Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Maximum Spin]

No, but I was talking about Free Will, not determinism, so that's a different argument.

I was talking about a definition of free will that's compatible with determinism, so saying "that's not how determinism works" is missing the point.

I mean, I could also define free will as having celery, that's compatible with determinism too. If it's not the definition people use, I don't see how it matters.

[KittyTac]

Why don't you, there's a whole school of thought on Free Will called Compatiblism. I wasn't challenging the defition of determinism in the first place.

I'm not interested in Compatibilism. It's edging too close to non-determinism for my tastes. Choice is not a thing at any level.

[Maximum Spin]

In the immortal (paraphrased) words of SMBC, compatibilism is like telling a child that he can own a real live dinosaur, then making him clean up after a fat chicken. Sure, there's a definition of dinosaur (resp. free will) in which what you said was technically correct, but it's obviously not the one anyone wanted and you should have known that all along, and now your kid is going to resent you and end up stripping.

[Reelya]

No, but I was talking about Free Will, not determinism, so that's a different argument.

I was talking about a definition of free will that's compatible with determinism, so saying "that's not how determinism works" is missing the point.

I mean, I could also define free will as having celery, that's compatible with determinism too. If it's not the definition people use, I don't see how it matters.

In that case, Free Will doesn't exist, and Determinism is unrelated. Consider a non-deterministic universe in which quantum effects can lead to multiple futures. In that scenario, your decisions are still constrained by which fluctuations actually occurred in your universe, and both deterministic and non-deterministic universes lack free will.

[KittyTac]

In the immortal (paraphrased) words of SMBC, compatibilism is like telling a child that he can own a real live dinosaur, then making him clean up after a fat chicken. Sure, there's a definition of dinosaur (resp. free will) in which what you said was technically correct, but it's obviously not the one anyone wanted and you should have known that all along, and now your kid is going to resent you and end up stripping.

This. Just this.

[Maximum Spin]

In that case, Free Will doesn't exist, and Determinism is unrelated. Consider a non-deterministic universe in which quantum effects can lead to multiple futures. In that scenario, your decisions are still constrained by which fluctuations actually occurred in your universe, and both deterministic and non-deterministic universes lack free will.

That would be the "quantum randomness saves free will!" formulation which I already clearly specified does not work, yes. Free will doesn't exist.

Although I really should stress that there is no "which fluctuations actually occurred", or maybe more accurately no "your universe" even in many-worlds quantum theory (which real quantum theorists mostly think is a cheap trick to simplify the concept for laymen anyway); all possible quantum fluctuations occurred and you, the same you, exist in all of them simultaneously; only your perceptions are partitioned. But that's a whole other conversation.

ETA:

In the immortal (paraphrased) words of SMBC, compatibilism is like telling a child that he can own a real live dinosaur, then making him clean up after a fat chicken. Sure, there's a definition of dinosaur (resp. free will) in which what you said was technically correct, but it's obviously not the one anyone wanted and you should have known that all along, and now your kid is going to resent you and end up stripping.

This. Just this.

I admit the stripping part was my own addition.

[KittyTac]

The closest B12 usually gets to a flamewar is an argument about philosophy.

[NullForceOmega]

Things that made NFO terrified today:

Even though we have extremely limited knowledge of how the universe and all things within it function, educated people will still make declarative statements on what is and is not the truth.  And people will believe them.

[Rowanas]

Things that made NFO terrified today:

Even though we have extremely limited knowledge of how the universe and all things within it function, educated people will still make declarative statements on what is and is not the truth.  And people will believe them.

That's because we omit the "It is my belief based upon the evidence that has been provided to me that..." that goes at the beginning of every sentence we ever speak.

[KittyTac]

Things that made NFO terrified today:

Even though we have extremely limited knowledge of how the universe and all things within it function, educated people will still make declarative statements on what is and is not the truth.  And people will believe them.

That's because we omit the "It is my belief based upon the evidence that has been provided to me that..." that goes at the beginning of every sentence we ever speak.

Yeah, it's usually implied. We're just sharing our opinions.

[Reelya]

Qualifying every statement we ever make would just be cumbersome. We just assume all the preamble for every possible sentence.

It is my belief, based on personal experience and the general consensus of others of my species, and limited to the sensory data available to my species, and limited by how much can be truly known about whether sensory information and categories can truly be agreed upon between individuals of my species, and assuming that we're not all just figment's of a god's imagination, or elements in an elaborate simulation, and taking into account variations in lighting and time of day or night, that, generally, the sky is blue.

Too much focus on things being "unknowable" for philosophical reasons is just debilitating. For example, I don't have proof that a person called "Kim Kardashian" actually exists. Can't prove it. Therefore is it equally likely that there is such a person, as it is that she doesn't exist? That kind of thing can lead to a false equivalency.

[helmacon]

I would argue that the existence of free will does not matter nearly as much as the illusion of it. In the same way that the truth of the existence of gravity does not matter, but rather our perception of it and how we interact with it.

People seem to default to seeing an illusion as oppressive, but that's necessarily true at all. Vision, for example, is a complete illusion, but it is one that is incredibly useful and liberating to people. The actual photons we pick up bouncing off an object are a very slim picture of what that object actually looks like. Hell, we don't even pick up all the photos. Still, it's useful and desirable to see in this manner.

In the same way, it's nearly impossible to actually know if we have free will or not, because there could be processes beyond our ability to perceive, but we feel like we have free will and that's honestly all that matters.

[KittyTac]

I would argue that the existence of free will does not matter nearly as much as the illusion of it. In the same way that the truth of the existence of gravity does not matter, but rather our perception of it and how we interact with it.

People seem to default to seeing an illusion as oppressive, but that's necessarily true at all. Vision, for example, is a complete illusion, but it is one that is incredibly useful and liberating to people. The actual photons we pick up bouncing off an object are a very slim picture of what that object actually looks like. Hell, we don't even pick up all the photos. Still, it's useful and desirable to see in this manner.

In the same way, it's nearly impossible to actually know if we have free will or not, because there could be processes beyond our ability to perceive, but we feel like we have free will and that's honestly all that matters.

I agree with you. The existence of free will is mostly philosophy fuel. But we have no evidence of any sort of processes beyond our ability to perceive, and according to science anything that cannot be proven is false.

[Reelya]

Slight adjustment: anything that cannot be proven is indeterminate, not false. False would be making a judgement one way or the other, as declaring a statement false is just as baseless as declaring it true, by the same reasoning.

[bloop_bleep]

Here's my opinion. I *do* believe in both determinism and free will, but not like how Reelya does. Yes, "you" are simply a set of biochemical reactions that interact with the universe, nothing more. But what tells people that that set of biochemical reactions can't make decisions and have free will? Because it's not romantic enough? Yes, the universe decides everything, but you are a part of the universe. All the other atoms in the universe can't simply ignore your atoms' effect on them.