>1730 God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. "God willed that man should be 'left in the hand of his own counsel,' so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him." [GS 17; Sir 15:14.] >>Man is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will and is master over his acts.[St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 4,4,3:PG 7/1,983.] >http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a3.htm
if you think free will is the ability to follow/execute your own will, then sometimes. as long as you're not physically coerced, then fine, you have free will. if you're concerned with a version of free will that's any more meaningful or nuanced than that then the answer is probably no.
Not in any sense one would normally define it, no. Thoughts arise into conscience, for lack of a better word, as a random process, and any decision that we think we make is made some time earlier by our subconscious.
>>7779339 Yeah we all have free will. Life is an improvised story. Each person a character determining his or her actions but limited to the options immediately around them. We have choices but some have been taught to choose certain paths, and it's these people who insist that there is NO free will. They have been convinced that they must follow a specific trajectory. That they must follow through.
But you always have that ability to change your mind. This is free will.
>>7780005 >Life is an improvised story. Each person a character determining his or her actions but limited to the options immediately around them.
life adheres to the natural laws, there's nothing improvised about it
'determining' your actions implies you being able to break the casual chain set before you, since the casual chain is what brought you to where you are now. This isn't possible unless you want to invoke the supernatural. Freewill isn't possible because you're constructed and confined by the natural laws.
>>7780014 >>7780014 Well first off let me start by addressing the flaw with what you've just written. You think that saying something isn't or that it can't, makes it so. That is cognitive bias. Stop that.
As for what you wrote, the only natural law in play for humans is natural selection. Each agent still chooses from a set of actions, actions they've learned they can make. Remember making? Free will is choosing to make things. It's simply action for reason. Reasons that you see. People find reasons for doing things, then through choice/will they choose actions.
>>7780023 How do you choose things? You must have reasons.
How do you have reasons? You've learned them.
How did you learn them? You either were taught or seemingly 'discovered' the ideas on your own
How did you discover the ideas on your own? Conditions were in place (environment, genetics, knowledge provided by others) which allowed you to make these realizations.
Where did these conditions come from? Outside of you.
Your ability to 'choose' things is the same as the ability for a rock to 'choose' to roll down a hill, there were conditions in place which necessitated that it happens. If there weren't a set of conditions leading back in time then it would be an uncaused chain, which is either supernatural (impossible) or random (not in your control).
If you have reasons for your decisions, you must reconcile the fact that the source of these reasons cannot reside within you because you cannot make yourself. Your capacity to reason is an illusion brought about by the natural forces.
>>7780052 Nobody's saying you're not an agent, dipshit. Just that there's no 'you' that chooses whatever action you take outside the chain of causality, i.e. free will is an illusion. An irrelevant one at that.
>>7780078 I'm pretty sure I'm conscious of what I'm sensing. In my environment.
Okay, here is an example. I show you a picture I've cropped of a woman looking into the camera. You get aroused. Your arousal is the product of my cropped, specially cropped photo, and thus is the cause of your 'subconscious' thoughts of this face.
Had I shown you a cropped photo of her ass your thought would be of her ass. Simple. What you are aware of is what becomes your now conscious awareness.
i.e. You can't see what isn't there but you could think about it.
>>7780091 The point is that you control your head's direction. You control where your eyes are pointing. That's where the physical comes into play here. You have free will of your body. By extension free will over your thoughts. Does that make sense?
God you're all such insufferable faggots. If you all spent as much time doing actual work as you did debating trite pseudo-intellectual topics like this, you could've actually gotten gud at math/physics/CS
>>7779339 Semantics. No, you, your brain, and your mind cannot escape the rules of physics. Further, it may be true that your choices are determined. However, you can still have free will with determined choices. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/
> I have free will > I have powers that defy the physical boundries which let me break the action-reaction cycle and insert my own free will which is somehow independant of my past and anything happened previously
>>7780269 But do you see now? That is artificial intelligence. I know plenty of people that talk like cleverbot. And the ones that are well read and educated know how to use more words.
I think the issue with cleverbot is all the retards teaching it stupid responses. If smarter people held conversations with cleverbot it would 'learn' aka 'copy' what people are saying in an intelligent manner.
>>7780271 No. I do things for reasons. I can do things for my own reasons, too. You know, like write music or draw abstract shit. I can even talk to myself.
Sometimes I do things to just do them. To experience what doing that thing is. Yet, ultimately that is still a reason.
>>7780226 Give me the tl;dr, nigger. Is it defining free will differently?
This shit here? >But she is a source all the same, and this sort of source of action, the classical compatibilist will argue, is sufficient to satisfy the kind of freedom required for free will and moral responsibility.
>>7780277 > my own reasons "You", are the sum of your past experiences, which you had zero control over. Starting from when you were a sperm. So anything you attribute to yourself is still the result of a chain reaction that started way before you were born.
>>7780283 >Is it defining free will differently? I don't know how you define it. Probably yes.
Many people bizarrely believe that it's bad if their choices are determined. However, consider the only other coherent choice - that their actions are random. I would much rather be a consistent, reliable, agent, where my actions derive from my past experiences, my personality, my preferences. I want my behavior to be /determined/ by my personality and preferences, and I want my personality and preferences to also be stable and determined.
Many religious people want a third option, and there is no logically coherent third option. Even positing the existence of a non-material soul does nothing to change the problem.
>>7780284 Right, so then I guess you could say this reply was inevitable. Just another reaction.
