People who argue that free will doesn't exist should just lie down on the floor and do nothing all day and trust that the outcome would've been the same had they decided not to do that. If you aren't willing to put yourself to that test, you don't really believe what you're arguing.
What do you believe?
Posts
Total:
495
-->
@Fallaneze
I don't think we can be sure what you will choose right upto the moment you go - or don't go - through the door in minutes time. The decision you make now is not necessarily the one you will follow in minutes time. Does your final decision exist now? i could, for eample, offer you a million dollars to change your mind at the last moment. (not that i'm likely to, but I could!)
-->
@keithprosser
Even if there's a difference in likelihood that I'll follow through with my decision once I've made up my mind about doing something would disprove hard determinism.
-->
@Fallaneze
Free will is not choosing to eat bran flakes or cheerios. It's the sum of your whole life leading you up to a moment and you think that when someone makes a decision it is a choice. That their upbringing, personality, wealth, intelligence, luck, and fate play no part in it. This bullshit that free will is deciding you like Johnny Cash or not has anything to do with where one's life goes is monotheist lie. If you lay down and do nothing it's because that is who you are and that is your free will. And there are people who do just that.
-->
@Fallaneze
If you have no freewill and you are compelled to do things what makes you think it would be possible to instead do nothing?People who argue that free will doesn't exist should just lie down on the floor and do nothing all day and trust that the outcome would've been the same had they decided not to do that. If you aren't willing to put yourself to that test, you don't really believe what you're arguing.
-->
@Fallaneze
Even if there's a difference in likelihood that I'll follow through with my decision once I've made up my mind about doing something would disprove hard determinism.
What method shall we use to determine if we could have acted differently after the fact?
-->
@Fallaneze
Not really. The counter-argument is that lying down and letting what happens happen is what was pre-determined to occur. Whatever ever you do is what it had to be.People who argue that free will doesn't exist should just lie down on the floor and do nothing all day and trust that the outcome would've been the same had they decided not to do that. If you aren't willing to put yourself to that test, you don't really believe what you're arguing.
It's related to the 'block universe' view of time in which reality is imagined as a static 4D block. We move along the time axis of the block, experiening a slice through it which we call 'the present moment' but the block itself doesn't change.
It is also known as 'eternalism' and there are are a few different flavours, such as the 'growing block universe'.
I'm quite keen on 'presentism', but it's not very fashionable these days.
-->
@secularmerlin
This is just silliness. If you're telling me you aren't capable of lying down and doing nothing then don't simultaneously try to convince me that your position on free will is the more rational one.
-->
@keithprosser
Exactly. Everything is pre-determined to occur. So lie down on the floor and do nothing all day and believe the outcome would've been the same.
-->
@Fallaneze
I am try8ng to tell you that if there is no freewill you will/can not just lay down and do nothing if you have a reason to do something. You are the one arguing not only that I am capable of choosing to lie down and do nothing but that I should. I think one of us must misunderstand the other.
-->
@Fallaneze
So lie down on the floor and do nothing all day and believe the outcome would've been the same.
Same as what? There is only one future. Options not taken don't exist, nor will they ever exist.
-->
@keithprosser
Which is why it is illogical to argue free will based on hindsight. Options not taken do exist as possibilities in the future. To say that free will does not exist is to say that there is only one possible effect to any given cause. That line of thought negates the concepts of possibility and probability.Options not taken don't exist, nor will they ever exist.
-->
@TwoMan
Does the future exist? I think that's a tricky one...
-->
@TwoMan
Weather patterns (like human behavior) are difficult to predict. Does the weather have freewill? An unpredictable outcome does not necessarily demonstrate freewill.
I reiterate: assuming free will does not exist, nobody is rational. If nobody is rational, our reasons for believing in the non-existence of free will aren't rational. Therefore, nobody can rationally believe that free will does not exist if free will doesn't exist.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
This has been an interesting thread to read through, i've noticed in times you have seen the same questions so i will give you one of my beliefs that's kinda novel.
Firstly, by "belief" i mean "i suspect" in this scenario. Since "belief" can have many meanings as i've seen you address and understand. So, in this case this is one of my "i suspect it can be true" scenarios.
