>>25647590 I can only not be sure because I don't know that person's background. Anyone that did could already know what that person will do in advance. Strategists do it all the time to a degree and they are not all knowing.
But I don't want to come off as a cunt. I may be wrong, but I believe in what I say.
>>25647446 i both agree and disagree in some cases the illusion tips the balance slightly and enables people do to more things. on the other, it allows you to blame others for their problems when the cards were always stacked against them. >>25647569 >people make decisions on what they are going to do all the time. free will is far more substantial than making simple decisions.
>>25647669 >free will is far more substantial than making simple decisions. how? are you saying, for example, that if someone grew up poor and was never able to go to school/uni for whatever reasons, they cannot exercise their free will to become an astronaut?
>>25647569 Right, but their decision was determined by previous events. It didn't pop up out of thin air. Nobody's saying you can't choose chocolate over vanilla, they're just saying that your past and your genetics determined that you would choose chocolate.
>>25647569 >fosters resentment and retribution >curtails scientific investigation into causes of behaviour, hurting medical progress >fosters declaring things as right and wrong as opposed to enumerating their consequences >fosters laziness because one can conclude one has earned and deserves things from other people >fosters irresponsibility because one can conclude other people have free will and should be able to take care for themselves, keeping one from ensuring their safety >prevents discussion of consequences of circumstances because it invites people to conclude that those consequences depend on one's actions, as opposed to sequentially, methodically analyzing those consequences one by one, variation after variation
>>25647729 Knowing how reality works lets you get better results from reality. Science 101. Knowing that free will doesn't exist would radically change how we handle prison, for example. It would no longer be about "punishing" "bad" people, but rather doing whatever is most effective in reducing future crime. If that turns out to be giving criminals candy bars and teddy bears, then that's what we'll do, even if it's unpleasant. More realistically, if it turns out there's no difference in results for putting someone away for 5 years vs 50 years, we could reduce sentencing time to save money.
>>25647657 You didn't come off as a cunt at all. I just don't think it's possible to predict human behavior with 100% accuracy. I guess I believe nothing is impossible. Hmm just contradicted myself. Peace.
>>25647997 >I kinda get it but don't see the connection to free will. Right now we punish people because we think they "chose" to do what they did because they're "bad" or "evil". In reality, they did what they did because of a near-infinite number of factors going back to the beginning of the universe. It would be like trying to punish a tornado for hitting your house, it doesn't make sense. The better option would be to protect yourself from future tornados by building a stronger house or moving. Likewise, with people, we should be fixing the contributing factors for crime and dealing with criminals in the most efficient way, even if it's not the most satisfying way, because ultimate the criminal didn't choose to be a criminal any more than a tornado chose to be a tornado.
>>25647546 To say that the maximum is a warning is to know that Ideals such as being free to do as we please, too easily give way to dogma. Dogma becomes fanaticism. No higher power sits in judgement of us. No supreme being watches to punish us for our sins. In the end, only we ourselves can guard against our obsessions.
To say that maximum is an observation is to know that the foundations of our society is fragile, and that we must be Shepard of our own civilisation. And that we must be architects of our own action, and we must live with their consequences. Whether glorious or tragic.
To say that the maximum is an understanding is to know that even though the maximum implies that we are free and please to do what we like (thinking what I like, and acting as I please), it is not. It does not command you to be free. Rather it commands you to be wise and understand your thoughts and actions and the consequences of your thoughts and actions.
In this case of free will. If there is such thing as free will, it will lead people to idealise that they are free to do what they please which would lead to complete anarchy. It merely warns us that we shouldn't be chasing such things as free will to an extreme extent, but rather find a balance between peace and order and free will.
>>25648106 Ok. Though I think part of the reason we lock criminals up is to send a message to others not to fuck up. Whether that works or not is up for debate. Because with your theory they were fuck ups from the very beginning.
>>25647831 I mean exactly what I said. If I believe in free will, I will assume that somebody doesn't need help, because they can just exert themselves and ensure their well-being. This fallacy can be used to placate one's conscience despite knowing better -- namely, that, without external motivation, that person will in all rational likelihood *not* manage to fix their lives. Belief in free will is the irresponsible position.
