/lit/ - Literature

If it doesn't exist then my will to believe free will exists doesn't exist
woooah

>>4658985
Get out.

Kant solved this problem

You are free to do what you were always going to do and then reflect on it afterwards.

No because all physical phenomena can be reduced to the motions of subatomic particles and these motions can be predicted by Physics.

>>4658979
I heard of some experiment where they made a guy do different things while they scanned his brain. They found out that his brain was working on the things he was supposed to do, long before he became aware of it. But the guy who made the experiment suggested that while free-will may not exist in the sense that the things you are going to are already formulated before you do them, it might exist in the sense that people are able to spontaneously abort their plans. So if that's true free-will does exist in the form of your ability to sudddenly and without reason hesitate or abandon what you were doing.

Yes, it exists. You're having the options, you're willing to do them. Even if you're determined to act like you do, there's no exclusion of free will. We're both willing AND determined to, for example, procreate. Except of course those in favor of zero growth population.

>>4658979
Absolutely not

>>4659029
>what is causality

>>4659040
The brain creating the mental activity of the will is a part of causality.

Yes and No.

We have the free will to choose amongst answers and possibilities we know about. But if I told you to choose a city in the world, it's completely unlikely that you'd choose Morton Grove, Idaho. Because you had no idea it existed, you didn't have the free will to choose it.

>>4659028
Are you retarded?

Your brain is a collection of billions of parallel computers all programmed to scan inputs constantly and fire when their particular stimulus is detected.

For instance, the parts of your brain that process visual stimulation go apeshit when they detect that something is coming at the persons face quickly, and overrides the persons "motor control" to stimulate the nervous system to a reflex

Beyond that, the PFC exists to constantly process signals that aren't hard wired. Literally there are processors in your brain that determine which other processors are important

The biggest mistake people make when thinking of the brain is they think of it as one processor with memory. It's literally billions of processors all running unique programs and fighting for control of the host body. This makes the process seem complex and random, only because you're talking about a functional system orders of magnitude more complex than the computer systems we have today

>>4659029
When you program a computer to make an "if" routine, are you giving that computer free will?

>>4658979
>does [insert concept] exist?
The answer is yes, as a concept. But it's important to note that the opposite of free will, determinism, is equally a concept.

>>4659056
My answer won't please you

>>4658979
Amateur night on /lit/.

The answer is yes.

>>4659056
No because given the same input it will always produce the same output. I think free will requires a degree of unpredictability.

>wikipedia says the greeks already had 'fully formed' positions on free will
>mfw classicist vandals

>>4659072
>Amateur night
>answer contains 1 word.

Americunt. Faggot.

My answer is as good as yours.

>>4659077
Just because a system is currently or technology impossible to predict doesn't mean it's not deterministic

>>4659066
That's because you're a moron

>create robots
>they reach the sufficient complexity for self-consciousness and decision making
>they're convinced they have free will
>they eventually realize it's actually just programming

>>4659090
You're determined to go for ad hominem arguments, I presume?

It's as >>4659077 this guy says. A computer is programmed never to think outside the box. Men think outside the box that's programmed for them. That's where art's all about.

>>4659056
No it was our will. Free will, if it exists, must be emergent to escape reduction. A machine learning algorithm might be said to have free will beyond ours.

>>4659077
A program can't have a predictable outcome, assuming it's Turing equivalent.

Of course what a lot of people are saying is, given a different universe things would have been different. Well, no shit, if things were different then they would be different. Point being you can't escape this universe and its net of causality (biggest reason IMO equality and other such topics that attempt to modularize humans fail)

>>4659056
WHY CAN'T YOUR COMPUTER HANDLE THE QUALE BRAH!

>>4659095
I can't ad hominem a literal non argument you fucking retard.

Doesn't matter either way. The end result is the same. Why debate it?

>>4659072
You sound like a tool.

>>4659104
Your mom got fucked by a nigger and another man. You want to know who's your father. Why debate it, the end result is the same?
Fag.

>>4659103
Another argument is that you're depending on science, a coherent system of models, and you're forgetting that you're thinking in mere models.

>>4659016

Your argument takes the form of the fallacy of composition, which makes me suspicious of it.

>All subatomic particles that compose the brain are individually determined to act in accordance with the laws of physics
>Therefore, the whole brain is determined, not free, in its activity

>All the subatomic particles that compose the human body are individually non-living
>Therefore, the whole human body is non-living

>All the grains of sand on a beach individually weigh less than one ounce
>Therefore, the whole beach weighs less than one ounce

Your conclusion might be true - but if it is, I think it would have to be based on a different form of argument

>>4659097
>A program can't have a predictable outcome, assuming it's Turing equivalent.
Um, what?

