|
I feel like the debate around free will is misdirected. I hear the debate centering around a choice between either human action is fully deterministic, in which case we don't have free will, or human action isn't fully deterministic, in which case we have free will. My objection to this debate is the way the term 'free will' is used. What the debate highlighted above isn't about whether or not humans have free will or not, its about whether humans have 'free action' or not. Will is a separate concept from action. Will refers to the phenomenological forces experienced by a subject that push behavior in one direction or another. It is my position that humans have 'free action', but are strongly influenced by a 'non-free will'. By a non-free will, I mean humans cannot at any moment choose their will. If you are hungry, you cannot choose to be not hungry, or if you are mad you cannot choose to instantaneously be not mad. You can choose behaviors which can produce the will you desire, such as taking deep breaths if you want to not be mad, but you cannot choose your will at any moment ex nihilo. To adapt a quote from Marx "Men make their own wills, but they do not make them just as they please. They make them under conditions given and transmitted from the past. The emotions of all dead moments lay like a nightmare upon the actions of the living."
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 19:31
|
|
- hi
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 02:05 |
|
|
this is a kids show, this song is porn randy..wtf? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SlvZF6k5bE Rapman the Cook fucked around with this message at 19:36 on Nov 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
Yo suck me homie.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
free will = being randy
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 19:33
|
|
|
this track...randy as heck https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pm8D7pZeGss
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
clarification on free willy
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
pixelbaron posted:clarification on free willy is an orca
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
Schopenhauer already said this a couple hundred years ago OP it's the infinite regress of willing one's own will the whole debate sucks and is horrible and just draws out the most pretentious poo poo so please just close the thread tia
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
Let's Pontificate About poo poo We Can't Quantify. Sounds Fun!
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
News flash! College courses haven't advanced past the 1950s and are run and managed by desperate dying troglodytes that think they're the smartest people on the planet, tune in to find out more at 11!
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
Free gucci
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 20:01
|
|
|
I had this argument in the comments section of Scott Adams's blog with him and he erased all my posts and IP banned me so I couldn't post anymore. Scott Adams doesn't have to be a dick, but he chooses to be a dick of his own free will. gently caress that guy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
Wow I had no idea the creator of Dilbert was so ignorant and petulant. Whodathunkit
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
i had no idea he had a blog that people got into heated debates on
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
Ocean Book posted:You can choose behaviors which can produce the will you desire, such as taking deep breaths if you want to not be mad, but you cannot choose your will at any moment ex nihilo. You actually can't choose this either, if you understand choice to indicate that you could have done something else than what you actually wind up doing. It's true that there is no impediment to you taking deep breaths, you could choose to do it in that sense, but the factors that lead you to actually do it or not are not under your control - or rather, not solely under your control; you are the medium through which these causes are transmitted. The buck doesn't stop with you, but goes back to what made you you: behavior is by definition response to stimulus. You can choose, but the only choice you can make is to do what you actually wind up doing, and you could never have actually done anything else. It doesn't necessarily appear this way naïvely, because we will, think, and rationalize our actions in terms of counterfactuals: we reason as if what we will do is up in the air, because from our non-future-seeing point of view it is. But in reality we only wind up doing one thing, and literally can not do otherwise than what we do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
Quickscope420dad posted:Schopenhauer already said this a couple hundred years ago OP i actually made the thread because i was reading some shopenhaur. also it doesnt look like this thread has drawn out any pretenstious poo poo so dont worry. skasion posted:You actually can't choose this either, if you understand choice to indicate that you could have done something else than what you actually wind up doing. It's true that there is no impediment to you taking deep breaths, you could choose to do it in that sense, but the factors that lead you to actually do it or not are not under your control - or rather, not solely under your control; you are the medium through which these causes are transmitted. The buck doesn't stop with you, but goes back to what made you you: behavior is by definition response to stimulus. You can choose, but the only choice you can make is to do what you actually wind up doing, and you could never have actually done anything else. It doesn't necessarily appear this way naïvely, because we will, think, and rationalize our actions in terms of counterfactuals: we reason as if what we will do is up in the air, because from our non-future-seeing point of view it is. But in reality we only wind up doing one thing, and literally can not do otherwise than what we do. So you don't believe in free action? You don't believe that a subject chooses from a range of actions which action to perform? You say that "you are the medium through which these causes are transmitted", but I am curious. In your opinion, what is a subject and what does the subject do?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 05:18
