/lit/ - Literature

I'd guess OP. I smoke. I chose to smoke, it's not like someone lit the cigarette for me.

>>3223708
>no free will
>fat people shouldn't be blamed
>people who blame them should be blamed

It's as free as it needs to be fatty

>Does free will exist?
yes and no.

>>3223711

>implying biology and social conditioning didn't make the decision

fat people are worthless either way

Not all fat people are fat due to eating habits. There are glandular issues and such that can affect how quickly or well a food is metabolized, and that should be taken into account. There isn't enough power in free will to win over biology.

>>3223711

Your decision to smoke was made by biology and social conditioning that you are not responsible for.

In the case that everything is predetermined, it is as well inevitable that we would blame people for their faults.

>>3223733
Responsibility is a social construct.

>>3223732
>There are glandular issues and such that can affect how quickly or well a food is metabolized, and that should be taken into account.

yes they are. this is such a bullshit excuse. `glandular issues` may happen to 0.00001% of fatties, which is a rare case

I find it strange that so many posters here absolutely hate the scientific method (empirical data being fallible), yet readily embrace determinism.

Determinism requires a key principle of thermodynamics; every effect having a cause. Why do you kids - the ones who post 'hurr STEM Dawkins r/atheism, nothing is knowable - reject anything based on empirical observation, but support determinism; a theory that can only be verified with empirical observation?

>>3223757
fuck off

>>>/sci/
>>>/redit/

>Implying the phrasing of the question does not already make clear, that OP does not understand what he is asking.

Free will doesn't exist. Even serial killers should not be blamed. But regardless of blameworthiness, they should still be put in prison to protect society.

>>3223773
>they should still be put in rehab to help them.

fixed that for you.

>>3223757
please get out
determinism existed way before than scientific method

>>3223784

No. We can't determine if they are actually rehabilitated.

>>3223792
>No.
>No.
>No.

oh, look out, we've got a know-it-all badass over here.

>>3223792

So we're not even going to try...?

No, your discussions are made based on stimuli, therefore stimuli controls you.

Yes, I don't like them.

If /lit/ believes in determinism, why do you all hate genre fiction readers so much?

They are not to be blamed.

Free will doesn't exist and no one is "responsible" for their actions.

I hate fat people. I can't help it.

>>3223815
>Discussions
Decisions

>>3223824
>no one is "responsible" for their actions.

You and I both know that's bullshit. Anyone can become sufficiently aware of what's really behind their thoughts and actions and make changes accordingly

>>3223819
goes both ways, we can't help but hate them

>>3223836
Why are they making those changes?
>Because they are self aware.
So they would act differently if not self aware?
>Yes.
It's not free will then.
It's just another form of stimulus.
>But it comes from the person making the decisions.
It still can't be controlled by them,
you can't really control what you think,
just how you interpret it.

>>3223836
But whether that happens or not isn't up to them

I love how you go from questioning free will people overeating.

>>3223836
>what's really behind their thoughts and actions

chemicals and electricity?

Nope. We're all essentially just puppets who suffer the illusion of self-awareness, free will, and a self, because we survive better that way. Your brain has actually been proven to make all of your decisions up to 10 seconds before you become consciously aware of what you want to do.

>>3223773
>>3223815
>>3223824

I have become increasingly happier being here on /lit/ because people share more and more of my views. I do not know if this is a good thing since i just strengthen my biased opinions.

I wrote this about Sam Harris in a thread once
>He believes in utilitarianism, although he didn't quite succeed in what he wanted in the Moral Landscape.

And i got the reply

>Yes he did. He didn't set out to prove the existence of objective morality through science. He said that morality exists as a concept to benefit human flourishing, and we can determine certain methods to assist in this though the scientific method.

I agree with a lot of Sam Harris' ideas about human experiences, although he takes the puerile atheism way too far.

everything he said in the Moral Landscape and Free Will was true

>>3223898
>10 seconds before

It's not usually 10 seconds, it's milliseconds, seconds.

>>3223901
>up to
And either way, it doesn't make much of a difference. We control nothing.

>>3223881
From that answer is it safe to say you don't know shit about psychology?

Yes, depending on the context. "Free will" has never meant the ability to will whatever you wish or do what you would not do.

>>3223869
Are you answering yourself based on what you think I was going to say?

>>3223757
Causality is thought to be a necessary truth if we are to have any system of logic and observation. Even the Scientific Method works on the assumption that causality is consistently true without a valid proof. causality is a rational truth, rather than empirical.

No one hates the scientific method, it's just a method of observation. People do hate those that assume that observation is universally true.

The people you are dismissing are not all the same people, as well.

