[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 977 KB, 1200x997, 80913484_p0_master1200.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17312114 No.17312114 [Reply] [Original]

>waah I'm scared to take responsibility for my actions
Well then, give your best argument for determinism. I'll refute.

>> No.17312174

you don't exist

>> No.17312464

We've never witnessed a purely random event

>> No.17312533

>>17312464
How would you know if the event you're witnessing is truly random or not?

>> No.17312573

>>17312533
have you ever witnessed and event that hasn't had a cause brainlet?

>> No.17312577

>>17312533
We would start by determining whether it has some explainable cause

>> No.17312586

>>17312114
Causation

>> No.17312793

>>17312573
How would I know if I did?
>>17312577
How would you determine that? Take the example of an atom decaying. How do you determine whether there is a cause for it decaying at some particular time and not another?

>> No.17312804

>>17312793
>How do you determine whether there is a cause for it decaying at some particular time and not another?
i don't know maybe he made a choice

>> No.17312824

>>17312114
People who take Christ as a savior are also afraid to take responsibility for their own lives

>> No.17312850

>>17312804
Exactly. You can't do it.

>> No.17313077

>>17312464
>>17312533
>>17312573
>>17312577
Having causes is not the relevant parts of those debates. Many philosophers (including the most serious ones) maintained free will and the grounding of (finite) real objects.

Defining randomness as absence of cause is also incorrect. God is uncaused but who will say He is random? It would be strange to call something random when it is necessary. You would at least demand that a random thing be contingent.
Even worse when meant as perceived absence (lack of recognition) of causation. Someone can admit the principle of sufficient reason and yet not pinpoint the cause of a given real object or property through an intuition (he can always do it with the idea "cause of that given something"). If you necessitate causes to be given in intuitions in each case to not be random, then the vast majority of real objects have no recognized causes (as it would necessitate an infinite number of conscious, clear ideas in your mind for the infinite number of objects to consider). The matter is a purely conceptual one and not up to empirical scrutiny anyway, as you seem to imply.
Randomness in its proper sense is defined in terms of statistical frequency, and is unrelated to causes.

>> No.17313156

>>17313077
>Randomness in its proper sense is defined in terms of statistical frequency, and is unrelated to causes
And what's the definition then?
I agree with your points btw.

>> No.17313326

>>17313156
Events are random if they have (non trivial) probabilities, which is the limit of statistical frequency.
If an event gives several different results (say heads or tails with a coin flip), each of those result appears a number of times when looking at N coin flips. The probability is the limit when N tends to infinity.
There are other, unconventional ways to introduce probabilities (like Bayesian statistics) but in any case the discussion is statistical in character and removed from the question of causation.

>> No.17314320
File: 1.04 MB, 1080x1513, 1610617931023.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17314320

>>17312114
People only follow their best perceived interests. How can that be considered free will?

>> No.17314741

The causa sui (self caused) is the best self-contradiction that has been conceived so far, it is a sort of rape and perversion of logic; but the extravagant pride of man has managed to entangle itself profoundly and frightfully with just this nonsense. The desire for “freedom of the will” in the superlative metaphysical sense, which still holds sway, unfortunately, in the minds of the half-educated; the desire to bear the entire and ultimate responsibility for one’s actions oneself, and to absolve God, the world, ancestors, chance, and society involves nothing less than to be precisely this causa sui and, with more than Münchhausen’s audacity, to pull oneself up into existence by the hair, out of the swamps of nothingness.

>> No.17314920

>>17312824
That's ridiculous considering you don't control everything. The idea is to find out what you're responsible for and work. You necessarily can't be responsible for your whole life which, excluding external causes, includes your past. You can't change what you did in the past.

>> No.17316947

Bump

>> No.17316977

>>17314741
You genuinely have no idea what you're talking about. I suggest you read
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/
before you spout such nonsense.
>>17314320
People choose their best perceived interests.

>> No.17317162

>>17316977
Well yeah, that's my point; how could they choose anything other than their best perceived interests?

>> No.17317341

>>17317162
They can choose what they perceive to be best interests. That's totally compatible with free will.

