Free Will

[Mr. Pecksniff]

I will choose a path that's clear, I will choose free will.

[iNcog]

-- deleted post --

[_venox_]

This thread is solid proof of why it''s fine to be a dumb fuck, so long as your motives and principles are true.

who are you referring to?

[Mr. Pecksniff]

This thread is solid proof of why its fine to be a dumb fuck, so long as your motives and principles are true.

who are you referring to?

Himself ')

[bugattivitesse]

I personally think we do have free will. I have read Harris, Dennett and Nietzsche, but the idea of being free and morally responsible is too much ingrained in us for just random chance. I think that if we have souls, we are free (at least to some extent). Causal determinism doesn't reach into the metaphysical world.

I don't believe that morality is an illusion' i enjoy Nietzsche a lot, but i don't agree with him on that. Since we haven't been able to tie morality to anything else, i think having a soul isn't too improbable. And if we have a soul, we have some sort of free will.

[Mr. Pecksniff]

Causal determinism doesn''t reach into the metaphysical world.

In that case your soul can''t influence your physical surroundings, so in what sense would you then be ''free'' to do anything?

[Goodspeed]

Lol at this whole "soul" thing. I have trouble understanding how people continue to believe it exists..
I guess that's where the free will debate ultimately comes down to though. Is there something beyond our brain that governs the way we act?

Also even if our minds aren't deterministic, even if there are random events happening in it making our decisions theoretically unpredictable, can we count that as any kind of "will" at all, free or not? After all they are random events so they are not influenced by your personal preference.

[Goodspeed]

Causal determinism doesnt reach into the metaphysical world.

In that case your soul cant influence your physical surroundings, so in what sense would you then be free to do anything?

Lol good point. If the metaphysical world is non deterministic and it influences the physical world, then the physical world cant be deterministic either.

But hey weve landed on having 2 worlds, one of which metaphysical, magically connected through the identity of human beings... I think were far beyond logic at this point.

[bugattivitesse]

Do you believe that there is such a thing as good and evil?

[Goodspeed]

Objectively speaking, no, our actions don't matter in the grand scheme of things. However we are a race that lives in rather large and socially complex groups so we need to live by certain standards to prevent chaos. It's no surprise then that we evolved such profound ideas about right and wrong. So yeah if we're only looking at how our actions affect other people and our society's living standards then there is good and evil.

[Mr. Pecksniff]

Do you believe that there is such a thing as good and evil?

Yes.

The things I do are good, and the things other people do to oppose me are evil.

[deleted_user0]

In that case your soul cant influence your physical surroundings, so in what sense would you then be free to do anything?

Lol good point. If the metaphysical world is non deterministic and it influences the physical world, then the physical world cant be deterministic either.

But hey weve landed on having 2 worlds, one of which metaphysical, magically connected through the identity of human beings... I think were far beyond logic at this point.

Its not beyond logic at all, merely beyond science.

[deleted_user0]

I personally think we do have free will. I have read Harris, Dennett and Nietzsche, but the idea of being free and morally responsible is too much ingrained in us for just random chance. I think that if we have souls, we are free (at least to some extent). Causal determinism doesn''t reach into the metaphysical world.

I don''t believe that morality is an illusion' i enjoy Nietzsche a lot, but i don''t agree with him on that. Since we haven''t been able to tie morality to anything else, i think having a soul isn''t too improbable. And if we have a soul, we have some sort of free will.

Dennet is compatibilist, and Nietzsche doesnt oppose free will at all. Hes just claiming that morals are conventions, and thus subjective instead of objective. Sam harris opposes free will but still argues in favor of moral responsibility which imo he fails to do convincingly. Regardless of this mindfuck of a debate, it seems rather clear that if there is no delibiratly acting agent, than there is no responsibility, and thus no moral one either. Obviously there could still be morals, and punishment for actions done, but they would be merely practical, not ethical. Morals wouldnt be more than the conventions of the day, and punishment would serve no justice but only vengeance and deterrence.

[musketjr]

re. causality, how do you wrap your head around the possibility that the universe may exist (effect = big bang) with no cause?

as framed by this guy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uabNtlLfYyU

[Mr. Pecksniff]

re. causality, how do you wrap your head around the possibility that the universe may exist (effect = big bang) with no cause?

as framed by this guy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uabNtlLfYyU

Why does the Big Bang have to have a cause?