>>25648206 Not the person you replied to, but your mistake here is thinking that rejection of free implies making punishment laxer, because 'the criminals didn't deserve it'. This is a non-sequitur. The fact that they didn't deserve it only implies that punishment should be utilitarian and pragmatic, striving to minimize future suffering (with the definition of suffering and minimization being, of course, subjective and consensual within the discussing party). It can still be extremely severe, if only that is found to be the optimal (again, subjectively) course of action.
That said, I'm out -- free will threads are rarely satisfactory.
Regardless of whether you believe in free will or not, even if tomorrow it was decided there is no free will, and that society will adapt to accommodate that newfound understanding, nothing will really change. There will always be people who crave power over others for many different reasons, and society will still be stratified and hierarchical.
>>25648250 Trying to understand this... This seems to be an example of the other side of the equation then: 'If I don't believe in free will, I may believe that nothing can really be done to help this person; we may be able to prevent this person's situation in future generations, but right now, this person's destiny is written, so I can feel okay in ignoring their plight because of that.'
If someone is fat and miserable, can they do nothing to change that? Society can change to prevent obesity in the future, but that person can also make changes in their own life to improve their own situation.
>>25648324 (In other words, the problem here is that when people hear the words 'didn't deserve', they -- residually -- take that, at least partly, to mean 'didn't commit the thing in question', while the proper reaction is 'let us exclusively focus on prevention of such things in the future'.)
>>25648531 >This seems to be an example of the other side of the equation then
99% of people react to rejection of free will with the knee-jerk 'you refuse to take responsibility for yourself', forgetting that, conversely, *embrace* of free will implies refusing to take responsibility for *others*. There is a parallel in terms deserving: other people don't deserve anything, but what most people forget is that it also implies that I don't deserve anything, either, including good things, so I can only count on myself when it comes to pursuit of happiness. Rejection of free will is the mature, self-reliant position.
>'If I don't believe in free will, I may believe that nothing can really be done to help this person; we may be able to prevent this person's situation in future generations, but right now, this person's destiny is written, so I can feel okay in ignoring their plight because of that.'
This is nonsense. The fact that everyone's destinies are, in fact, written doesn't change the fact that belief in free will will result in more laziness and irresponsibility in the society, because people will delegate helping people onto those people themselves rather than take initiative.
>If someone is fat and miserable, can they do nothing to change that? Society can change to prevent obesity in the future, but that person can also make changes in their own life to improve their own situation.
'Can' is a strictly statistical relationship. One 'can' do something if science indicates that people sharing one's configuration of factors tended to go on to do that thing with a certain frequency. No one 'can' do anything in an acausal way; the proper perspective is that it might come to pass that as a result of one person's action, the likelihood that another person will do something will increase.
>>25648813 So a person's behavior is influenced by what they learn. Wew lad, who would have thought? The concept of free will is true because you can always do what you want, but if there is no desire to do so, that doesn't mean the opposite.
>>25648779 >*embrace* of free will implies refusing to take responsibility for *others* How does rejection of free will imply you will take responsibility for others? You can ignore others just as easily, since you can say you were destined to do so.
What are some concrete examples of how 'taking responsibility' for others would manifest itself differently in a system that denies free will exists?
>>25648984 >fosters resentment and retribution I am a forgiving soul. :^) >curtails scientific investigation into causes of behaviour, hurting medical progress What I said before, I am not against this because clearly the environment shapes the person. >fosters declaring things as right and wrong as opposed to enumerating their consequences If something has more beneficial consequences, then it is a "right" thing. >fosters laziness because one can conclude one has earned and deserves things from other people This is not caused by free-will, but rather by being spoiled. >fosters irresponsibility because one can conclude other people have free will and should be able to take care for themselves, keeping one from ensuring their safety I am also a helping soul. :^) >prevents discussion of consequences of circumstances because it invites people to conclude that those consequences depend on one's actions, as opposed to sequentially, methodically analyzing those consequences one by one, variation after variation Same as second point.
So you're saying that free-will causes people to act like a bunch of dicks. k
>>25649282 >>25649158 In other words, you're literally committing one of the points I gave in my list: refusing to discuss likelihoods, evading the issue into the general 'people can always act in spite of observed patterns of behaviour'. Just one of many ways in which belief in free will is actively anti-scientific.