|
|
|
What bothers me about the free will debate is people who use the idea that we don't have free will as a reason not to punish criminals or try to tell people that they aren't responsible for their behavior, which makes those people less likely to change. But reward and punishment do work to change people's behavior, at least most people, so whether or not we have fee will shouldn't change anything we do with praise, blame, or what we do with the legal system.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 05:31
|
|
|
those people have really confused beliefs about what a legal system is for
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 05:32
|
|
|
intentions are not what determines the outcome, actions are
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 05:49
|
|
|
philosophy is gay
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 05:54
|
|
|
who
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 06:01
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJJVdIm_bF0 clarified? ywa, hth
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 06:24
|
|
|
consciousness and souls are an illusion, free will probably isn't because atoms are random and poo poo that's how I live life
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 06:34
|
|
|
Free will is irrelevant, the universe moves as it should..but you fight it. That's why you wonder about choice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 06:43
|
|
|
Me too im the most conflicted of all, i just like the second person
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 06:43
|
|
|
OP you word your post like this is your original thought when many before you made this distinction between free will and free action.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 07:36
|
|
|
Read some Edward O. Wilson and stop punching yourself in the face.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 07:46
|
|
|
Cause and effect preclude will, that is free of influence, as being science fact. Edit: anything free of influence doesn't exist. it's physics.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 07:54
|
|
|
Free will can't exist if an omnipotent God exists, because then it means he actually doesn't have total control. If free will does exist then it's proof that God is not omnipotent and yadda yadda yadda bring me a beer while you're up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 07:57
|
|
|
Ocean Book posted:So you don't believe in free action? You don't believe that a subject chooses from a range of actions which action to perform? I believe that I, personally, contemplate a range of hypothetical (imaginary) future events stemming from my potential actions, and use this system of informed guessing to deliberate as to what action I should take. But this doesn't mean my action is free, because the range of hypothetical "futures" about which I deliberate is not "free" but is contingent on who, what, and where I am. More than that, I do not have, or at the very least never demonstrate, the ability to choose to pursue any future other than the one that I actually pursue. My action is neither free in the sense that there is no impediment to it (I don't have freedom of action to fly to the moon) nor in the sense that I could do otherwise than what I actually wind up doing. If I do X, it may appear to me that I could have done something other than X (indeed before I did X I probably contemplated doing Y and Z instead), but there is not any evidence that I actually could have done Y or Z, because I did X. Even if no external force prevented me from doing Y or Z, a force internal to me clearly did prevent me. That is to say, I willed X and not Y or Z, and cannot have willed Y or Z instead of X now that I have actually willed X. This is what it means that you can do what you will, but you can't will what you will. It seems to us that we deliberate between futures which are not yet set in stone, which are somehow lacking in the certainty of the past or present, because that's exactly what we're doing: we're making up models of the future and willing which one we want to pursue. But the future only winds up happening one way. Ocean Book posted:You say that "you are the medium through which these causes are transmitted", but I am curious. In your opinion, what is a subject and what does the subject do? "Subject" is a term used as a philosophical glorification of the "I" that language-speaking humans posit as the protagonist and author of the narrative they produce to order their sense experiences. It doesn't "do" anything really, but it can have any act ascribed to it, because subjects don't have any actual existence. They are all in one's head, so to speak - not to say that the idea of a subject is meaningless, but rather that people are real and do things in a way that subjects aren't and don't. Like the notion of "I" itself, it is more like a way of ordering the process of thinking and the constant stream of thought than it is an entity as real as one's body. But I don't think that a subject wills or acts except insofar as one's process of thought can deposit responsibility for wills or acts upon it after those wills are willed or those acts enacted. If that makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 09:08
|
|
|
skasion posted:tl/dr dude, go smoke a bowl or something, you're way too serious.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 09:12
|
|
|
Seriously, read some Edward O. Wilson. He had an article in September's Harper's Magazine that was on this very subject. I'd link to it, but you need access to the Harper's archives in order to read the whole thing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._O._Wilson
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 09:18
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofaaQKWgVy8
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 09:26
|
|
|
How Can Free Will Be Real If Our Eyes Aren't Real?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 09:29
|
|
|
Ocean Book posted:I feel like the debate around free will is misdirected. I hear the debate centering around a choice between either human action is fully deterministic, in which case we don't have free will, or human action isn't fully deterministic, in which case we have free will. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvJAgrUBF4w