[musketjr]

because it happened (if it did). did you watch the video? the problem extends to any theoretical origin of our universe, the problem is that of infinite regression, so it's immaterial whether there is a deity, multiple or ongoing universes, hyperexpansion from a single point (big bang), the question is always what was before that and what caused it.

[bugattivitesse]

because it happened (if it did). did you watch the video? the problem extends to any theoretical origin of our universe, the problem is that of infinite regression, so it''s immaterial whether there is a deity, multiple or ongoing universes, hyperexpansion from a single point (big bang), the question is always what was before that and what caused it.

Oh it did happen. There is now enough proof to remove all doubt of it not happening, The only question now is the cause. Whether it is a sort of quantum vacuum as proposed by Krauss, or a God or whatever.

Also, in Beyond Good and Evil by Nietzsche heavily criticizes free will, marking himself as an opponent of the concept.

I take back me previous claims. I made those rather quickly, and as you pointed out, they are quite fallacious. I would say that i believe in some sort of compatibalism. The truth of causal determinism isn''t something you can argue against, at least without understanding quantum indeterminism, which i do not.

[Mr. Pecksniff]

because it happened (if it did). did you watch the video? the problem extends to any theoretical origin of our universe, the problem is that of infinite regression, so it''s immaterial whether there is a deity, multiple or ongoing universes, hyperexpansion from a single point (big bang), the question is always what was before that and what caused it.

It''s only a problem if you assume that everything has always taken place within the current framework of physical laws. Neuron''s post above is relevant to this.

[deleted_user0]

A lot of this determinist debate is based on a gross exageration of our knowledge about the universe. In fact, 99.9% of our physics is based on experimental data from only one planet, the earth. Nobody knows for sure if, for example, the same quantum experiment would unfold in the same way in another galaxy or close to the edge of the universe. It''s just an assumption that physical laws discovered on earth and physical laws from the rest of the universe are isomorphic. It''s also possible that, given enough distance and time, physical laws vary (even if slightly). Not to mention that the whole Big Bang hypothesis is based on current observations about universe expansion. If at some point these observations are corrected/refuted by another theory, the Big Bang hypothesis is discarded. It''s typical in science for dominating theories and hypotheses to be superseded by better theories/observations. Too bad in philosophy, the reverse is typical? , that is, everyone is discussing current knowledge paradigms (taken from physics, neuroscience, etc) as if they were the indisputable and immutable truth.

Ehm the knowledge paradigms arent taken from physics and neuroscience at all. Obviously some examples are, and some new insights but this debate has been existing before bacon was even a sperm. In fact science itself rests on philosophical assumptions, as real scientists will admit.
You can blame philosophers for many faults but not that they carve their ideas in stone and pretend they are indisputable.

This thread is hardly philosophical, its more pseud or quasi-scientific.

[deleted_user0]

You have a flawed notion of what philosophy is and thus you are under the mistaken impression that philosophy is a standalone discipline, while it isnt and it never has been. Neither is philosophy aimed so much at advancing our knowledge in a linear way (called progress), but at deepening it, widening our understanding in expansive fashion, to avoid dogma and stagnation instead of create it. In that sense I dont see it as a decay or defeat on the part of philosophy that it takes into account and works with the latest scientific findings. In fact this is how it has been since the greeks first began with philosophy, except that in those times, the scientist and philosopher were one. It isnt since the 15th century, when our knowledge in the scientific department grew significantly that it needed specialisation to the extent that the homo universalis was a thing of the past, and science and philosophy became more seperated.

But regardless of this, philosophy on its own doesnt really exist, its always applied to something and in the past century there have been many "new" and interesting theories advanced, which despite what you say have had significant social impact. In fac the politics of more than half the worlds landmass and a third of its population was influenced by the works of a guy called Karl Marx (you might have heard of him), who was for all intents and purposes a philosopher (of economics and politics). And while his economic theories largely have been debunked by history and his political view largely discredited by the wrong implementation by revolutionaries in practice, he remains significant until this day for his philosophical implications.

