Life is meaningless and why that's a good thing.

[Angrboda]

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

My view on this that it simply isn't possible to know, one way or the other. There are arguments both for and against, but the chief stumbling block is that if a 'choice' is made - what career to follow, whom to marry, what to have for brekkie, etc - there isn't any verifiable way to know if it's actually a free choice or simply the workings of an indifferent universe.

I don't know if I have free will, but it pleases me to behave as if I do.

Boru

Yeah well, ultimately the main problem for me, and the reason I usually don't get involved in discussions about free will, is just generally that we're usually talking about 'free will' with different meanings and definitions, so often we're not really speaking the same language, so we often end up speaking past each other and never getting anywhere (I don't mean you specifically, I just mean anyone in this sort of discussion). But I just thought 'why not?' say this, because it's rare that I come across non-deterministic atheists or agnostic atheists on this question.

Fair enough. For similar reasons, I no longer argue with creationists. You can’t debate evolution with people who have a wildly different (and wildly wrong) definition of what is meant by the term.

Boru

[emjay]

Yeah well, ultimately the main problem for me, and the reason I usually don't get involved in discussions about free will, is just generally that we're usually talking about 'free will' with different meanings and definitions, so often we're not really speaking the same language, so we often end up speaking past each other and never getting anywhere (I don't mean you specifically, I just mean anyone in this sort of discussion). But I just thought 'why not?' say this, because it's rare that I come across non-deterministic atheists or agnostic atheists on this question.

Fair enough. For similar reasons, I no longer argue with creationists. You can’t debate evolution with people who have a wildly different (and wildly wrong) definition of what is meant by the term.

Boru

Hmm, lol, I don't know if that's a back-handed attack or not, comparing determinists to creationists. I think we differ on that... I didn't mean that I think your definition of "free will" is wrong, or 'wildly wrong', just different. In other words I'm not saying I think I'm right about it and everyone else is wrong, but rather that it just means different things to different people, and therefore there's little point in the discussion, if we're not on the same page, speaking the same language.

But anyway I'm not looking for a fight. I will just say what I say from my deterministic POV... 'tick tock', is a reminder I use to remind myself that whatever has happened couldn't have been any other way according to determinism (quantum influence excepted of course) so yeah, tick tock But if you don't think like that, or believe in those sorts of notions, then that's fine too, and all the best to you however you do think about it, but for me, all I have to say is 'tick tock'

[Angrboda]

Fair enough. For similar reasons, I no longer argue with creationists. You can’t debate evolution with people who have a wildly different (and wildly wrong) definition of what is meant by the term.

Boru

Hmm, lol, I don't know if that's a back-handed attack or not, comparing determinists to creationists. I think we differ on that... I didn't mean that I think your definition of "free will" is wrong, or 'wildly wrong', just different. In other words I'm not saying I think I'm right about it and everyone else is wrong, but rather that it just means different things to different people, and therefore there's little point in the discussion, if we're not on the same page, speaking the same language.

But anyway I'm not looking for a fight. I will just say what I say from my deterministic POV... 'tick tock', is a reminder I use to remind myself that whatever has happened couldn't have been any other way according to determinism (quantum influence excepted of course) so yeah, tick tock But if you don't think like that, or believe in those sorts of notions, then that's fine too, and all the best to you however you do think about it, but for me, all I have to say is 'tick tock'

There is a deficit in the account of determinism. Yes, in the face of complete information, things may be determined. However, we have incomplete information about ourselves and the environment, which makes our behavior as agents somewhat indeterminate, at least from the perspective of the thing that we are, a consciousness inside a brain.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Fair enough. For similar reasons, I no longer argue with creationists. You can’t debate evolution with people who have a wildly different (and wildly wrong) definition of what is meant by the term.

Boru

Hmm, lol, I don't know if that's a back-handed attack or not, comparing determinists to creationists. I think we differ on that... I didn't mean that I think your definition of "free will" is wrong, or 'wildly wrong', just different. In other words I'm not saying I think I'm right about it and everyone else is wrong, but rather that it just means different things to different people, and therefore there's little point in the discussion, if we're not on the same page, speaking the same language.

But anyway I'm not looking for a fight. I will just say what I say from my deterministic POV... 'tick tock', is a reminder I use to remind myself that whatever has happened couldn't have been any other way according to determinism (quantum influence excepted of course) so yeah, tick tock But if you don't think like that, or believe in those sorts of notions, then that's fine too, and all the best to you however you do think about it, but for me, all I have to say is 'tick tock'

No, it’s not any sort of attack - apos if it came off that way. All I meant was a comparison - you don’t care to participate in free will debates because of different people having different understanding of the term ‘free will.’ I don’t participate in evolution debates because so many people who support creationism have a desperately skewed idea of what ‘evolution’ means.

Again, my apologies for not being more clear.

Boru

[emjay]

Hmm, lol, I don't know if that's a back-handed attack or not, comparing determinists to creationists. I think we differ on that... I didn't mean that I think your definition of "free will" is wrong, or 'wildly wrong', just different. In other words I'm not saying I think I'm right about it and everyone else is wrong, but rather that it just means different things to different people, and therefore there's little point in the discussion, if we're not on the same page, speaking the same language.