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 09:38
|
|
|
Always read the fine print. Even though it says "free will", they'll still try to charge you 50 bucks for writing your will.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 09:42
|
|
|
Picnic Princess posted:dude, go smoke a bowl or something, you're way too serious. "nobody has free will and the self is just, like, a linguistic construct, maaaan" --a guy who never smokes weed even a little bit
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
Ocean Book posted:I feel like the debate around free will is misdirected. I hear the debate centering around a choice between either human action is fully deterministic, in which case we don't have free will, or human action isn't fully deterministic, in which case we have free will. Just because a human action is not deterministic, does not mean it's free will. How does a probable but not definite outcome govern choice? There's no proof in science, at all, there is any such thing as free will. Everything is physics is either deterministic or non-deterministic. The human brain does not run on a separate system of physics than the rest of the universe.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
skasion posted:I believe that I, personally, contemplate a range of hypothetical (imaginary) future events stemming from my potential actions, and use this system of informed guessing to deliberate as to what action I should take. But this doesn't mean my action is free, because the range of hypothetical "futures" about which I deliberate is not "free" but is contingent on who, what, and where I am. More than that, I do not have, or at the very least never demonstrate, the ability to choose to pursue any future other than the one that I actually pursue. My action is neither free in the sense that there is no impediment to it (I don't have freedom of action to fly to the moon) nor in the sense that I could do otherwise than what I actually wind up doing. when I said 'free action' I meant a subject is free to choose from a range of available actions and is not limited to a deterministic pattern of actions. I did not mean that the subject is capable of performing any action that can be imagined. So i guess we are in agreement here. quote:If I do X, it may appear to me that I could have done something other than X (indeed before I did X I probably contemplated doing Y and Z instead), but there is not any evidence that I actually could have done Y or Z, because I did X. Even if no external force prevented me from doing Y or Z, a force internal to me clearly did prevent me. That is to say, I willed X and not Y or Z, and cannot have willed Y or Z instead of X now that I have actually willed X. This is what it means that you can do what you will, but you can't will what you will. It seems to us that we deliberate between futures which are not yet set in stone, which are somehow lacking in the certainty of the past or present, because that's exactly what we're doing: we're making up models of the future and willing which one we want to pursue. But the future only winds up happening one way. I agree that you can do what you will and cannot will what you will. However, like the range of available actions I mention earlier, it is evident to me that subjects experience a range of wills. For any given action, it may be that i simultaniously will to perform and not perform that action. an easy example is eating a cookie before bedtime, or waking up early to make a prior engagement. In these cases I experience a multitude of wills that attempt to pull my actions in a multitude of directions (This is what Deluze and Guittari refer to as the multiplicity of 'desiring machines'). Ultimately my action ends up as only following one direction, and thus there are wills that are satisfied and wills that are frustrated. How is it that one will becomes manifested and the other is not? Is it purely based on the strength of the internal will and the availability of the actions that are willed, or is there something else? (see below) quote:"Subject" is a term used as a philosophical glorification of the "I" that language-speaking humans posit as the protagonist and author of the narrative they produce to order their sense experiences. It doesn't "do" anything really, but it can have any act ascribed to it, because subjects don't have any actual existence. They are all in one's head, so to speak - not to say that the idea of a subject is meaningless, but rather that people are real and do things in a way that subjects aren't and don't. Like the notion of "I" itself, it is more like a way of ordering the process of thinking and the constant stream of thought than it is an entity as real as one's body. But I don't think that a subject wills or acts except insofar as one's process of thought can deposit responsibility for wills or acts upon it after those wills are willed or those acts enacted. If that makes sense. Here you mention exactly how it is that subject can end up influencing which will is manifested. "[The subject] is more like a way of ordering the process of thinking and the constant stream of thought than it is an entity as real as one's body". It is exactly in this ordering of the stream of experience that will influences which will becomes manifest. To take the cookie example from before, if I the Subject produce and experience representations of the world that focus on the cookie and how hungry I am and how good chocolate tastes, i make it more likely for the will to eat a cookie to manifest and the will to not eat a cookie to not manifest. If i instead produce representations that are not cookie focused, i do not make it more likely for the cookie-eating future to come into existence. I can produce an internal ordering of the world that places emphasis on certain aspect of the world and de-emphasizes other aspects of the world, and in doing so influence how my body responds to the various wills that push and pull it. In this way, humans have the ability to alter their behavior due to the ability to represent and organize the world symbolically.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 17:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 02:05 |
|
|
even people who don't believe in free will secretly believe in free will in order to function in day to day life so who cares
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 17:47
|
|