And this is the thing, you may keep claiming that philosophy has been sidelined and ignored for centuries, but if this is true, it is so mostly in science, and this is a loss for science and not the other way around. Many people are still very interested in philosophy as the nature of the two most popular threads in this topic show. And while philosophers arent at all scared to admit the close ties between the two, many followers of science (for a lack of a better word, because its often not the real scientists themself) keep ripping on philosophy based on false assumptions, while remaining blind to the fact that the entire house of scientific theory is founded upon philosophical assumptions (which are almost as old as the greeks)

So it might be time to get off that high horse and find a mirror to look into ')

[Mr. Pecksniff]

Ehm the knowledge paradigms arent taken from physics and neuroscience at all. Obviously some examples are, and some new insights but this debate has been existing before bacon was even a sperm. In fact science itself rests on philosophical assumptions, as real scientists will admit.
You can blame philosophers for many faults but not that they carve their ideas in stone and pretend they are indisputable.

Lets quit general talk. and be more specific. Most of the debate right now in philosophy and ethics is based on empirical research findings. Philosophy hasnt produced any real issue by its own since a very long time. Most of its debates revolve around scientific findings. That includes your very-quoted Dennett, for example. The latest debate on determinism is fueled by the most recent findings on decision-making in neuroscience (an example, but this has a long tradition in neuroscience since the works of Benjamin Libet). The fact that a neuroscientist (Harris) jumped in this debate is a symptom of this decay process which took hold of philosophy, since philosophy is not producing any real debates, scientists who feel guilty about focusing exclusively on the empirical in their daily research are starting to dabble with the philosophical significance of their findings.

You think if you read a couple of pages on Wiki you know what this debate is about. But if you arent familiar with the exchanges between science and philosophy (or whatever is left of what was formerly called philosophy), youre just glossing over stuff youve heard here and there. If you did, youd know nobody is taking academic philosophy too seriously today. Whatever credibility it still has it comes from these intersections with scientific issues. I mean, all you have to do is check which are the most-debated new philosophical themes today: the simulation argument by Bostrom, Chalmers ramblings on the possibility of philosophical zombies and other AI bedtime stories, Dennetts own commentaries on guess what - philosophical issues shaped by scientific findings (consciousness, free will, morality, etc - all starting from scientific premises, I mean the dude even grew a beard like Darwin, ffs, what more do you want to see in terms of philosophical hipsterism), as well as lots of bioethics issues.

Youd be hard-pressed to find a debate on free will from the last years which doesnt appeal to findings from empirical research. Unless youre suggesting anyone is still debating this stuff in terms of the freedom of the rock to roll or to stop rolling.

Id be intrigued to know if there are any purely philosophical problems that are worth debating.

[deleted_user0]

So much backpeddaling there.. ^^ ?Careful with that fullspeed reverse gear.

You are mistaking the discipline with its subject matter, Umeu. It''s one thing that philosophy has been applying its reasoning on topics which were not purely philosophical and quite another whether or not it was a standalone discipline. What was metaphysics then if philosophy wasn''t a discipline in itself? What was epistemology, ethics, gnoseology, if not purely philosophical fields of study. I mean, if you''re studying knowledge and knowing in itself, you''re not studying either psychology or physics.

Marx could hardly be called a philosopher, his theories were too political and too embedded in economic terminology to consider them anything else but political economics.

the entire house of scientific theory is founded upon philosophical assumptions

Yeah, but when you have a health problem, the doctors don''t sit down and start pondering over how to diagnose your problem starting from first principles. You''re abusing a common cliche here which doesn''t prove or disprove anything. ^^

Where is the backpedaling? Nothing in what you quoted contradicts or refutes what i said before.

I dont im confusing it at all, you were claiming philosophy is bankrupt for using science in philosophical debates or applying philosophy to scientific topics. Im merely saying that it is supposed to be this way, and it has been this way since the beginning.

Logic and metaphysics and epistemology may be the purest of philosophical disciplines but even they have been traditionally connected to language, religion and science. And apart from metaphysics, none of the other two have been discredited and its up for debate whether there can be scientific understanding without metaphysical assumptions.

Marx was a philosopher for sure (not only because he saw himself as such and his wirk as a continuation of hegels), he wasnt active in any sort of political party or social group, he didnt try to put his theory into practice, despite his ideaa about praxis and practical philosophy. His work is speculative and not scientific at all, so it would be hard to class him as a political scientist (whatever that entails). I will not deny he was an economist, but to class him as just that would be too narrow. Obviously the same is true for classing him as only a philosopher.

As for your last remark, i dont really get the point you are trying to make here. I never made a claim in the direction of philosophical supremacy. But when the doctor has to choose between which patients he will divide his time and resources, science cant tell him which choice to make.