>>3223836
Anything you perceive to be a divergence from a determined line of causes isn't one. In The Lives Of Philosophers, it's written That Zeno beat his slave, who pleaded that Zeno himself believed that the slave was always destined to do what he had. Zeno then told that he, too, was featured to beat him. Zeno refusing to beat his slave wouldnt have contradicted determinism, it would have been
predetermined, as well. Determinism is perfectly consistent with our ideas of 'free will'.

>>3223910
I'm answering based on things people might reply with.
It's not specifically meant for you.
By the way, would you have said those things if I hadn't preemptively responded to them?

>>3223934
>>3223918
Pardon the shitty form, I'm on a phone.

>>3223940
>By the way, would you have said those things if I hadn't preemptively responded to them?
No.

>people actually saying free will doesn't exist
stop troling guise

>>3223733
free will involves the ability to deny these forces

>>3223869
controlling your interpretation affects your actions towards the stimuli, thus free will

>>3223934
this is just retroactively saying that whatever happened happened for a reason and then calling any line of actions unavoidable determinism. this is shit.

>>3224051
Yes.

Hard determinism has no moral or ethical implications. That was in some parts my point.

The concept of blame relies on free will existing.

>>3224058
society doesn't really care about hypocrisy

even if you unquestionably proved free will didn't exist, blame would still exist as an useful concept.

>>3224058
Determinism can also be used to avoid responsibility for one's actions.

>>3224071
No, it can't.

>>3224056
im not talking about moral implications. im saying all u did was point at something at say "and so determinism." your example is no more valid than someone claiming God exists because clouds are pretty. Zeno still had a choice between beating his slave and not beating his slave, plus he had the option of finding alternative punishment. the only outstanding factor about the example is that both involved people turned to each other and agreed that it was predetermined. that's not evidence, that's just two people justifying an action. Zeno still had a choice and still made a choice.

>>3224075
Yes it can.

>I don't know why, I just do these things, it's my personality

Free Will Exists: Fat people are entirely to be blamed for their state.

Free Will Doesn't Exist: Fat people can't help their state, but neither can the people choosing to blame them for it. Net result: The Illusion of Free Will is maintained.

>>3224087
people can actively change their personalities, as well as make choices that are our of character. your argument is just blame dodging.

yes
unless your account of free will depends on hidden dualist frameworks (the vast majority of physicalist hard determinists fall in this category, which is very very ironic.)

once the will is put in proper perspective and you see that freedom without necessity is an incoherent concept, "free will" becomes the most uninteresting topic in all metaphysics

Whether or not fat people should be blamed for being fat has nothing to do with free will. If blaming them causes them to change their eating habits, then we should blame them, if not, then not.

>If not, should fat people be blamed for their eating habits?
No. I blame God. If God disappears, fat people will die.

>>3224092
I never denied that, I was only illustrating how people can use their mechanical behavior to justify their actions and shortcomings.

>>3224078
I wasn't supporting determinism, or proving it, just saying that someone becoming "sufficiently aware of what's really behind their thoughts and actions and [making] changes accordingly" doesn't contradict determinism, as their actions would still have been predetermined.

In the case of determinism, he had what he percieved to be a choice, but was forever destined to make the one choice he did because his life and how he figured he should act was constructed on a concretely (retroactively) determined line of causality.

>>3224087
Metaphysical determinism is just the statement that everything will go a single course, and is predetermined. We're slaves to what has effected us, but we've constructed 'free will' and 'blame' as a separate thing.

Supposing a criminal does something, that action is the result of everything he's ever been exposed to, and all that has comprised him. 'Everything he's ever been exposed to, and all that has comprised him' is essentially his identity. When 'blame' is ascribed to those things, it is still ascribed to him.

>You are your personality, we're blaming that.

It's cool that you've all read plato and shit but guys, Schrödinger's cat, there are other realities where a fat person, like Zoey Deschanel, isn't fat but rather attractive and maybe even a successful actress, you ken me?

I think apples taste better than bananas. I have made not made the choice to like one above the other because this preference has no basis in Reason. There is no rational argument as to why I prefer one fruit over the other. A preference is irrational.

Following that, it is physically impossible for me to like a banana better than an apple, because I just happen to like apples more. I have not made a choice. My taste in fruit stems from my irrational preferences.

The same can be said of everything, as making a choice involves a preference. Therefore, free will does not exist. For example, you smoke because you prefer smoking over not smoking. This preference is irrational and involuntary.

The only exception, I suppose, is when you're faced with a choice for which you can't possibly have a preference, for example when playing Rock Paper Scissors.

9/10 raged

>>3224162
>I think apples taste better than bananas. I have made not made the choice to like one above the other because this preference has no basis in Reason.

utter bollocks. when i was a teenager i hated the taste of blue cheese; fast-forward a few years - it's one of my delicacies and favorite foods.