I believe that you have the power to create yourself. Now, if you did or not is not under my control, since you control you. But, for myself, i believe i created myself to be in this reality.
-->
@Fallaneze
I disagree with this assessment. A five year old child appears to have more "freedom" when playing chess but really they simply do not understand how the peices move while a seasoned chess players can't/won't move the peices in ways that violate the rules. So it is with rationality. A madman would seem to have more "freedom" because he can think and behave irrationally while a rational person can't/won't.I reiterate: assuming free will does not exist, nobody is rational. If nobody is rational, our reasons for believing in the non-existence of free will aren't rational. Therefore, nobody can rationally believe that free will does not exist if free will doesn't exist.
-->
@mustardness
Correct. Biological or non-biological stems from the exact same elements of Uni-V-erse. Biologicals do not some special kind element that all other aspects of Nature//Uni-V-erse //Cosmos does not have.
Free will doesn't exist. The universe is either deterministic or random, and any combination of the 2 doesn't produce free will.
-->
@secularmerlin
That only makes sense in the context of free will. There is no "more" or "less" rational decisions if everyone is merely a pawn of mindless forces. Rationality entails the ability to choose between competing courses of action. Under determinism that would not be possible.
-->
@SamStevens
Random does not mean uncaused. The universe is either deterministic or not deterministic.
-->
@Fallaneze
No Falneze rational =/= free. Rational = the ability to recognize logic. Unless you choose what is logical rationality is sufficiently explained by determinism.
-->
@secularmerlin
Computers recognize logic but they are not rational. Furthermore, all of our decisions are made by mindless forces beyond our control, mindless forces that cannot act rationally (unless you want to argue that physics is rational).
-->
@Fallaneze
There is no reason to think that computers recognize logic or anything else they simply follow their programming but if some hypothetical super computers did recognize logic there is no reason to think they would not still simply follow their programming.
-->
@Fallaneze
Even if some supercomputer were built that recognized logic and acted upon it it would still not have freewill it would just be reacting logically. How is human behavior demonstrably different?
-->
@Fallaneze
unless you want to argue that physics is rational
Physics is predictable not rational. This allows us to understand our universe rationally and logically but logic and reason are human systems of thought that are useful in making (sometimes incorrect) predictions. Predictions made in this way should have some method of falsification or there is no way to know if they are in fact correct. How do we falsify freewill? How are making a descision and coming to a conclusion testably different from one another?
-->
@secularmerlin
Well if human behavior is determined by physics and chemistry, and neither one are rational, then human behavior can't be rational.
-->
@Fallaneze
Random does not mean uncaused. The universe is either deterministic or not deterministic.
Or, some combination of the two. We can determine a lot of things in this world, like the trajectory of a bullet or what side a coin will land on; we can determine the paths of celestial objects and the weather to a certain degree. You run into randomness, defined as without definite aim, direction, rule, or method, when you look at the quantum level.
Regardless of how you classify the universe, as deterministic or not, nowhere does free will arise. Either your thoughts and actions can largely find their origins in the various factors(genetics, neurochemistry, upbringing, etc) that make you, you or they are just the results of random interactions courtesy of the quantum level. I don't see free will in either situation and neither should you.
-->
@Fallaneze
Well if human behavior is determined by physics and chemistry, and neither one are rational, then human behavior can't be rational.
I'm not sure how you determined this but if physics and chemistry aee the only (detectable) determinant of human behavior and if human behavior is rational then rationality observably seems arise from physics and chemistry. In any case sometimes humans are rational and sometimes they are not.
-->
@secularmerlin
Explain how human behavior is rational if the forces that control human behavior are not rational.
-->
@secularmerlin
@Fallaneze
Let me suggest this:
The argument against free will is that your present 'brain state' (B) is the resut of physical law (P) acting on the prior brain state (B*).
ie, P(B*)->B. Likewise B* is the result of physical law acting on its prior state, B**, and so on, all the way back to the big bang.
Free will supporters might prefer to talk of mind-states (M) rather than brain states. if freewill exists then successive mind-states are not determined by physical law alone but by acombination of physical law plus 'free will' (F), or in symbols (P+F)(M*)->M, or maybe F(P(M*))->M.
Note than randomness does not appear anywhere iin there.
I hope tha's not too 'ebucy'!