Jump to content

Photo

What's your position on free will?


  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#1 Buglamp

Buglamp

Posted 07 September 2016 - 01:23 AM

I kinda bounce between compatibilism and determinism depending on how strictly free will is defined. Since we seemingly haven't created ourselves(or the world we live in and so on), our will is most likely to've emerged out of a mostly deterministic situation(or determined probabilities), but even if our background and biology mostly determines what choices we will make, it seems we still have some things which can be called choices, unless the word just loses all meaning if determinism is true. If we're able to express our preferences, even if we didn't choose what preferences we'd have, that still seems like a choice by most definitions though.
  • 0

#2 Thaya

Thaya
  • Moderators
  • Humanclass_name
  • EU-Silvermoon
  • Cyclone / Wirbelsturm
  • Posts: 4,275
  • Talents: Destruction 0/2/0/1/0/0/0
  • 2v2: 1338
  • LocationRussia

Posted 07 September 2016 - 09:19 AM

is "to've" correct?
  • 1
Default UI Scripts - Compilation & how-to

#3 Forumz

Forumz
  • Junkies
  • Humanclass_name
  • EU-Argent Dawn
  • Cataclysme / Cataclysm
  • Posts: 3,141
  • Talents: Shadow 2/1/1/1/./.
  • 2v2: 2728
  • 3v3: 2279
  • 5v5: 96
  • RBG: 768

Posted 07 September 2016 - 09:53 AM

is "to've" correct?

No.
  • 1
Posted Image

#4 Xonika

Xonika
  • Junkies
  • Humanclass_name
  • EU-Aegwynn
  • Blutdurst
  • Posts: 976
  • Talents: Retribution 1/0/0/2/0/2/2
  • 2v2: 1368
  • 3v3: 3096
  • 5v5: 288
  • RBG: 1795

Posted 07 September 2016 - 11:06 AM

hide before jimjim gets here
  • 1

#5 Thaya

Thaya
  • Moderators
  • Humanclass_name
  • EU-Silvermoon
  • Cyclone / Wirbelsturm
  • Posts: 4,275
  • Talents: Destruction 0/2/0/1/0/0/0
  • 2v2: 1338
  • LocationRussia

Posted 07 September 2016 - 02:23 PM

No.

fucking americans
  • 0
Default UI Scripts - Compilation & how-to

#6 Drazziefresh

Drazziefresh
  • Junkies
  • Night Elfclass_name
  • US-Kel'Thuzad
  • Nightfall
  • Posts: 275
  • Talents: Restoration 1/2/2/1/0/0/.

Posted 07 September 2016 - 03:29 PM

support nothing everythings a crime
  • 0
pee in her butt br0

#7 Nicholaes92

Nicholaes92
  • Junkies
  • Posts: 1,648

Posted 07 September 2016 - 03:34 PM

fucking americans


One can extrapolate from this envisage that nuance of what thy theorem presented would be that biographer of said post happens to have homosexual tendencies.


/r/iamverysmart
  • 0
AJ's Wall of Tough Guys

i'm not your average aj user bro you're gonna have to up you game little boy.

Also tread lightly my friend, you dont know who you are talking to ;)

who the fuck do u think you are, random fucking nobody, u dont deserve any of my time/effort retard. "tell me that a blizzcon" srsly? great fucking insult m9. dont even talk to me


#8 Thaya

Thaya
  • Moderators
  • Humanclass_name
  • EU-Silvermoon
  • Cyclone / Wirbelsturm
  • Posts: 4,275
  • Talents: Destruction 0/2/0/1/0/0/0
  • 2v2: 1338
  • LocationRussia

Posted 07 September 2016 - 05:04 PM

u mean "to've homosexual tendencies" right u fuckin yank
  • 0
Default UI Scripts - Compilation & how-to

#9 Nicholaes92

Nicholaes92
  • Junkies
  • Posts: 1,648

Posted 07 September 2016 - 05:33 PM

Fuck me lost my chance to sound all edukated and stuff
  • 0
AJ's Wall of Tough Guys

i'm not your average aj user bro you're gonna have to up you game little boy.

