Free Will v. Determinism: Round 3

[BigBallinStalin]

Gentlemen, I have considerably scaled back my belief in free will. Of course, our daily activities involve other humans, so we are largely influenced by other humans to varying degrees. More importantly, we are also influenced by institutions which we're hardly cognizant of. Some of the orders which emerge from our interactions are deliberately designed (e.g. direct political action), but much order is not from design but rather from human action. That is, certain kinds of order are unintended yet emerge from our interactions (e.g. most markets). In short, free will is constrained in this sense.

Nevertheless, in regard to determinism, it's not the case that I believe that scientists can predict our every move, desire, and anticipation. Instead, scientists don't have to. With the rise of 'artificial intelligence', humans have become more easily predictable--through ads, google searches, siri, and possibly even presidential elections.

On average, humans becoming marginally obsolete, so either you can complement your skills with the rise in 'artificial' intelligence or fall behind.













It's up to you.

[warmonger1981]

Its pretty basic. You control through mathematics, algorithms, color, smell, sight, music/rhythm and half ass truths. It creates an artificial reality. Just like that Jim Carrey movie. You can't tell me that its impossible to create an artificial reality or environment.

[BigBallinStalin]

Its pretty basic. You control through mathematics, algorithms, color, smell, sight, music/rhythm and half ass truths. It creates an artificial reality. Just like that Jim Carrey movie. You can't tell me that its impossible to create an artificial reality or environment.

That's at the metaphysical level which doesn't matter because reality is subjectively perceived and because I'm a pragmatist who doesn't give a shit about chasing my philosophical tail in circles. In other words, sure, there's a limit at which we operate, but below that, there's free will. Determinism is more about 'being wired into doing X'--e.g. the biological evolutionary habits of humans. Determinism also entails the scientific quest of predicting human behavior.

There's the difference.

The metaphysical issues--to me--are irrelevant usually because metaphysical claims are unfalsifiable and are hardly meaningful.

[chang50]

I predict reintroducing this subject will be as controversial as on all the previous occasions,just like religion threads usually are.Those who support freewill do so with the same fervour as theists refusing to accept the burden of proof and turning to emotional appeals.Angry polemic will be exchanged as the freewillers feel assaulted in their very integrity as human beings and sceptics become frustrated,all very predictable.
It would be nice to be wrong....

[Dukasaur]

I predict reintroducing this subject will be as controversial as on all the previous occasions,just like religion threads usually are.Those who support freewill do so with the same fervour as theists refusing to accept the burden of proof and turning to emotional appeals.Angry polemic will be exchanged as the freewillers feel assaulted in their very integrity as human beings and sceptics become frustrated,all very predictable.
It would be nice to be wrong....

Au contraire, I predict that too little time has passed since this issue was last fought over. People are still tired from the last episode, and won't have the energy for too many angry polemics.

I predict a sitzkrieg.

[chang50]

I predict reintroducing this subject will be as controversial as on all the previous occasions,just like religion threads usually are.Those who support freewill do so with the same fervour as theists refusing to accept the burden of proof and turning to emotional appeals.Angry polemic will be exchanged as the freewillers feel assaulted in their very integrity as human beings and sceptics become frustrated,all very predictable.
It would be nice to be wrong....

Au contraire, I predict that too little time has passed since this issue was last fought over. People are still tired from the last episode, and won't have the energy for too many angry polemics.

I predict a sitzkrieg.

Might be best...

[DoomYoshi]

Round 3? The question of Free Will goes back as far as the oldest human documents.

[Army of GOD]

f*ck all yall

[BigBallinStalin]

I predict reintroducing this subject will be as controversial as on all the previous occasions,just like religion threads usually are.Those who support freewill do so with the same fervour as theists refusing to accept the burden of proof and turning to emotional appeals.Angry polemic will be exchanged as the freewillers feel assaulted in their very integrity as human beings and sceptics become frustrated,all very predictable.
It would be nice to be wrong....

Au contraire, I predict that too little time has passed since this issue was last fought over. People are still tired from the last episode, and won't have the energy for too many angry polemics.

I predict a sitzkrieg.

Round 3? The question of Free Will goes back as far as the oldest human documents.

f*ck all yall

WELCOME TO THE GREAT DECLINE!!!!










There is nothing you can do. It has been determined.

[PLAYER57832]

Gentlemen, I have considerably scaled back my belief in free will. Of course, our daily activities involve other humans, so we are largely influenced by other humans to varying degrees. More importantly, we are also influenced by institutions which we're hardly cognizant of. Some of the orders which emerge from our interactions are deliberately designed (e.g. direct political action), but much order is not from design but rather from human action. That is, certain kinds of order are unintended yet emerge from our interactions (e.g. most markets). In short, free will is constrained in this sense.

Nevertheless, in regard to determinism, it's not the case that I believe that scientists can predict our every move, desire, and anticipation. Instead, scientists don't have to. With the rise of 'artificial intelligence', humans have become more easily predictable--through ads, google searches, siri, and possibly even presidential elections.

Scientists cannot predict simply because there are too many variables. Even carried out fully, that many variables means the distinction between "free" will and "not free" will is rather moot. Its similar to random algorithms, except far, far more advanced. The difference is in our beliefs, because it is them that shape our perceptions of what happens and therefore itself shapes the outcome more significantly than any outward factors.
(or, to put it another way, we all know that dice are not truly random.. not even close. Still, we use them as a random artifice with much success for most practical measures)

On average, humans becoming marginally obsolete, so either you can complement your skills with the rise in 'artificial' intelligence or fall behind.

Eh.. just skip the messy biologics all together. We don't need humans, only mechanical minds.

[PLAYER57832]

Round 3? The question of Free Will goes back as far as the oldest human documents.