>>25649478 >What are some concrete examples of how 'taking responsibility' for others would manifest itself differently in a system that denies free will exists?
This question is retarded.
Belief in/rejection of free will is not some sort of parallel universe. It is a *belief*. A personality tendency. It affects choices to the degree it is adopted.
>'She can quit this abusive relationship, she just needs to exert her f.w., if she isn't motivated by my reminder that she can do it, then it is her fault.' >'Everyone can educate themselves, IQ doesn't matter at all, people just need to apply their f.w. and study really hard, there is no need to implement special policies.' >'He can quit this addiction, he just needs to...' >'There is no need to ensure that this hobby won't absorb him, he can just...' >'Parents don't need to control the media their children are consuming, when they grow up, they will begin to display f.w. and will be able to adjust their priorities...'
>>25649624 (In other words, belief in free will is similar to theism also in how people are placing their trust in an imaginary entity -- other people's volition, to which they appeal -- so as to justify their inaction. Much like prayer.)
>>25649624 You gave examples of your belief of how embrace of free will implies refusing to take responsibility for others. I understand that point of view, I don't need examples of that.
I asked for examples of the opposite, since you imply those who reject free will are responsible for others, and that this is better for society. Responsible how? How does this responsibility for others manifest itself differently than the world we currently live in?
Your response basically says 'look at how bad the belief in free will is', I'm asking for examples that show how good the non-belief in free will is or can be.
>>25649838 There is no such thing as 'bringing upon oneself'. This is precisely the lazy rationalization you are baselessly conjuring. There is just suffering which is to be reduced. Guilt doesn't exist, everyone deserves happiness in the same inherent way, regardless of his/her actions.
>>25649870 Those are the same examples. The dimension of embrace/rejection of free will *is* measured by presence or absence of the rationalizations I gave in >>25649624. If one declares one rejects free will, but still says things such as 'you need to take responsibility for your life' or 'you just need to try your best', one hasn't rejected it. If one professes belief in it, but goes out of their way to double- and triple-check others' success in case they should fail in their resolutions, one has embraced it.
This is not a fallacy. This is simply a matter of attitude towards others' declarations. Insofar as one takes other people's 'I will do it, don't worry' at face value, trusting that that person will in fact do it, one believes in f.w.; and insofar as one looks beyond the declarations and sees that this doesn't say anything about the actual future, but is just four words that have been uttered, and that that resolution can very well change or be dropped in the future under various external pressures or just plain laziness, and that one must make one's own contingencies for that possibility... one rejects it.
>>25646770 >What do you think about the concept of free will? Really the concept of free will itself is nothing more than a nuisance with no good definition. Romantics like to desperately hold onto some type of identity that differentiates them from the Universe.
Like others have stated in this thread, a lack of free will changes absolutely nothing.
>>25650235 >i'm asking you to say why you think it is better for people not to be responsible for themselves
...You are making zero sense.
Again, embrace/rejection of free will is DEFINED by absence/presence of certain behaviours. You are basically asking, 'what if being good means being bad'. Rejection of free will IS responsibility, in the sense of, as I am explaining over and over, taking care of others, not counting on others, and so on.
>>25650381 >Read the fucking thread. There are no examples in this thread. Point them out for me if you believe this thread contains what I asked for, I have read it.
>Rejection of free will IS responsibility...is not counting on others This doesn't make sense, doesn't a belief in free will mean you are self-responsible and not counting on others?
>Rejection of free will IS responsibility Nowhere have you proved this to be true. It just seems to be your belief, not backed by anything except saying that it means taking care of others. I just don't see how that conclusion follows.
>>25650840 (And with respect to oneself as well, cf. >>25650552; for a tangible example, think e.g. willingness to try drugs or radically change one's environment, trusting that one will cope (trusting that one's free will will deal with it).)
>>25650840 >Rejection of free will = behaviours presupposing that choices originate in one's nature and nurture. Well I would agree with this. We are the sum of our personal history, including nature, nurture and the decisions we have personally made. Is that last part going too far for you?
>>25650952 free will = irresponsiblity = he/she/I just need to do it, and I will if I decide to and persist in it, enough said
rejection thereof = responsibility = let's go through factors one by one... this one, overcoming it will require this... and that... and that. that one, it will require that and that also. that one, this and this... which I might or might not succeed at, the probability is, considering my current mental configuration, about...