>> No.17317372

>>17317341
Can they choose what perceive to be anything other than their perceived best interests?

>> No.17317378

>>17317372
Word salad, I meant: can the choose anything besides their perceived best interests?

>> No.17317405

>>17317378
>can people choose anything besides their perceived best interests
Of course. People choose things that are not in their perceived best interest all the time. For example, a soldier during war who sacrifices his life for the good of the others, knowing that this is not in his self-interest since he would die.
What's your point?

>> No.17317653

>>17317405
You told me that people can and do choose against their best interests, yet your example only shows a soldier choosing against his self-interest. He obviously perceived the interests others to be better interests than preservation. That is my point.

>> No.17317710

>>17317653
No, he perceives his best interest to betray his friends and not do anything heroic, and yet he chooses to act against his best self interest.
Another example is someone privately donating to the charity, knowing that their own best self interest is to keep the money and maybe buy something nice, yet they choose to act against their own perceived best interest.
How many more examples do you need?

>> No.17317721

>>17317710
There appears to be a misunderstanding. When did I bring up self-interest?

>> No.17317738

>>17317721
Well you brought up best perceived interest. For many people, it's not in their best perceived interest to donate to charity, and yet they do it anyway. Their best perceived interest is to keep the money.

>> No.17317756

>>17317738
And if you were to ask these people if it best for them to donate to charity, you don't think they would agree? I am inclined to believe that you are imposing your views unto other people, then concluding that there is a free will because they don't do what you would do in their shoes.

>> No.17317772

The free will/responsibility cult thinking doesn’t take into consideration unknown variables. Next.

>> No.17317776

>>17317756
I can attest to the fact that I have done things in my life that were against my perceived best interest.
Negative examples include overeating, positive ones include buying some kid's shitty painting because he looked really sad.
> you are imposing your views unto other people, then concluding that there is a free will
I never used this as an argument in favor of free will, that would be retarded. I'm merely using these examples to demonstrate that your point that people always act according to what is their perceived best interest is simply wrong.

>> No.17317784

>>17312114
Try to refute the basic causality argument

>> No.17317785

>>17317772
Nobody can take into consideration unknown variables, because they are unknown.

>> No.17317791

>>17317784
What is the argument? Please lay out the premises of the argument and the deduction to the conclusion that there is no free will. I'll refute.

>> No.17317814

>>17317776
Do answer honestly: didn't you believe those actions to be your best interest at first, and by way of hindsight only realised that those actions were not the for the best at all? If that is the case, then this time you are imposing your current views and knowledge unto your past self.

>> No.17317841

>>17317814
>didn't you believe those actions to be your best interest at first
No. I knew that my best interest was to keep the money and buy something nice, which is why I hesitated so much before doing it.

>> No.17317855

>>17317814
Have you really never done anything that went against your perceived best interest? I find that really hard to believe.

>> No.17317963

>>17317841
You hesitated because you were deliberating the benefits and negatives of each course of action. You knew you could buy something nice with the money, but you also knew (or thought at any rate) that the kid would be sad if you didn't buy his shitty painting. In the end, you thought that the kid's emotions were more important to you than sensible economics, and his emotions were, during that short period of time, your best interest. How does this disprove Free will? Whethor or not you bought the painting, you would've thought during that period of time, that you are making the best possible decision, and that it be completely irrational to make any other decision. If you were not confident in it, you would blame a lack of time or knowledge for your inability to perceive a better course of action, yet you would ironically still believe that you were making the best course of action given your lack of knowledge and time.

>>17317855
I have never once went against my perceived interest. I can look through my memories and see, with the knowledge I have now, what path would be better to take. However, I can also see how the person I was then could never have done anything besides what he had done. Could the person you were then ever know proper dieting, or how to withold money from children?