Also tread lightly my friend, you dont know who you are talking to ;)

who the fuck do u think you are, random fucking nobody, u dont deserve any of my time/effort retard. "tell me that a blizzcon" srsly? great fucking insult m9. dont even talk to me


#10 YVNG_CARL_YVNG

YVNG_CARL_YVNG
  • Members
  • Humanclass_name
  • EU-Die ewige Wacht
  • Glutsturm / Emberstorm
  • Posts: 1,065
  • Talents: Subtlety 1/1/2/1/0/1/.

Posted 08 September 2016 - 11:43 AM

Spoiler


I have mostly come to accept determinism, but with an exception. While I do believe human behavior is predictable to a degree and while I do agree with the basic assumption that out choices are almost exclusively based on our surroundings, there is just one 'but' that remains.

David Hume has answered this question in the most beautiful way, I think. His response to the accuracy of the scientific method and the question as to whether universal truths exist was very plain, but arguably changed the world:

Repeat an experiment a hundred, a thousand, a million times. You can get the same results a hundred, a thousand, a million times, but you can never possibly prove that if the experiment is redone one more time it doesn't turn out completely different.

To give you a faulty, basic example of this: Say an experiment is conducted in a laboratory. The scientist repeats the experiment two, three, four times, until he reaches a certain conclusion A). What he did not take into account is that this day it was raining, there is a Nuclear plant nearby, and through the AC the chemical compounds in the air changed ever so slightly. He repeats this experiment the next day, reaching a completely different conclusion B ) and is baffled. Of course you can point to mistakes in his science, that he was not aware of all the factors, which is why he failed. That's obvious, I was just trying to give an example.

When variables approach infinity, as they easily do if we are talking about something as incredibly complex as human interaction for example, predicting them becomes impossible.

So, what I believe in I like to call "true randomness". This concept is not an easy one for me to explain, but maybe it can be done with the help of Thomas Young.

We're probably all familiar with the double-slit experiment; It's conclusion being that light as well as matter can display characteristics of waves and particles. The other, more relevant part of the conclusion being that the particles had a certain "spread", with some aligning on one, others on the other side. What this all comes down to is probability. So while one outcome with a high probability might happen, there is always another with a lower one that could also happen. We can never be a hundred percent sure. This goes beyond the constraints of classic determinism. For one Cause A) there suddenly are a multitude of different probabilities, not one Effect B ).

This probability can change an experiment, but it can also change our life in a fundamental way. As we know, in a system like determinism, just one single variable can turn everything upside down. There's a lot of baggage and bullshit that comes with these two words: "Butterfly Effect", but its premise still is true. With this little degree of uncertainty, this tiny bit of randomness I can live in content. You could go ahead and say I'm just comforting myself. In that case, I am totally okay with it. I'm not omniscient. But I'm also aware that modern science keeps on making progress and that still so many things are beyond our understanding while even the things we think we know we might be completely wrong about. When I was younger this problem of free-will really bothered me to a surprising degree, now I don't mind it at all anymore. What I have found for myself perhaps is the opposite of traditional christian "fate". It pleases me very much to think that even if we are not in control of what we do, at least nothing is completely predetermined.
  • 0

#11 YVNG_CARL_YVNG

YVNG_CARL_YVNG
  • Members
  • Humanclass_name
  • EU-Die ewige Wacht
  • Glutsturm / Emberstorm
  • Posts: 1,065
  • Talents: Subtlety 1/1/2/1/0/1/.

Posted 08 September 2016 - 11:55 AM

on a related note, fuck I fucking miss disstance. best poster AJ has ever seen..