Can be applied to getting a job, getting a girlfriend, quitting an addiction, anything.
>>25651219 In other words, among the choices that betray belief in free will is failure to connect one's behaviour to nature and nurture and instead preferring to (conceitedly?) attribute it to oneself.
>>25651135 >free will = irresponsiblity = he/she/I just need to do it, and I will if I decide to and persist in it, enough said That is a very extremist way to define 'free will'. Very few people think like that.
The process you described in 'rejection thereof' is just a logical thinking process anyone would go through when contemplating a task of challenge. You can have free will and still understand that there are other external factors that will influence your success/failure, in fact, you'd be a bit psycho if you didn't.
>>25651219 >(rejection of free will) because shitty day/shitty year/school/parents/upbringing/genes/evolution/cosmology/... (i fixed your quote) Doesn't this equate to 'it's not my fault, i am not to blame, i am not in control of my life.'
To me, this seems to be a moral quandary since it can be used to absolve people from having to take any responsibility for their decisions. >I steal, cheat, kill, etc. because of who I am. I didn't ask to be this way.
>>25651328 >You can have free will and still understand that there are other external factors that will influence your success/failure
No. Or rather, you just unwittingly referenced the fact that belief in free will, being a personality dimension, can be partial. You must understand that belief in f.w. is a PERCEPTION which leads to certain assumptions. Depending on circumstances, it can be more or less prominent. A depressed person is presumably more rational/factual than a manic person in the sense of being aware that their successes and failures depend on their circumstances, and that one's (and by extension, others') well-being is not a given. Most people (normalfags) only acknowledge obstacles to behaviour in the most literal sense: fences, being locked up, physical strength, inevitable aging, and so on. A more rational person will be open to relating one's behaviour to genes. A fully rational person relates it 100% to circumstances and never utters the personal pronouns 'it depends on you/me' at all, but only 'it depends on presence of such or such physical circumstances inside or outside your brain'. It's a matter of definition of capacity. Cf. >>25648779.
>>25648532 the universe is in fact not deterministic, it is all down to probabilities, it is hard to grasp but you really are one of the infinite probabilites, therefor there cannot be free will, i agree with that
>>25651575 Ok, I'm out, I admit I am new to this discussion, and I also can see how the default newb stance would be to argue for free will. However I'm not yet convinced that rejection of free will will be any better, because it ignores the reality that certain people/groups will always to control the masses, and will bend the meaning behind their beliefs to support their actions.
The pragmatic approach to punishment you describe here:>>25648324 is useful and I would agree with it. I'm just not sure that this free will/no free will argument really has anything to do with it.
>>25651493 >>25651575 (Just one more thing. One could ask me, how do I at the same time (1) define adoption/rejection of f.w. as responsibility in the sense of only counting on oneself, being skeptical of others' hopeful, optimistic declarations regarding their future, and so on, and at the same time (2) acknowledge that rejection of f.w. might lead to concessions that 'lalala nothing is ever my fault'. The answer is, of course, there is no contradiction between the two. The whole of the adoption/rejection of f.w. encompasses both. But the point is, accepting non-existence of f.w. leads to more (conventionally defined) benefits than drawbacks -- (1) is more prominent than (2).)
>>25652143 (On every page except pages 56 and 72:) >'If you have come this page hoping to defy the command on page 56, let me remind you that your act of defiance has been determined by your genes and upbringing as well.'
>free will >the ability to talk about and acknowledge free will >if there was only predetermination we would not have any reason to think or discuss freewill >Therefore we are free to make our own choices
>>25646770 or you have the choice to close the book, or not read the book in the first place, or to turn to page 72, cross out everything written and write your own story.
>>25646770 >Neuroscience >Not real science being infested and contaminated with previous pseudo-scientific idologies like psychology and psychiatry. It's like you don't even WANT to have a physical science of the mind.
>>25652706 I'm sure there are many brainwashed 'scientists' in neuroscience but I would hope there are some doing real science in this field, not just politicized PC science, its the most fascinating field.
Thread replies: 116 Thread images: 3
Thread DB ID: 390584
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.