>> No.17317991

>>17317963
>. In the end, you thought that the kid's emotions were more important to you than sensible economics, and his emotions were, during that short period of time, your best interest
Wrong. As I said, it was not in my best interest. I knew very well that my best interest was to move on keep the money.
> you are making the best possible decision
Perhaps, but best decision does not necessarily has to align with my best perceived interest. In that case, it went explicitly against my best perceived interest.
Another example is yesterday I went to sleep too late, and I knew perfectly well that my best perceived interest was to go to bed earlier, yet I did it anyway.
You keep asserting something that is obviously wrong and contradicted by countless real life experiences. If that's the best argument you have against free will, I don't know what else to tell you.

>> No.17318004

>>17317963
Also keep in mind that psychologists have showed that humans have the tendency to rationalize their past actions even if they were not that rational to begin with. So it's very possible that you are simply retroactively convincing yourself that all your past actions were actually in your best perceived interest, when the reality is much different. You failing to realize that sometimes you and other people act against their own best perceived interest demonstrates a staggering lack of self-awareness.

>> No.17318022

>>17312114
>Well then, give your best argument for determinism. I'll refute.
Prove there is free will, as we have no reason to believe there is free will. So you must justify the claim that there is As determinism is in line with physics, and biology, sociology, and phycology.

>> No.17318033

>>17318022
Have you never chosen to do anything?

>> No.17318040

>>17312533
>>17312573
>>17312577
>>17312793
>>17312804
>>17312850
You not knowing if it is or is not random does not give you an conclusion to will there is or is not free will. You have not refuted anything only ignored it

>> No.17318041

>>17317991
Well then: If you knew better, why did you buy the painting? If you knew it is better to sleep early, why did you sleep late?

>> No.17318044

>>17318033
No, also you question is being the question. You are assuming their is free will to try to prove there is.

>> No.17318047

>>17318022
>Prove there is free will
The concept of free will is fundamentally intertwined with the subjective experience of self and choice, so it's impossible to convince an NPC who does not perceive his own free will that free will exists. I know I have free will but I could never prove it to you if you don't think you have because of the fundamental epistemological gap in experience, just like a colorblind person could never convince a stubborn normal person that he actually cannot distinguish colors.
So the only debate worth having is whether there are arguments against free will, and I maintain there are not.
>As determinism is in line with physics, and biology, sociology, and phycology.
If by in line you mean compatible with, then so is incompatibilist free will. Do you think there is a good argument against free will from any of those fields? if so, feel free to provide it, so far nobody has been able to do it.

>> No.17318062

>>17318040
>You not knowing if it is or is not random does not give you an conclusion to will there is or is not free will
Correct. I have never used it as an argument for free will. In fact, I haven't made any arguments in favor of free will at all in this thread, just refuting faulty arguments against it.
In this particular case, the person claimed that all we've ever perceived has a cause and is not random, and my point was hat we don't know if it is or isn't, because even if we saw a random event, we would have no way of telling if it's random, so the argument is wrong.

>> No.17318063

>>17318044
>there are people who genuinely believe that they have no choice in what they do
>they consider this an enlightened position instead of the most pure form of defeatism
Pathetic

>> No.17318067

>>17318041
>If you knew better, why did you buy the painting?
Because I felt bad for he kid.
>you knew it is better to sleep early, why did you sleep late?
I don't know, I didn't consciously think about why I was doing, I just did it, even though my mind told me it was wrong and against my interest.

>> No.17318081

>>17318047
>The concept of free will is fundamentally intertwined with the subjective experience of self and choice
You made that up just now
>so it's impossible to convince an NPC who does not perceive his own free will that free will exists.
/pol/ level thinking
>I know I have free will but I could never prove it
So then you don't know, you have to be able to prove it to know. And all scientific evidence points to there being no free will.
https://youtu.be/Cx8xEUYrb74
>to you if you don't think you have because of the fundamental epistemological gap in experience
which would mean I don't have the choice and therefor no free will
>just like a colorblind person could never convince a stubborn normal person that he actually cannot distinguish colors.
this happens all the time
>If by in line you mean compatible with, then so is incompatibilist free will. Do you think there is a good argument against free will from any of those fields? if so, feel free to provide it, so far nobody has been able to do it.
https://youtu.be/Cx8xEUYrb74

>> No.17318090

>>17318063
a nonargument or really even a statement of nothing other then your own personal opinion in that you some how unexplainably are free from the laws of reality.