>A machine learning algorithm might be said to have free will beyond ours.
Too bad none exist

>>4659122
read a book

>>4659119
>>All the subatomic particles that compose the human body are individually non-living
>>Therefore, the whole human body is non-living

Well this is technically true in a physical sense because "life" is an arbitrary distinciton given to a certain long-run chemical reaction. In the realm of the physical there is no life. You're the one mixing argument types.

>>All the grains of sand on a beach individually weigh less than one ounce
>>Therefore, the whole beach weighs less than one ounce

Fallacy of the false equivalency

>>4659127
"Turing equivalency" is meaningless. Do you mean Turing completeness?

>>4659113
And you're thinking in random philosophical rantings.

>>4659110
I really don't care who my biological father is. My relationships with people are based on my experiences with them, not (this is perhaps wishful thinking) pre-conceptions regarding the importance of biological heritage. So, as you say, in the end my supposed biological father would be unimportant to me, because he'd be just a person whom I have no particular reason to care about or get to know.

>>4659137
And you're proving you can't handle this discussion.

>>4659133
Yeah, I'm being fucking dumb.

>>4659144
You're proving that you can't handle the truth!

>>4659147

>Did I end up in /b/

>>4659150
You brought it with you.
>you're proving you can't handle this discussion
Yes, your retarded false arguments and leaps of illogic are too hot for /lit/ to handle.

>>4659145
But a turing complete machine is a physical impossibility. Or to be more specific, the time required to run the program would be infinite, so even though it may check out mathematically, you're not producing a useful free will. Doesn't really help your case

>>4659128

>In the realm of the physical there is no life.

In other words, "if you focus only the microscopic and ignore the macroscopic, then there is no life"?

>You're the one mixing argument types.

All of the arguments I presented are of the same type/form.

>Fallacy of the false equivalency

What you're saying, then, is that subatomic particles of the brain have some special characteristic that allows them to bypass the fallacy of composition even when they're the subject of an argument that takes the form of the fallacy of composition.

It's up to you to explain what that characteristic is and how it leads to the avoidance of the fallacy.

>>4659154
>leaps of illogic
There's a difference between illogical leaps and the fact that you can't comprehend them. That's where you went wrong with your ad hominem arguments. "My answer won't please you" wasn't hard to comprehend, but you failed to see it: it was simply a "no".

I pity the fact that you probably can't handle any novel further than the sentences following each other.

Sure, but only on the grounds that one can act unconditioned of causality. Not only would you have to get the mind up to speed with the ever shifting present moment, but also condition it into a zero state to use as the denominator to unbind it from causal nature. Then you would have free will acting from a boundless point outside causality.

>>4658979
It exists as a concept, just like 'unfree' will. Nothing prohibits us from thinking what we would do given certain circumstances such as freedom. To think otherwise would be pretty much wrong. However it does not mean that things wouldn't end up certain way anyway. Whether or not will you actually act according to your will is another question that is up for science to be answered, but if your decisions are truly about something that matters to you, then probably yes.

>>4659159
>In other words, "if you focus only the microscopic and ignore the macroscopic, then there is no life"?

No, I mean, life is arbitrary and can only be understood by life. There is only a material difference between life and death, we only ascribe it meaning arbitrarily.

>All of the arguments I presented are of the same type/form.

False equivalency

>What you're saying, then, is that subatomic particles of the brain have some special characteristic that allows them to bypass the fallacy of composition even when they're the subject of an argument that takes the form of the fallacy of composition.

We're in the physical realm here, at least try to work within that model.

First off, you're comparing physical properties of matter (mass based on atomic properties) to the predictability of subatomic particles. Predictability is not a physical property of anything, it's an abstract concept.

Simply, the 3rd argument in your list is of a different type but has the same structure, there is no equivalency with predictability and the mass of matter

Also, we can't say that particles are not deterministic. You're confusing technical limitations that make true prediction of subatomic particles impossible, with whether or not they actually are.

>>4659167
>implying I'm mom
>implying mom was arguing for the existence of free will
>implying mom would be displeased with you agreeing with him
>>You're determined to go for ad hominem arguments, I presume
>>that's where you went wrong with your ad hominem arguments
>proceeds to use ad hominem in place of argument
Not sure if retarded or bad troll, but I think I'll wash my hands of this discussion regardless.

>>4658979
>We just don't know.bird.gif
If it does exist, then no need to worry. Keep on willing freely.

If it doesn't exist, then don't worry, you didn't have any say in the matter.

>>4659169
This, this actually makes sense.

>>4659186
There's actually a fairly solid scientific case to be made that there isn't, and nothing but a philosophical argument or a utilitarian argument for it.

In this case I'm going to trust science over the ideas of dead philosophers being repeated by random people on the internet

>>4659173
Forgot to add this excellent argument for compatibilism.

http://www.optimal.org/peter/freewill.htm

>>4658979
Define "Exist"

>>4659190
*insert tipping of the fedora to you here, dear sir!

>>4659194
Stop shitposting, it really drags down the board.

>>4659198
NOU

>>4659198
Ignoring it would certainly help.