>>3224182
I don't that changes anything about my post. You didn't actively make a choice to like blue cheese, it just happened. I assume.

>>3224187
>I don't that
I don't think that* I really need to start proofreading my posts.

My sense of self and perception is above the illusions imposed by biology and society. I have an objective view of reality.

>>3224187
>You didn't actively make a choice to like blue cheese, it just happened. I assume.

It just happened, because I desired (free will) to give it another shot

>>3224203
You preferred giving it another shot over not giving it another shot.

>>3224143
Schrodinger's cat doesn't can't be used to prove multiple universes, dumbass.

You can argue it goes against determinism b/c of probability, but the determinist is just going to say that whatever happens was already predetermined.

You cannot prove determinism, and you cannot prove free will.

>>3224207
Your point? I don't follow. In normal circumstances one would avoid eating things he or she finds disgusting; I, on the other hand, decided to rise beyond my silly fear and try it again. What does this have to do with preference? Unless there are more than 1 preference it's classified as determinism?

>>3224231
My point is that you don't choose your preferences. Every 'choice' you make, can be boiled down to preference, because that's what a choice is: acting upon a preference. And since your preferences are not subject to choice, free will does not exist.

I don't believe in determinism because, as I understand it, it states all the events in the world are pre-determined which I don't believe is the case. I only believe humans don't possess free will as it is understood currently.

It doesn't matter if we have free will or not. You are answering an external question (i.e. the logical framework) with terms that rely on that framework.

You know the saying "you can do what you want, but you can't choose what you want"? It should be written a little differently. It should be "you WILL do what you want, and you can't choose what you want" therefore you can't choose what you do at all. Will exists in a way, but it belongs to a calculating part of what could be called "your" brain and not at all the "conscious you" that you feel exists.

You know the saying "you can do what you want, but you can't choose what you want"? It should be written a little differently. It should be "you WILL do what you want, and you can't choose what you want" therefore you can't choose what you do at all. Will exists in a way, but it belongs to a calculating part of what could be called "your" brain and not at all the "conscious you" that you feel exists.

>>3224340
Your brain is the conscious you that you feel exists.

>>3223708
Yes.
If it didn't exist, yes.

>>3224143
the thought experiment isnt a problem anymore, because the cat measures on the system

>>3223708
No.
If it didn't exist, no.

Honestly, I sometimes think it doesn't, but generally force myself to err on the side of it existing. The idea of it not existing scares some part of me, and if it doesn't then my duping myself into believing it does is also unavoidable and I am therefore guiltless. It's just easier either way to believe that I do.

>>3223784
Great logic, except when someone murders a dude just to get taken care of

>>3224369

>>3224369
People like that'd probably kill someone, regardless. Anyways, it's still not their fault (if you accept that murdering to begin with isn't their fault, though I think that if free will doesn't exist the idea of "fault" would need to be considered; if free will doesn't exist, then I'm just spouting required bullshit anyways.)

>>3224343
>you can't choose what you do at all

It's not choosing what you do, but choosing what to do.

Oh wow it's like my first epistemology class.

Anyhow libertarianism in my experience usually boils down to some dualist shit about monads, or some arbitrary line of causality.

Determinism is sort of tautological in that "I did this because I wanted to do this because I was made to want to do this so I did it and that's why." Really offering no insight to will other than "if it happened, it was always going to happened."

I personally favour the soft determinist position that regardless of whether or not there is a causal chain which determines actions and the physical process of reasoning, applying physical causality to will is rather silly.

Imagine you go into a cafeteria and ask for a key-lime pie instead of a danish custard - but wait, they ran out of danish custards five minutes ago! Even if you asked for it you wouldn't have gotten it.

When we speak of our intentions, we don't say anything of causality, we frame our actions in terms of reasons, which may be necessitated but are not invalidated by the causal chain.

Panpsychism seems unlikely. I'll go with substance dualism.

>>3223773
A fear of punishment is a factor that is likely to lessen the rate of crime, a combination of rehab and a jail system that isn't so fucked up would be the best reasonable option.

in theory free will does exist, but not in those anarchy gay crap. you're free under the law and the law is there to grant freedom to everyone and that others freedom don't interfere with yours.

>>3223708
Fat people should be blamed regardless. Homosexuality isn't chosen, but demonising faggots has kept them on the down low for centuries.

>>3224525
>hey im 12 what is this

if determinism exists, then what of the problem of buridans ass?

>starving donkey, two piles of food placed exactly 1m equidistant apart from donkey and other food pile. The donkey will starve because he cannot make the choice.