>> No.17318092

>>17318090
Laws of reality my ass

>> No.17318104
File: 18 KB, 428x469, 1557785431526.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17318104

>>17318092
Not even a point, cant refute me, cant even justify there own position
You are a cucked faggot, sack up and make your case or gtfo

>> No.17318118

>>17318081
>You made that up just now
Yeah it's called having a conversation. I thought of it and wrote it down for you to see. Funny how that works huh?
>And all scientific evidence points
Give me one example of scientific evidence that is at odds with free will.
>which would mean I don't have the choice and therefor no free will
No it doesn't. It seems entirely possible for a person to have free will but not be aware that he has it. Also just because some NPCs who don't have free will doesn't mean there is no free will at all, just like just because there are colorblind people doesn't imply colors don't exist.
>this happens all the time
What happens? I said that if the person is sufficiently stubborn you could never give an actual proof that you do not perceive colors like he does. He could always just accuse you of lying. That's what it means for there to be an epistemological gap in experience.
>https://youtu.be/Cx8xEUYrb74
I'm not watching a whole half hour video. If you have an argument, write it down and post it. Otherwise don't waste my time.

>> No.17318119

>>17318104
I am choosing not to argue with you. Someone who believes they are an automaton is not worth my time or effort

>> No.17318141

>>17318119
>I am choosing not to argue with you.
BEGINGING THE QUESTION
That's not a fucking augment retard

>Someone who believes they are an automaton is not worth my time or effort
Strawman

>> No.17318168

>>17318141
You either think you have free will or you think you're a NPC automaton. There's no middle ground.

>> No.17318187
File: 107 KB, 500x637, 1489720161251.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17318187

>>17318168
>There's no middle ground.
yes there is

>> No.17318207

>>17318187
Why are buddhists so bad at basic logic?

>> No.17318420

>>17312114
Sorry buddy but neuroscience already closed the book on this, your gray matter is strictly responsive. You've been bamboozled by the shadows on the wall of the mind

>> No.17318434

>>17318420
Point to a specific study in neuroscience that disproves free will. I'll wait.

>> No.17318563

>>17318067
You'll always do whatever you believe is in your best interest at that moment. You might overeat because in the moment, your desire to eat outweighs your desire not to eat. You believe that the best thing for you is to overeat. It may not be the most rational action, but nevertheless it is what you believe is in your best interest.

>> No.17318725

>>17318563
I already explained to you how you're wrong. I might desire something, but that's different from it being in my best interest. You don't get to tell me what I think. You don't live in my head. I already said that when I overeat, I am consciously aware of the fact that it's not in my best interest. I perceived my best interest to be to lay off the food.
Do you understand how ridiculous it is to claim that someone else who you don't even know actually has a subjective experience (perception of what is in their best interest) different from what they think say it is, to claim you know their perception better than themselves? Maybe you're just have a low IQ.

>> No.17318787

>>17318725
I'm a different person.
Just because you rationally think that controlling your food is in your best interest does not mean that overall you believe it. If you believed that controlling your food was best, you would not do it. It is impossible to do something other than what you believe is best.
I don't claim to know your perception better than you do. I only look at your actions. There are two main points I'm trying to make.
1. You will always do whatever you believe is best.
2. Your actions are based on what you believe.
Given these two, if you overeat, then you believe it is best for you to overeat. It doesn't matter that you know rationally that overeating is bad, your desire to overeat overcame your desire not to overeat, so you overate.

>> No.17318833

>>17318141
You can't even spell "begging." Though I suppose you can't help it, it was fated to be this way.

