/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16014986]

Is free will real? If it isn't, how do we know that?

[Anonymous No.16015000]

You will always make the choice you want to make. Every decision is as real as the process by which you go about making that decision.

[Anonymous No.16015014]

>>16014986
If you cannot do that which you believe is best for you, then you do not have free will. The easiest way to prove free will is to live in perfect alignment with your understanding of a healthy life.

[Anonymous No.16015028]

>>16014986
In all our explanations of reality, there is never a need to appeal to non-physical causes. Occam's razor would therefore suggest that such non-physical causes do not exist.

[Anonymous No.16015035]

>>16014986
there is no meaning if there is no free will

[Anonymous No.16015050]

>>16015035
Positive and pleasurable experiences are meaning enough

[Anonymous No.16015060]

>>16015028
>In all our explanations of reality
All of your dumbass physicalist explanations. Take that razor you love so much and slit your wrists.

[Anonymous No.16015068]

>>16015060
Explain how airplanes work through non-physical causes, schizo.

[Anonymous No.16015084]

>>16015028
To add to this, if you are a theist who believes in an omnipotent, omniscient creator god, then humans cannot have free will, either.

[Anonymous No.16015103]

>>16014986
i think the only reason this question exists is because we have to punish people as a matter of practicality. It's useful to think what someone does is 'their fault', because then you get mad at them, and getting mad at/disliking people who do bad stuff is advantageous for you(eg. you avoid them after or kick them out). It's a bit crudely constructed, but so are most of our emotions.

It doesn't matter that the person ultimately was just born that way or whatever, from your practical standpoint.

[Anonymous No.16015150]

>>16015103
dogs might not have free will but we still get mad at them and punish them to correct their behavior. The belief in free will stems from the fact that we have multiple ideas of future actions. For example, when we’re faced with a decision, we see several possible choices. They all seem actually possible to us because we’re not exactly sure how we make the choice. If we understood our mind perfectly then perhaps we would always know what we desire the most, and we would always predict our choices well. But so many times we deliberate for a while before finally settling on our choice because time prevents us from deliberating any further. And at the end we pretend that we could have chosen otherwise.

[Anonymous No.16015173]

>>16015060
based, physicalists are the ultimate redditfags

[Anonymous No.16015176]

I believe it exists but in very limited capacities. Like you have the free will to get addicted to either alcohol or heroin but the fact that you’re going to be an addict was determined long ago by a combination of pre-natal environment, amount of hugs received as a child, presence of a father, etc

[Anonymous No.16015197]

>>16015173
Not an argument.

[Anonymous No.16015205]

>>16015028
Yet, those physical explanations still cannot adequately explain mysteries such as, what is consciousness? Which is pretty important considering that consciousness is what's used to study physics in the first place!

[Anonymous No.16015229]

>>16015176
All of reality is determined down to the most minute detail. The idea that the past is fixed while the future is somehow "open" is a spook. The future already exists as robustly as the present and past. In fact, Special Relativity demonstrates that events being in the "future" versus the "past" is entirely a matter of perspective.

[Anonymous No.16015234]

>>16015028
there is and you know why? because physical things don't explain themselves. bodies are extended and have qualitative attributes implied, they are composed, ever divisive. how does a body move if it is not passive of self-reversion? every knowledge is acknowledged immaterially.

[Anonymous No.16015249]

>>16015205
According to the Dogmatist, all phenomena of our consciousness are productions of a Thing in itself, even our pretended determinations by freedom, and the belief that we are free. This belief is produced by the effect of the Thing upon ourselves, and the determinations, which we deduced from freedom, are also produced by it. The only difference is, that we are not aware of it in these cases, and hence ascribe it to no cause, i.e. to our freedom. Every logical dogmatist is necessarily a Fatalist; he does not deny the fact of consciousness, that we consider ourselves free—for this would be against reason;—but he proves from his principle that this is a false view. He denies the independence of the Ego, which is the basis of the Idealist, in toto, makes it merely a production of the Thing, an accidence of the World; and hence the logical dogmatist is necessarily also materialist. He can only be refuted from the postulate of the freedom and independence of the Ego; but this is precisely what he denies. Neither can the dogmatist refute the Idealist.

From what we have just stated, is moreover evident the complete irreconcilabilty of both systems; since the results of the one destroy those of the other. Wherever their union has been attempted the members would not fit together, and somewhere an immense gulf appeared which could not be spanned.

If any one were to deny this he would have to prove the possibility of such a union—of a union which consists in an everlasting composition of Matter and Spirit, or, which is the same, of Necessity and Liberty.