Posted Image
  • 0

#12 Buglamp

Buglamp

Posted 08 September 2016 - 12:52 PM

David Hume has answered this question in the most beautiful way, I think. His response to the accuracy of the scientific method and the question as to whether universal truths exist was very plain, but arguably changed the world:

Repeat an experiment a hundred, a thousand, a million times. You can get the same results a hundred, a thousand, a million times, but you can never possibly prove that if the experiment is redone one more time it doesn't turn out completely different.


Another way of saying it - "The events of the future cannot be inferred from those of the present." - Wittgenstein.

To give you a faulty, basic example of this: Say an experiment is conducted in a laboratory. The scientist repeats the experiment two, three, four times, until he reaches a certain conclusion A). What he did not take into account is that this day it was raining, there is a Nuclear plant nearby, and through the AC the chemical compounds in the air changed ever so slightly. He repeats this experiment the next day, reaching a completely different conclusion B ) and is baffled. Of course you can point to mistakes in his science, that he was not aware of all the factors, which is why he failed. That's obvious, I was just trying to give an example.

When variables approach infinity, as they easily do if we are talking about something as incredibly complex as human interaction for example, predicting them becomes impossible.


It seems common to use hypothetical situations where if we had some amazing thinking computer or whatever that had perfect knowledge of the past and current it could predict the future. In that situation, those kinds of human ignorance/errors that interfere with whether the future could be predictable are kind of pushed aside for the purpose of argument.

So, what I believe in I like to call "true randomness". This concept is not an easy one for me to explain, but maybe it can be done with the help of Thomas Young.

We're probably all familiar with the double-slit experiment; It's conclusion being that light as well as matter can display characteristics of waves and particles. The other, more relevant part of the conclusion being that the particles had a certain "spread", with some aligning on one, others on the other side. What this all comes down to is probability. So while one outcome with a high probability might happen, there is always another with a lower one that could also happen. We can never be a hundred percent sure. This goes beyond the constraints of classic determinism. For one Cause A) there suddenly are a multitude of different probabilities, not one Effect B ).

This probability can change an experiment, but it can also change our life in a fundamental way. As we know, in a system like determinism, just one single variable can turn everything upside down. There's a lot of baggage and bullshit that comes with these two words: "Butterfly Effect", but its premise still is true. With this little degree of uncertainty, this tiny bit of randomness I can live in content. You could go ahead and say I'm just comforting myself. In that case, I am totally okay with it. I'm not omniscient. But I'm also aware that modern science keeps on making progress and that still so many things are beyond our understanding while even the things we think we know we might be completely wrong about. When I was younger this problem of free-will really bothered me to a surprising degree, now I don't mind it at all anymore. What I have found for myself perhaps is the opposite of traditional christian "fate". It pleases me very much to think that even if we are not in control of what we do, at least nothing is completely predetermined.


This is what I was referring to when I noted "(or determined probabilities)".

If certain quantum physics findings are true, then yes, there's some degree of randomness and we can't have complete determinism, we can predict probability of certain things happening but perfect certainty would be unobtainable.

That said, we don't know yet whether we've genuinely figured it out. There are confounding things still, like the observer effect. Maybe they will never be solved and we live in a deterministic world but we simply don't have practical means to predict with certainty.


Personally I don't find randomness particularly more appealing than predetermination though. Everything bad about life is still of result of whichever is true.
  • 0

#13 YVNG_CARL_YVNG

YVNG_CARL_YVNG
  • Members
  • Humanclass_name
  • EU-Die ewige Wacht
  • Glutsturm / Emberstorm
  • Posts: 1,065
  • Talents: Subtlety 1/1/2/1/0/1/.

Posted 08 September 2016 - 04:17 PM

Randomness is absolutely beautiful buggos, it's perfect.

Another thing I have thought about recently: Do you know how DNA works in relation to inheritance? How "random" exactly is it to see one (physical) trait of a parent passed on to a child as opposed to another one?

A lot of our later life is determined from birth. I've always had asthma, making a career as an alto-saxophonist was never likely for me. I know about the Mendelian rules, if that's what you Yanks call it, but I am ignorant of the more intricate facts of genetics.