But anyway I'm not looking for a fight. I will just say what I say from my deterministic POV... 'tick tock', is a reminder I use to remind myself that whatever has happened couldn't have been any other way according to determinism (quantum influence excepted of course) so yeah, tick tock But if you don't think like that, or believe in those sorts of notions, then that's fine too, and all the best to you however you do think about it, but for me, all I have to say is 'tick tock'

There is a deficit in the account of determinism.  Yes, in the face of complete information, things may be determined.  However, we have incomplete information about ourselves and the environment, which makes our behavior as agents somewhat indeterminate, at least from the perspective of the thing that we are, a consciousness inside a brain.

That's what I mean about being on different pages, speaking different languages, and/or in this case, what looks like speaking at different levels. I'll try and answer, for a while at least, but I think we'll probably just end up talking past each other. Firstly, do you disagree with any of those four numbered points I made to Boru? Because to me that's what it all boils down to, that our brain is a physical machine following physical laws and therefore determined, as I described, and if you agree that consciousness directly correlates with the brain in whatever sense, then I personally don't see how anyone can come to the conclusion that it is not determined too.

But at a different level, from the POV of our consciousness, I'm not personally talking about what we know or don't know from our conscious perspective. Our experience, whatever it is, however indeterminate it feels is nonetheless the product of determined physical processes in the brain, moment to moment, in my view. The fact that we are in an uncertain position from a conscious POV, makes no difference to that as far as I can see. Granted I accept that that's a materialistic point of view, that puts the physical brain first rather than consciousness, and lots of people disagree with that, coming perhaps from a more "idealistic/idealism" POV that puts consciousness first, but that's just not me. Do you basically not agree at all with my 'tick tock' logic?

[AFTT47]

Because to me that's what it all boils down to, that our brain is a physical machine following physical laws and therefore determined, as I described, and if you agree that consciousness directly correlates with the brain in whatever sense, then I personally don't see how anyone can come to the conclusion that it is not determined too.

In the absence of more knowledge, I agree. I assume no free will but I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that there is. Consciousness is such an odd thing. It's there and it is at least loosely corelated with the brain but it still seems like pixie dust. I'm sure it operates according to physical laws just like everything else but we aren't even to square one in understanding those laws.

[Belacqua]

we are free to live according to our own values, and own interests, we decide our own meanings for our own lives. 

In my experience discussions about free will vs. determinism tend to be pretty inconclusive, and I'm not sure how it would change things if we really knew the answer.

But there are a number of important things that are pre-determined for us, simply because we are the kind of animals that we are. 

Human beings have a certain kind of body, with certain kinds of abilities, limitations, and vulnerabilities. We can adjust these things within a certain range, but not all that much. 

We are free to eat a diet of only ice cream and beer, for example, but we are not free to eat a diet of only ice cream and beer and also be healthy. Because your body has already determined that. 

The fact that people share so many qualities, because of these determined facts, means that we can extrapolate some commonalities. And from these we may be able to point to some values which are more or less universal. 

So for example, when your teeth go bad they hurt. They can hurt a lot. And I think it's pretty universally true that not having a toothache is better than having a toothache. I'd say this is close enough to universally true that we can call it a fact about human beings. Having more pain is bad, and having less pain is good. 

If that's the case, then perhaps we can say it's also true that a person who causes pain in others (unnecessarily) is doing a bad thing and a person who prevents or alleviates pain in others is doing a good thing. So this is extremely basic, but if we have some kind of small foundation on which we can begin to build, then perhaps there are values, or even meanings, that nearly everyone can agree on. For example, I think that someone who discovers a treatment for a disease, and thereby prevents or alleviates a lot of suffering, has done a good thing. And a person who tortures other people for his own pleasure has done a bad thing. This is not scientifically provable, but I think some things are true due to the fact that there is near-universal agreement. 

In this way I think meaning creeps back into our view of the human world. No God is necessary for this. Our freedoms are limited due to the kind of animals that we are, and our limitations and vulnerabilities determine in large part what we ought to do.

[The Grand Nudger]

Theists say alot of shit. Especially in the genre of "if there were no god, than". The trouble is that all that shit they say about that is false on it's face. It doesn't logically follow that there is no meaning absent a god. It would only follow that there were no godmeaning...whatever that is. Ultimately, these types of claims are attempts to hang their imaginary god on something they believe has more substance. They really think there's meaning in the world, and mistakenly take whatever evidence they have of that for evidence of a god which they do not have such evidence for.

[The Grand Nudger]

-On the free will front. IDK if I have one of those. I obviously didn't choose my starting point in life. I didn't choose to fall in love, or who I fell in love with. I don't control what I can and can't stand doing for work. Just those three things make almost the entirety of my existence a series of dominos falling. Maybe I choose whether to have pepperoni or sausage on my pizza - though I bet some behavioral scientist would strongly disagree there. I have a suspicion that if we do have these free willing things, they're doing alot less than we give them credit for.