Now since, as far as we can see at present, both systems appear to have the same speculative value, but since both cannot stand together, nor yet either convince the other, it occurs as a very interesting question: What can possibly tempt persons who comprehend this—and to comprehend it is so very easy a matter—to prefer the one over the other; and why skepticism, as the total renunciation of an answer to this problem, does not become universal?

The dispute between the Idealist and the Dogmatist is, in reality, the question, whether the independence of the Ego is to be sacrificed to that of the Thing, or vice versa? What, then, is it which induces sensible men to decide in favor of the one or the other?

The philosopher discovers from this point of view—in which he must necessarily place himself, if he wants to pass for a philosopher, and which in the progress of Thinking, every man necessarily occupies sooner or later,—nothing farther than that he is forced to represent to himself both: that he is free, and that there are determined things outside of him.

[Anonymous No.16015250]

>>16015205
No system requiring non-physical causes has ever been devised that demonstrates an ounce of predictive adequacy.

[Anonymous No.16015257]

>>16015234
False.

[Anonymous No.16015273]

>>16015250
>muh predictions

[Anonymous No.16015277]

>>16015250
How could it? Predictive models rely on determinism.

[Anonymous No.16015283]

>>16015273
What do you think an explanation is?

[Anonymous No.16015287]

>>16015250
>predictive adequacy
Reddit has arrived.

[Anonymous No.16015296]

>>16015277
No, predictability is a distinct concept from determinism.

[Anonymous No.16015298]

>>16015250
define physical

[Anonymous No.16015299]

>>16015283
>history cannot be explained because it can’t be proven through predictions
predictions aren’t the only way to explain phenomena

[Anonymous No.16015300]

>>16015014
Incoherent.

[Anonymous No.16015301]

>>16015287
Go back, then.

[Anonymous No.16015304]

>>16015250
>predictive adequacy
whenever you read this statement you will acknowledge your acknowledging it. this is a self-reflection and purely immaterial causality.

[Anonymous No.16015305]

>>16015300
meaningless

[Anonymous No.16015315]

>>16015298
Fields over spacetime or congeries thereof.

[Anonymous No.16015328]

>>16015304
No, language processing is a brain process.

[Anonymous No.16015335]

>>16015315
define fields, yes i want you to be more direct and specific, otherwise i will beg you to define things lacking in strict definition.
what are fields? waves? particles? bodies? matter? how are they different?

[Anonymous No.16015339]

>>16014986
>Is free will real? If it isn't, how do we know that?
It's not real because you can't choose what you believe, you're always only ever convinced of things.

[Anonymous No.16015344]

>>16015305
homosexual

[Anonymous No.16015353]

>>16015335
Exactly, define them in a way that doesn't cause regress and circular reasoning lol

[Anonymous No.16015358]

>>16015328
1) it has nothing to do with language processing per se.
2) then brains do not differ? if they differ, how do they differ qualitatively?
3) how self-reversion is possible with bodies?

[Anonymous No.16015371]

>>16015353
are you scared or what? just be precise in what you are saying, names are different from definitions (and actually much inferior to them, since they, names, don't explain anything at all!).

[Anonymous No.16015390]

>>16015371
I'm not the determinist poster just agreeing with you that he didn't define his terms. Only gave another name.

[Anonymous No.16015405]

>>16015335
In physics, a field is an assignment of values to spacetime points. When you hear about "elementary particles", these are fields. There are two types: bosons and fermions. Everything is made up of these elementary fields.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(physics)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boson
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermion

[Anonymous No.16015413]

>>16015353
>>16015371
>>16015390
There is no "infinite regress" in physics, Abbott and Costello. Pull your heads out.

[Anonymous No.16015422]

>>16015405
ok ok. so particles. are particles more like... bodies? not reading wikipedia pages, come on, you're not helping.

>>16015390
oh i see

[Anonymous No.16015423]

>>16015405
what gives fields their elementary nature

[Anonymous No.16015425]

>>16015405
I subscribe to a similar ontology in which everything is made up of elementary feels

[Anonymous No.16015451]

>>16015422
What we call "particles" are just localized field excitations. E.g., an electron is just an excitation of the electron field (a single field that permeates all of spacetime).

[Anonymous No.16015462]

>>16015423
We know of nothing in the universe that is not either a boson, fermion, or complex aggregation of bosons and fermions. That's what makes them elementary.

[Anonymous No.16015467]

>>16015451
so this field is extended, right? and throughout space? i'd like to ask how is this different from space itself but i don't want to digress.
if it is extended it is not different from any other body and it has qualitative attribute implied. therefore it suffers just like bodies suffer and don't explain anything, much less themselves.