I have followed the debate on whether or not "intelligence" is hereditary and was not sufficiently convinced. Anecdotal evidence and some convincing reports sway me towards "yes", but I'm a skeptic at heart.
  • 0

#14 Buglamp

Buglamp

Posted 08 September 2016 - 08:22 PM

What's tested in IQ tests at least is partially genetic, partially early childhood stuff(like whether you had adequate attention/socialization and food and so on) among other things that can vary throughout life more - like confidence level and what sort of mental stimulation you get regularly. Personality traits may factor in as well, "extroverts" do better if taking an IQ test with higher noise levels than introverts for example and weird stuff like that.

It's also to some extent possible to manipulate or train for, though obviously you need some level of intelligence to successfully do so. Since one part of the test is short term memory, using various memory training techniques can add to a score.

And health always factors in, it's just that early life health while you're still developing is more permanent generally.

IQ of course is also not static, IQs have been increasing but the average or mean IIRC is 100 regardless. So having a 120 IQ 50 years ago would not make a person smarter than someone with a 110 IQ now.


I've personally never taken a legit IQ test and I don't think I'd want to. I'm curious, but it seems like the results would either depress me or inflate my ego. If I were below average I'd be devastated.
  • 0

#15 YVNG_CARL_YVNG

YVNG_CARL_YVNG
  • Members
  • Humanclass_name
  • EU-Die ewige Wacht
  • Glutsturm / Emberstorm
  • Posts: 1,065
  • Talents: Subtlety 1/1/2/1/0/1/.

Posted 09 September 2016 - 05:49 AM

It is safe to say that you'd be above average, I don't even know why you are giving this a thought. Not like it matters anyway, since you are not using your intellect to great avail, no? I'm not judging you for that though -- I'm heavily critical of the popular dogma of progress, especially scientific progress. We have surpassed a healthy notion of progressing and are in a state of blatant scientism, only fueled by turbocapitalism that needs "new" and "useful" inventions to stay alive, basically. If it was up to me, I'd say the main focus should be to favor subsistence and sustainability over growth, but who the fuck is asking me? In short -- I don't want to contribute to this kind of system one bit.

Perhaps later in my life I can contribute in some way -- I have thought about means of preserving biodiversity: Growing and keeping local wild plants and lifestock, finding new, innovative ways to deal with invasive species (like.. eating and cooking them. there is a restaurant in the US based on that notion that gave me this idea), finding ways to subsidize small scale farming, things of that nature.

Are you perhaps familiar with the works of BBC's Adam Curtis? He explained this dogma in a much more convincing and eloquent way.

Though I never even mentioned IQ, I specifically used the word intelligence. To me, those are not interchangeable at all and while IQ is probably the most accurate measurement of intelligence I must say I heavily distrust it, I think it's biased, I think it's flawed as a concept and, most of all, I think it only represents a few areas of what I personally deem "intelligence". Since this is going to be a game of definitions now I will stop myself.
  • 0

#16 Buglamp

Buglamp

Posted 09 September 2016 - 06:56 AM

Not familiar with Curtis. As for capitalism, it has uses but needs more restraint than the US puts on it. Quality of life should be emphasized more, which means things like restricting/banning most types of public advertisement, building restrictions which create aesthetic cities, and obviously things that reduce/prevent pollutants. A system that produces unappealing habitats for its creators, is pretty fail. Ugly urban landscapes and the effort we put into creating and sustaining them aren't worth it IMO. I'm probably more particular about aesthetics than your average person though, so I could rant about this while others don't seem to be bothered. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

As for scientism, well, because science has produced so much of observable practical value it doesn't surprise me that it's become a source of authority when/where it shouldn't. While it can inform philosophy with the findings it produces, trying to build things like ethical systems from it is just bad since there's no ground to build on to be found in science.