Oh nooo reactions are learned and thus no choice can be made. Well except that I chose to be here in the thread. And I chose to add a picture just for the hell of it. And ▬ are you keeping track of all these choices I've made of my own free will? ▬ that proves I have will and that it is free to do as I please.
For full accuracy, note that most of logically instances of randomness are actually otherwise deterministic systems except with some controlled random input. IMHO, a truly random system is also probably incoherent.
So, as far as I know, it's still an open question whether physics is deterministic, and whether your behavior is deterministic. But it doesn't much matter for the discussion of free will. And even if there's a little bit of randomness in your behavior, one can still talk about moral accountability, free choice, consent, coercion, etc.
>>7780293 Okay, get this. See this text. See how it was written by me? See how your message was written by you? See how language is the reading of symbols that represent sensory inputs, by necessity as a tool?
The word "Me" is by definition what you have been taught that the word "me" means, in the English language by whoever taught you English.
>>7780297 >But it doesn't much matter for the discussion of free will. And even if there's a little bit of randomness in your behavior, one can still talk about moral accountability, free choice, consent, coercion, etc. That's the crucial point people hung up on free will don't seem to get. Free or not, our actions still have outcomes. We would lock up hurricanes if we could.
>>7780302 I should write some script that gives cleverbot free will. You know. Like have it say random shit somewhat relevant to the user. That'll really convince people that it's will is free and unbound by it's education.
>>7780314 I'm starting to think that AI and what we do are one and the same. Which leads me to some very strange ideas about the state of the world we live in right now. I mean, video game AI with access to physical outputs are basically the robots of fiction. All it would take is for someone to make one.
Give it a camera, teach it what is the response to a given image. I mean, thats what self driving cars are doing right now. Identify where the road is. Identify what a road is.
You get a bot that can do that with words and have it talk like a human, thats AI. That sounds like people, too.
>>7780317 IMHO, it's massively more complicated than that in practice. In principle, we humans are just simple, physical machines. In practice, we are physical machines, but with a trillion moving parts, organized in just the right way, in a way that we haven't been able to replicate yet artificially (short of just growing a new human).
>>7780323 Right but this should be about making something better than a human. One capacity of humans is speech. Bots can do that. Next is predictability. Bots can totally do that. I fear the worse.
Like, go ahead and try to make something biologically identical to life, but as far as I'm concerned the artificial life is here because the things living beings can do are being done by artificial beings right now.
>>7780308 >I must have free will because I have parts of my brain dedicated to reviewing stuff and potentially choosing a better solution Guess what bro, the stuff allowing you that review is just more biological CPU kicking in, created by evolution, and sitting in your brain.
>>7781424 And what do we choose to act against self preservation for?
And how does this matter at all? Most social insect species have a single member per hive who actually breeds, the rest of the colony literally lives to protect that one animal, and their lives are expendable.
Social animals act against their own self preservation all the time, its nothing special and is an evolved trait. Look up Kin Selection.
>>7781299 >stuff allowing you Right, I bet you ascribe cause of death to your individual body parts rather than to people, right?
"He has no skill, its all just hand muscle memory."
"He just has good leg tone which allows him to run faster. Has nothing to do with his mind bro."
No shit. Free will has only to do with what we call will. You want to keep reminding us that our brains give us this "illusion" of freedom? Your arms give you the illusion of freedom of interaction with the world. You only have five fingers bro. That means you're limited to a grip of five. No free grip. True free grip would be gripping with more than five fingers.
>>7781489 >No shit. Free will has only to do with what we call will. You want to keep reminding us that our brains give us this "illusion" of freedom? Your arms give you the illusion of freedom of interaction with the world. You only have five fingers bro. That means you're limited to a grip of five. No free grip. True free grip would be gripping with more than five fingers. The fuck are you even talking about?
Your mind IS you, its capacity to think is what gives you the person their capacity to think. Death of your self is caused by death of the brain (not necessarily the whole thing, but enough of it to shut down the kind of ability it may have originally had).
People have skill, and people use their mind to drive their bodies, the question is: if you are in some situation, and you make a choice, what is the thing or mechanism (either purely physical or "supernatural", whatever that even means) which gives you the ability to override the physics/chemistry of your brain and the rest of your body and say no, we're doing THIS instead of what would have normally happened in a basic physical universe. The answer is: nothing, there is no physical or non-physical thing allowing us to step outside physics and chemistry as we know it and have "free will".
Your brain is a system set up by its experiences and environment, and it reacts to future experiences and environments based entirely on physical, deterministic laws.
>>7781496 In regards to the question of free will, it doesnt matter at all, unless you want to stop shitposting and explain how it does matter that some life forms display behavior that is not for their own immediate self preservation.
>>7782796 I agree that it's best to believe we do. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnhSn_NvGbo
But if we did not have free will, then we have no choice in whether or not we believe we have it. Either we believe it, or we don't. That belief would have been predetermened, and there would be nothing we could do about it.
What I'm getting at is your statement implys that we have a choice, and therefore have free will.
>>7779339 No, because the universe is deterministic. Technically you could say everything is set in stone and nothing can change it, unless something foreign to our universe happens and disrupts everything, but thats unlikely.
See the thing is that if the governments of hte world go and say that free will doesnt exsist and everything is set in stone form the get go, people will lose all accountability for their actions, and would start condemning others as fated fro suffering, which, wether its true or not, isn't something anyone wants to be a part of.
If something is going to happen, nothing in our universe can stop it, so take solace in teh fact that your fate is already predetermined and all you're doing is sitting along for the ride, like a movie.
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 protected] with the post's information.