/lit/ - Literature

>>14182707
What do you think, OP?

>>14182707
basic logic makes free will not impossible but literally incoherent and impossible to define

>>14182713
Logic tells me free will is an illusion. But I believe that we do have agency, though our options may be severely limited.

>>14182713
That was a weird boner

>>14182816
Georgia Page is my ideal woman. I understand what you mean anon.

>>14182713
Additionally, I think that the degree of free will varies between individuals, and within individuals (over time).

>>14182845
Is that the truth, or does it simply appear to be the truth? Say someone appears to be freely exercising their will, how do you know they could ever have done anything different?

>>14182707
In short, no
>An agent's cognition and behaviour is not reducible to lower level talk of physical processes in the brain. Because these two domains are seperate, physical determinism being true does not rule out agential indeterminism. Higher level indeterminism arises as an emergent by product of lower level determinism. Let's consider a deterministic system which is governed by laws. In this system, the initial state determines all subsequent states. In this system, the same macro state (psychological level state, for example) can be instantiated by different micro level states (microphysical level states, like particles and forces, for example). Take this graphic I have posted. The initial state (t=1), determines all subsequent states, as I described earlier. The dots represent the state of the system at a given time (t). If two dots land in the same cell, that means the same outcome was achieved on the macroscopic level. Now let's broaden things even more. Let's say at t=1, the 6 possible physical states correspond to only 2 possible psychological states—one on the left and one the right. Now, if we redescribe the system in these higher level terms, we actually end up with an indeterministic system. The next picture I am going to post shows the graphic of the indeterministic higher level system. The indeterminism is indicated by the branching. In conclusion, this shows that lower level determinism can give rise to emergent higher level indeterminism and that lower level determinism is compatible with higher level indeterminism. The opposite—higher level determinism with lower level indeterminism—is also compatible; however, that would take another post to describe. This shows that physical determinism in the universe is compatible with agential indeterminism.

>>14182855

>>14182852
>is that the truth, or does it simply appear to be the truth?
Is there a difference, from our perspective? Is the absolute truth even attainable for a human?
>how do you know they could ever have done anything different?
I don't. I am imprisoned in my own individual consciousness; I have no access to anyone else's.

>>14182855
>lower level talk
Stopped reading there

>>14182909
>retarded determinist doesn't understand lower level and higher level phenomena

>>14182917
I read the whole thing, and sorry, but I'm having a great deal of difficulty understanding any of it. Could you perhaps explain it another way?

>>14182952
I suppose I can make a post with a more informal version of the argument, but that would take a bit. It's currently midnight; if the thread is still up by tomorrow I may post an informal version.

>>14182979
Much appreciated.

>>14182713
HNNNNG
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmBrTouV8i0

I regret sex but I’m glad I had it. Never really liked it. Started overthinking it, didn’t really enjoy unless I was baked.

>>14182707
Well, it's very muddy, since people tend to want to think about free will in terms of causality. And whether you conclude that there's free will depends on what you take the relationship between mind (as in, your experience of the world) and causality to be. And that's a choice you get to make, since it's all pre-theoretical (that is, these are issues that form the basis of theory).
So most of the pronouncements people make about free will, determinism, and causality are just begging the question. And it is, anyway, deeply ironic that you get to choose whether you believe in free will.

Causality doesn't exist if free will doesn't exist.

What does free will even mean? It is, somewhat, clear what it means in a theistic context. But what does it mean in other contexts? A lot of arguments against it boil down to: you couldn't choose anything else than what you chose. I mean, it is clear that you can't choose anything else than what you want. But doesn't free will not mean just being able to want what you want, i.e. be free in your willing? And, i believe, this makes also sense in a theistic sense. Because it means that god doesn't determine what you want and you have, thus, your own 'choices' to make. Before anyone says that what I say is free to want what you want isn't really a concept of freedom, why do you conceive freedom in such a magical way, even in such a way that you can dismiss it's existence? Are you scared of responsibility? Don't you want to be seen as the actor of your actions? Why mist you be absolved of your sins, by just claiming I am a slave? Why do you want to conceive yourself as a slave? Why are you a slave. Why do you search justification of your slaveness? Accept responsibility for your deeds. Become patrician. Accept your will, follow your will. Because following your will is your freedom, your only freedom. The fundamental question is, do you want to conceive yourself as a slave of an unfree will, or do you identify with a free will? A will that is so radically free, that it can't make any other choice than the will makes, since any other choice than the choice you made, isn't a free choice.
Any will other than yours idn't your free will.

You can argue that I am butchering the concept. I ask thou then, define free will in a senseful nontheistic way. And, if you believe I am butchering the concept, please show that it can't be reduced to wanting that what you want.

>>14182707
Yes. But causality us almost certainly false.

>>14182746
>Logic tells me free will is an illusion.
Don't trust logic. QM isn't derived by "logic" and it was a pretty hard hit against physical determinism.

There is no libertarian free will (from this point on, when I say "free will", I mean libertarian free will unless otherwise specified).

The idea of free will is incompatible with both causality (everything having a cause) and acausality (some things having no cause).

If everything is caused, then all our thoughts and feelings are the result of prior causes, meaning every action we do, every thought we had, etc. is the inevitable result of what happened before.

If some things aren't caused, then our wills can't cause them (because then they wouldn't be uncaused). So that also means no free will.

Beyond that, we have proof that chemicals can CAUSE (i.e., MAKE) people have thoughts they wouldn't otherwise have and do things they wouldn't otherwise do. Antidepressants can make you feel better, or they can make you kill yourself. Amphetamines can cause you to compulsively masturbate, or cause you to do well in school when you were sucking.

We don't even "experience" free will. Thoughts just pop into our heads. When you're jacking off and you think of your mom all of a sudden, did you "choose" to have that thought? No--it just popped into your head. You didn't select it. It just came to you. That's how thoughts work.

There's also tons of evidence that our personalities come from our genetics and how we were raised. So that kills free will too.

Free will is incompatible with reality and we don't even experience it. It's a meme.

>>14182707
I really don't get why people cling to the idea of free will. It's so obviously false. And abandoning that concept won't make your perspective more or less subjective, so why the fuss? Why not think about concepts that more accurately portray the role of subjectivity in human life?

>>14183657
explain yourself anon.

>>14183641
>and it is, anyway, deeply ironic that you get to choose whether you believe in free will.
Great point. However, you could argue that this choice was inevitable. That it was the result of a myriad of physical and mental events, most of which escape your conscious perception.

>>14183778
This is another excellent point that I was hoping someone would make.

>>14184251
But this is exactly my point: the ontology of objects/events/actions is pre-theoretical, it's a guide to the construction of theories. Since there's no way to theoretically support the notion of events, since events are one possible basis of theorycraft, this is one way that you can go about choosing whether you believe in free will.

>>14182707
If you’re able to do what is best for you, then you effectively have free will.

Much like it seems as though the sun revolved around the earth from our perspective, it's the same with our will. Our conscious experiences our will as somewhat free (and not even always), but in reality it is us orbiting around a mountain of hidden processes

>>14182713
wew lad