying what laypeople defined free will to be?
It doesn't really matter what other people are debating. Let's say no one is debating the free will I'm talking about, but I am and I think it's important and has a basis in reality. And what gets more objective than physics? I'm using physics, the physical reality and the laws of physics to argue against free will, it doesn't get more objective than that. You're made of particles just like planet earth is, both of you are governed by the laws of physics, both of you are going to move and act only in one possible way, but you can always dream of other things you could've done, sure.
Rozkek, the laws of physics don't tell you what constitutes freedom, though. Come on.
August 1, 2016 at 12:14 pm (This post was last modified: August 1, 2016 at 12:14 pm by RozKek.)
(August 1, 2016 at 12:02 pm)Irrational Wrote:
(August 1, 2016 at 11:59 am)RozKek Wrote: It doesn't really matter what other people are debating. Let's say no one is debating the free will I'm talking about, but I am and I think it's important and has a basis in reality. And what gets more objective than physics? I'm using physics, the physical reality and the laws of physics to argue against free will, it doesn't get more objective than that. You're made of particles just like planet earth is, both of you are governed by the laws of physics, both of you are going to move and act only in one possible way, but you can always dream of other things you could've done, sure.
Rozkek, the laws of physics don't tell you what constitutes freedom, though. Come on.
That's not the point. Your will is from the brain. Your brain is physical and is governed by the laws of physics. If the actions of your neural net are determined then your will is also determined. Your will cannot equal Y if your neural net says it equals X, I don't know if the last sentence was a good way of demonstrating it, but yeah, hope you get it. Also, freedom is just a concept made by humans, it's just an idea. There's no deeper meaning to it.