>>3223708
Yes.
>Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle
faggots

Free will exists to an extent in the realm of what's necessary for our survival (which is practically everything). Think about it. Would you be eating if it weren't for your body's need to eat? Food would not be appealing or tasty. Your body would not perceive it as such if you it wasn't a prerequisite for humans to have to eat. Now, you can decide WHAT food you eat. You can decide HOW you eat that food. But you cannot not eat.

I think the debate on free will is meaningless. I think either Sartre or de Beauvoir stated that "we're all half victims; and half aggressors". You see, we can always blame something on someone else; be it biology, society etc. etc., but so can they! Let's say you've got a guy who shot a man. He can therefore say "but, I didn't do it! my abusive dad & awful childhood caused it; I'm mentally unstable!". But then, he too has fucked up another's life, so that the victim of the crime may as well use the same reasonings to shoot someone else, etc. etc.. Ask the father if he should be blamed: He'll say the same thing; "I grew up in a bad place, so I can't be responsible". "Ask" the bad place the same question, and "it" will say "I've been in wars! I can't be blamed either". You see how the cycle goes on and on? Someone needs to break out of the chain, I think, otherwise we'll never move on.

I don't think free will can be proven or disproved. Personally I don't think I believe in it, but hear me out:, I think it's important that we all take responsibilty for what we do regardless of it. You see why?

Free will exists in precisely the same sense in which thought exists. It is meaningful to precisely the same extent to which thought is meaningful.

>>3223708
Free will exist = fat people are fat because burgers, fries, eggs, bacon and diet soda.

Free will does not exist = Regardless if they should or shouldn't, can you blame the person/society who blames fat people? No. It's God's/Allah's/Cthulthu's will that people are blaming fat people. Meaning to say the gods hate fat people.

Going back to ground zero:
Does it matter? As far as society acts, it seems to believe on its own that its citizens have free will.

>>3225331
Either way fat people should be blamed.
Let's point our fingers at them and laugh.

Being fat is not a moral failing, and does not make you a bad person

just a reminder

>>3225373
Nope, but its the output of a moral failure. Unless its obesity, being fat is the culmination of a life of excess.

>>3225373
You are fat, and you should feel fat

>>3224705
I have never seen a good answer to this problem.

>>3225460
ever seen a computer go on a loop? same principle

>>3225457
ascetic jelly-fag detected

╔═════════════════ ೋღღೋ ════════════════╗
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Repost this if ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ you are a beautiful strong determinist ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ who don’t need no free will ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
╚═════════════════ ೋღღೋ ════════════════╝

>>3225460
>donkey goes to one of the piles
>eats it
>then proceeds to eat the other
>mfw people have never seen actual donkeys doing their donkey things from their ivory towers

>>3225599
what makes him choose the first pile over the second pile? the problem is detailed so the donkey has no preference to anything at all, so he has no pre-determined choice of which pile he will choose first

>>3225466
I do not understand.

>>3225613
I don't think there's such a thing as a donkey (or any sentient being) reaching such a state of equilibrium, so it's sort of asking determinism to adhere to situations not inherent to reality. Which is like dismissing evolution theory because it doesn't account for angels.

SO DOES FREE WILL EXIST OR NOT JESUS CHRIST STOP DERAILING

determinism is always one step behind free will

>>3225752
DOES THIS ARBITRARY CONCEPT EXIST INDEPENDENTLY OF EVERYTHING ELSE OR NOT JESUS CHRIST STOP DERAILING

>>3225773
i'll fuck you up retard

Is there any way to settle this debate empirically?

>>3225752
We don't know.

But if it does exist, it would mean that some function in the brain operates on a level unbound by the causal nature of reality. And there is simply no known way to test such a thing. So the logical position is to not believe in freewill.

>>3225782
>empirically?

haha, fuck off.

╔═════════════════ ೋღღೋ ════════════════╗
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Repost this if ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ you are a beautiful strong determinist ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ who don’t need no free will ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
╚═════════════════ ೋღღೋ ════════════════╝

>>3224162
>>3224162
I see no flaws in the post of this gentleman.

>>3226498
What's wrong with that word

>>3224162
>a choice for which you can't possibly have a preference, for example when playing Rock Paper Scissors.
I have a preference for rock since scissors seem bitchy and backstabbing and paper is lame.

Because the general population aren't predisposed towards specific behaviors through inherited genetics.

>>3226592
Except they are. Why do you think stereotypes include qualities of specific personalities?

>>3226601
>I can't see sarcasm without greentext involved.

>>3226610
This is the internet. I can't hear you when you repeat out loud what you type, so without specific markers, I'm not going to be able to tell.
You sound like a brat, by the way.

>>3226619