Round one... I am stronger, I get it ALL!!!

Round 2 -- social niceties, democracy and all that.

Round 3 -- why bother... just go artificial.

[Dukasaur]

(or, to put it another way, we all know that dice are not truly random.

[PLAYER57832]

lol
(except, of course.. "that is too few characters" )

[Maugena]

Whatup BBS.

I was bored and decided to check out what shenanigans yous peeps have been up to.
Nothing particularly interesting, but I always love thinking philosophically.
That being said, I wanted to get involved in this debate (again, perhaps? -Lionz).

I personally don't think this dilemma can ever be solved.

My take on it (as it has been for years) is that matter definitively follows the laws of physics - not the rules we perceive and try to match to what reality shows us but rather all of the absolute inherent systematic patterns that define our reality. "Randomness" does not exist. We merely do not know the complexities of reality and thus, try to throw a label onto something we do not fully understand.*

I am a materialist and this is how I perceive reality.

Making the assumption that I am correct in my belief, free will should not even be valued as a respectable concept. (I could make numerous statements about why, none of them being kindly worded towards those that would argue against me, but I won't because I'm not here to attack people.)

What is of major concern to me is not whether or not you make decisions regardless of any influence and whether or not actions are based off of chemical reactions in our brains but rather if matter is finite or not. (I'm pretty sure I have brought this up before.) The point being is that I want to know where our "self" derives from. (You may call it a soul - the concept is virtually the same with the exception that I believe there is nothing but a physical aspect to this "soul" and nothing supernatural. It comes from somewhere. The 'where' is and always has been the mystery.)

* Let me ask you a question. If something is truly random, how can anything systematic be built upon that? EVEN IF I AM WRONG, how would randomness imply that free will is real? That is also just as nonsensical. I'm certain that anyone that believes in the concept of free will does not fully understand (or willfully chooses to believe the opposite as a comfort) or have the deductive capabilities to figure out what implications physics has on living beings. (Guess I attacked you believers anyway... sorry.)

EDIT: If matter is infinitely small, then free will may be a possibility. But even an infinite amount of perpetually smaller things only add up to a certain amount. (Think 1 / x, diverging at 0.)

Reality really is just an elaborate box.

[notyou2]

My take on it (as it has been for years) is that matter definitively follows the laws of physics and reality shows.

Lol, "reality shows". Yeah right. Get a life.

[tzor]

One of the odd things about randomness is that it is based on statistics and statistics fails on the singularity. Every event in the universe is its own singularity, The conditions that lead up to the event are unique. The outcome is singular. Therefore it is completely impossible to know if something is "random."

But that's not what we mean by "random." The less information you know about the conditions of the event, the less you can determine the outcome and eventually you reach a point where you can only make a guess. Guessing is similar to probability and just as silly because, once again, the event is unique.

None of this has anything to do with "free will." The human mind has an additional level of complexity, in that it is constantly modifying the processing device which the conditions that lead up to the event are filtered to produce the event. This generally unknown state has been molded by past events that we also cannot measure and determine. This cumulative information often trumps the current conditions outside the mind. Thus the mind is not directly controlled by the events outside it. This is, therefore, the fundamental principle behind "free will," the mind is not restricted to the current external conditions around it.

This, and this alone, is the reason why you may not automatically react to my nifty signature and immediately "Like" us on Facebook.

[nietzsche]

Say that as Maugena mentions, the "soul" is physical somehow, (I prefer the term consciousness for it doesn't have the religious connotations).

Would you believe free will was possible or not?

[tzor]

Say that as Maugena mentions, the "soul" is physical somehow, (I prefer the term consciousness for it doesn't have the religious connotations).

There is a subtle difference between soul and consciousness (I prefer to think of soul as the integration of consciousness over time).

But more over the notion of "free will" being a function within the general input,process,output of consciousness the question of another layer of processing doesn't add considerable amount of evidence to the question that if all the inputs are known (but we know they can't) can the output be precisely determined?

[nietzsche]

Say that as Maugena mentions, the "soul" is physical somehow, (I prefer the term consciousness for it doesn't have the religious connotations).

There is a subtle difference between soul and consciousness (I prefer to think of soul as the integration of consciousness over time).

But more over the notion of "free will" being a function within the general input,process,output of consciousness the question of another layer of processing doesn't add considerable amount of evidence to the question that if all the inputs are known (but we know they can't) can the output be precisely determined?

I didn't quite understood you.

I was equating soul with consciousness because to this point was sort of the same idea. The problem with the idea of soul is that it's attributed many things in many different theories and religions. Over the years it has gotten something from here, something from there, some give it certain qualities, others deny them, etc. It's a word meant to express an idea, a symbol to invoke and idea in our heads, but as impressionable kids we get all kind of different associations when we are introduced to it. Just imaigne a kid in the fifteen century reading Dante's Inferno, what kind of ideas he would have about the "soul".


This is what I was talking about:

Option 1: Consciousness is an epiphenomenon. Determinism. Consciousness has no play in anything.

Option 2: Consciousness is part of the whole, somehow, in a materialistic world. Consciousness here would play a part, since it's part of the whole.

I was asking about Option 2. Would you consider the role of consciousness to be free will even though we could still sum atoms? Also, would it matter? Since you have (the part you are conscious of) have a role to play, would it matter if everything it's determined? You can't know really, you have your part to play and feel and think as you do.

And, even if the world was deterministic, we would never be able to store in a super computer all the all the variables to know the outcome, since as we are doing it, time passed, particles changed places, etc. It's simply impossible.

[Army of GOD]

Mangina!

[tzor]

I didn't quite understood you.

I was equating soul with consciousness because to this point was sort of the same idea.

Most people link "soul" with "immortal" or "eternal." Consciousness isn't even constant and is definitely not eternal.