>> No.17318848

>>17318787
>not mean that overall you believe it
Oh I do.
>If you believed that controlling your food was best, you would not do it
That doesn't follow. People regularly do what they know to be bad things.
>I don't claim to know your perception better than you do. I only look at your actions.
Your whole argument was about perceptions of what is in one's best interest. That's explicitly talking about subjective experience, i.e. perception. Your whole stupid argument depends on a false proposition and when people point out that their personal experience repeatedly contradicts it, your only recourse is to deny their subjective experience, which is the most retarded philosophical move ever because you have no fucking clue what another person experiences because you are not them.
You're like a colorblind person who's trying to make an argument that everyone perceives red and blue as the same color, and when a person says their own experience contradicts your stupid fucking claim you resort to denying their subjective experience.
It's honestly getting very tiresome at this point, having to explain the same elementary point again and again.
Your reformulation where you change "perceived best interest" to "what you believe is best" doesn't change a fucking thing because it again contradicts mine and other people's experience (which can be found in nearly every book and movie) of sometimes doing something they know (ergo believe) is not the best thing.
If you respond again with the same fucking argument while again completely ignoring my points then I'll simply stop responding to you.

>> No.17319072

>>17318848
I think the problem we are having is we have different definitions of what it means to believe. To me, what you believe is ultimately shown through your actions. I might know that overeating is bad for me, but if I do it anyway then I believe in that moment that my instant gratification is worth the future consequences. I won't attempt to define what you mean by believe, you seem rather adamant that I do not attempt to assume anything about your subjective experiences.
I'm not denying your subjective experience. It seems to me that you are trying to use my argument with a different definition of belief, which is causing all this confusion.
This exchange has just been us arguing about the definition of belief. We can try to find a common definition of belief, but that is a different discussion.
Free will is impossible because you always do whatever you believe is in your best interest and you cannot choose what you believe. The first part follows from my definition of belief because I've defined belief as the actions you take. The second part is harder to pin down. It might be easier to give a hypothetical example to explain the idea. Can you choose your religion? You may have had a religion put upon you when you were a child, I would not say that that scenario was a choice. Later on in life, you may find that your ideas about the world contradict the religion placed upon you. This will result in a belief in a different religion or none. There was never a choice in these two scenarios. I would also say that child never truly believed the religion, it only went along with it and claimed to believe it because that's what everyone else did. In private, the child may not have done the rituals or in public, may have done them poorly. This is showing that the child does not actually believe in the religion, but is going along with it. I included the previous 3 sentences to show that the stated belief of the child is different from what the child believes and that the beliefs of the child can be ultimately determined by its actions.

>> No.17319117

>>17319072
>definitions of what it means to believe
Believing X means thinking X is true. Sometimes belief manifest itself through actions, sometimes it doesn't. Still, it's a fundamentally subjective experience.

>> No.17319189

>>17319072
>Free will is impossible because you always do whatever you believe is in your best interest and you cannot choose what you believe. The first part follows from my definition of belief because I've defined belief as the actions you take.
Ok thanks for finally revealing how simple your argument actually is.
You define belief to be the actions you take, it's an uncommon definition, but that's cool, whatever.
So let's just substitute the word belief with its definition to see how your brilliant argument looks like.
>Free will is impossible because you always do whatever your actions are and you cannot choose what your actions are.
AMAZING! You seem to have discovered an ancient philosophical trick which is little known and can produce amazing philosophical arguments. It's called presupposing the conclusion.

>> No.17319241

>>17312114
Behead All Satans
been away for a month. she's getting too close...so i moved all the shallow fetid cunts. they have deeper resting places now. will NEVER be found.
we made our way back south, undetected.

>> No.17319426

>>17319189
I meant to type what you believe is shown through the actions you take. I did write something similar to that in the second sentence.
I want to draw a line between thoughts about actions and the actions themselves. What you believe is determined by thoughts, but this belief can be understood by an external observer observing your actions.
I poorly wrote my previous post and didn't get the point across quite right. I tried to explain how you cannot choose what you believe towards the end of it. I did not presuppose the conclusion, I attempted to give an argument in favor of it. I think the following will be the best way I can put it: your actions are determined by your beliefs, your beliefs are not chosen.
Do you agree that your actions are determined by your beliefs? Do you agree that your beliefs are not chosen?

>> No.17319806

>>17319426
>this belief can be understood by an external observer observing your actions
Wrong. An external observer cannot know what goes on in a person's thoughts. The best they can do is guess from their actions, but the guesses are often wrong as demonstrated by literally all misunderstandings ever.