TBH when I was in high school and the New Atheists were kind of trendy I believed in some nonsensical things, especially in my anti-religious phase. >_< At least I can tell myself I went through it quickly.

Science/scientific language being hijacked to lend authority for ideological as well as commercial purposes is concerning just in general now. Those who don't have good understanding of its limits, or the ability to simply filter junk science which is a plague at the moment, are very susceptible to being taken advantage of and/or mislead.

Commercialized media is a big part of the problem here too, since they'll spice up interpretations of studies, give them absurd headlines bearing little resemblance to the actual conclusions, etc. etc. Since ratings/hits/viewers etc. are what matters it's in their interest to draw attention even if it's with misinformation.


Anyway... my reasons for not wanting to become a part of uh... "the system"(obviously a major oversimplification but for short) are different than yours but I can understand the sentiment of not wanting to be involved in supporting it. I have my own little horror stories, like how we were arranging products in psychologically manipulative ways at the department store I worked at - even in some kinda dark ways like of course putting magazines up front because people buy more when they feel ugly relative to airbrushed models/actresses on covers.

I'm sure to some extent I've rationalized an excess of excuses to avoid taking action and it's much easier to just say "fuck it" and be an avoidant escapist rather than trying to change anything. But I've sort of accepted this.

____

Small scale/local/sustainable stuff is a big thing here in Portland OR. It has its pros and cons but overall it's way better than most restaurant chains and typical supermarkets. Cart food especially is crazy cheap for the quality relatively.

I'm not obsessed with organic/local(I'm not paying ~2x the money or whatever if I don't taste a difference) but I'm also not going to deny when it produces better food, which is fairly often.

___

I brought up IQ since to determine whether something is hereditary, it needs to be somewhat definable/testable and IQ is the standard for intelligence. I agree it's limited/flawed, but I would think intelligence is still heritable to some degree whether it's defined as IQ or not.

The understanding of heritability is changing with epigenetics though, so it's likely less concrete than previously thought.
  • 1

#17 Forumz

Forumz
  • Junkies
  • Humanclass_name
  • EU-Argent Dawn
  • Cataclysme / Cataclysm
  • Posts: 3,141
  • Talents: Shadow 2/1/1/1/./.
  • 2v2: 2728
  • 3v3: 2279
  • 5v5: 96
  • RBG: 768

Posted 09 September 2016 - 11:50 AM

I mean right now you're clearly choosing to be a faggot so case closed in my book.
  • 0
Posted Image

#18 YVNG_CARL_YVNG

YVNG_CARL_YVNG
  • Members
  • Humanclass_name
  • EU-Die ewige Wacht
  • Glutsturm / Emberstorm
  • Posts: 1,065
  • Talents: Subtlety 1/1/2/1/0/1/.

Posted 09 September 2016 - 12:24 PM

you wna fight you prissy cunt? ill put ur bloody head in a full nelson m8. fookin poofta m8. meet me in the lot u cheeky wanker.
  • 0

#19 Zaephyr

Zaephyr
  • Junkies
  • Humanclass_name
  • EU-Haomarush
  • Rampage / Saccage
  • Posts: 4,240
  • Talents: Unholy

Posted 09 September 2016 - 11:53 PM

God damn you all suck dick
  • 0
"Please use an appropriate signature; thanks! www.arenajunkies.com/forum-9/announcement-3-forum-rules-2272014

#20 Reliuna

Reliuna
  • Junkies
  • Night Elfclass_name
  • EU-Naxxramas
  • Sturmangriff / Charge
  • Posts: 6,714
  • Talents: Balance
  • LocationSweden

Posted 11 September 2016 - 05:13 AM

free space motherfucking u cant do anything deal with it this is free space

*hands in front of your face*

so yeah, to sum it up, free will doesnt exist because it is limited to free space, if u want to remove hand from retard waving it infront of ur face then u cannot because of free space. free space on the other hand is not relative in any way and is stronger than free will.
  • 0
Posted Image




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

<