[Anonymous No.16015474]

[Anonymous No.16015518]

>>16015467
>i'd like to ask how is this different from space itself but i don't want to digress.
That's actually a good question. The answer is that only spacetime exists. Everything else is just a property of particular regions of spacetime. So you can think of "electron" as more of an adjective than an "noun", so to speak.

>if it is extended it is not different from any other body and it has qualitative attribute implied. therefore it suffers just like bodies suffer and don't explain anything, much less themselves.
Not sure what you mean here. "Body" isn't really a fundamental concept in physics or metaphysics these days. You can think of it as a region of spacetime with certain electrostatic properties that give the illusion of solidity.

[Anonymous No.16015528]

>>16015474
The vast majority of metaphysicians are materialists, asshat.

[Anonymous No.16015535]

>>16015474

[Anonymous No.16015542]

>>16015528
>appeal to majority
>ad hominem

[Anonymous No.16015543]

I don't care

[Anonymous No.16015552]

>>16015542
You misunderstood a common term in philosophy, and I corrected you. There was no "appeal to majority" or "ad hominem" involved.

[Anonymous No.16015558]

>>16015518
>The answer is that only spacetime exists. Everything else is just a property of particular regions of spacetime. So you can think of "electron" as more of an adjective than an "noun", so to speak.
that's actually interesting.

>"Body" isn't really a fundamental concept in physics these days.
yeah, i suspect physics has developed to a more abstract physicalization.

but by body i mean anything in the corporeal realm, anything that has extension. if fields are extended they are bodies and thus goes back to what i said previously about bodies. now if they are more abstract closer to pure quantities then it becomes way more interesting.

[Anonymous No.16015564]

>>16015528
>metaphysics
>materialists
you either are ignorant of what metaphysics and philosophy is or your ''knowledge'' of it is based solely on descartes and post-descartes natural science (what you call philosophy)

[Anonymous No.16015571]

>>16015558
>that's actually interesting
Check out this article for a philosophical overview:

http://www.jonathanschaffer.org/spacetime.pdf

[Anonymous No.16015587]

>>16015249
It's either in the nature of the material to give rise to consciousness, or it is in the nature of consciousness to give rise to the material. This guy, who is an idealist, tries to explain that the physical world exists as a mathematical object. Just as how the Mandelbrot set gives rise to an infinity of fractals, the physical world is being plotted out by evolution, which may one day be able to be represented by an equation. I'm an idealist for now. Admittedly though, the nihilism of being a material fluke is a lot less attractive than the idea of being the temporary subjective experience of God.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axaH4HFzA24

[Anonymous No.16015600]

>>16015564
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Materialism is a stance in metaphysics -- it is by far the most popular stance among philosophers from the Ancient Greeks to the present day.

FYI, here's the (quite accurate) wiki definition of Metaphysics:

>Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that examines the fundamental nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, between substance and attribute, and between potentiality and actuality. The word "metaphysics" comes from two Greek words that, together, literally mean "after or behind or among [the study of] the natural". It has been suggested that the term might have been coined by a first century AD editor who assembled various small selections of Aristotle’s works into the treatise we now know by the name Metaphysics (ta meta ta phusika, 'after the Physics?', another of Aristotle's works).

>Metaphysics studies questions related to what it is for something to exist and what types of existence there are. Metaphysics seeks to answer, in an abstract and fully general manner, the questions: What is here? What it is like? Topics of metaphysical investigation include existence, objects and their properties, space and time, cause and effect, and possibility. Metaphysics is considered one of the four main branches of philosophy, along with epistemology, logic, and ethics.

[Anonymous No.16015603]

[Anonymous No.16015629]

>>16015600
>it is by far the most popular stance among philosophers from the Ancient Greeks to the present day.

Not even somewhat true.

[Anonymous No.16015637]

>>16015629
You've never actually studied philosophy, so you wouldn't know.

[Anonymous No.16015673]

>>16015600
matter is the most undefinable term there is, lol. it probably comes to the idea of latin Mater, echoing the nurse plato cited in timaeus to refer to the receptacle.
matter in itself, prima materia is unintelligible and only secunda materia can be made known through quality.

greek philosophy is not philosophy, plato was the only one who still cared about philosophy even though he clothed it in rationalistic and thus profane scientific aspects.

[Anonymous No.16015693]

>>16015673
Take a physics class, faggot.

[Anonymous No.16015699]

>>16015673
>greek philosophy is not philosophy, plato was the only one who still cared about philosophy even though he clothed it in rationalistic and thus profane scientific aspects.
wat

[Anonymous No.16015799]

>>16015693
take your meds

[Anonymous No.16015809]

>>16015693
go on and explain anything about which i am wrong to me