>>4659206
WEL WEL WEL

>>4659169
>YFW you just described the five senses and the human soul

>>4659212
>yfw I described buddhism from a mathematical standpoint
It's all the same anyway.

>>4659220
>mathematical standpoint

>>4658979
Yes, "if men were what they should be, could be, if all men were rational, all loved each other as brothers," then it would be a paradisiacal life. —All right, men are as they should be, can be. What should they be? Surely not more than they can be! And what can they be? Not more, again, than they—can, i. e. than they have the competence, the force, to be. But this they really are, because what they are not they are incapable of being; for to be capable means—really to be. One is not capable for anything that one really is not; one is not capable of anything that one does not really do. Could a man blinded by cataract see? Oh, yes, if he had his cataract successfully removed. But now he cannot see because he does not see. Possibility and reality always coincide. One can do nothing that one does not, as one does nothing that one cannot.

>>4659224
Yes, using math.

>>4659226
Elaborate

>>4658979
No.

>>4659040
THIS

>>4659230
The higher jhanas describe various infinitudes culminating in a state of nothingness. A zero state. Now, it's my theory that nibbana (unbinding) as metaphorically explained though flame being unbound from an extinguished source is the same thing as the mathematical boundless state that occurs when you divide by zero.

So you create a zero state in your mind for this equation to occur, divide by zero, and then everything coming from it is unconditioned. You are no longer bound by causality.

>>4659252
...and then anon was enlightened.

>>4659252
Sounds like a lot of poppycock

>>4659257
Only one way to find out. The problem is, I've been a horrible person over the years and don't have the proper foundation to achieve even basic samadhi. I've spent the whole time doing mental gardening instead of sitting in the grass.

>>4659262
So if I sit cross-legged and do nothing for long enough I can become unbound from causality and do the impossible?

>>4659252
Poe's law in full effect right here.

>>4659252
That's free, but there's no will.

>>4659190
>There's actually a fairly solid scientific case to be made that there isn't
;)

>>4659357
>muh science can be completely denied and ignored because I can say the words "philosophy of science"

do idiots like you actually exist, or are you some sort of elaborate troll?

>>4659192
Good shit.

>Mod 404s right wing lit thread
>This thread still on front page with the same copy pasted posts everyone has seen before

>>4659370
>As long as I say "muh science" I can say pretty much whatever I want.

Do idiots like you actually exist, or are you some sort of elaborate troll?

bump

>>4659651
fuck you

fucking shitty tripfags and their useless shit threads

I personally think, for whats its worth at this point, that because humans are capable of making unpredictable decisions, that implies a degree of free will. That might be a very erudite and simplistic understanding of the matter, but its what I think

>>4659666
Nice trips. Still retarded. Welcome to the filter.

Yes buzzwords exist.

>>4659679
what if my picture was of some dead european philosopher? or a classical painting? would it have been better then? so tired of hypocritical people who dont approve of LE ANY THREAD ON MYYY /LIT/!!!!!!!!!!!

>>4659686
Cancer personified.

>>4659686
>unpredictable decisions

>>4659692
>>4659697
your going to drive people away with your superiority complexes

It's "free" insofar as individuals exist
And it's "will" insofar as choice exists whether in reality or in the mind.
So yes it exists.
Further examination amounts to questioning all decisions as result of manipulation and an infinite regress of reasoning occurs.

>>4659700
Sooner rather than later, please.

bump :)

In so far as you can have it.
>Spinoza'd
bitch

>>4659730
>>4659703
Kind of a hivemind

>>4659119
I don't think that's a fallacy of composition. If the body is composed of elements that are physical and subject to determinate physical laws, then the whole body is physical and subject to determinate physical laws.

Some collections of things have properties that the things alone do not (a H2O molecule is not a liquid, for example). I don't think that's the case here. I don't think you can put things that don't have free will together in a way that gives rise to free will.

>>4659700
ability to criticize a claim has nothing to do with ones opinion of themselves vs everyone else.

>>4659095
It's all in "the box" though friend. We cannot think outside the limits of human perception. All men are programmed in one way or another, we just have a much larger means with which to obtain programming than a computer.

There is free will, just not in the stupid way most of the public thinks there is

I'm just going to wait and find out.

>>4659225
was there anything he didn't have the answer to?

>>4659252

Dividing by zero is not a 'boundless state.' Quite the opposite, it's a limit within mathematics. It is undefined; we simply don't know what it means to divide by zero.

No. Mostly because >>4659773 and because being free in the most absolute sense of the word would imply that agent a would have an infinite set of options to choose from without any pressure to decide one way or the other or at all. Infinity or rather limitlessness is self-contradicting, therefore we can't have free will. One might think that we're free to choose whether to drink milk or water etc but all that can be reduced to matter acting causally according to a set of rules (of nature) in my opinion.

>>4658979
No.

Source: Sam Harris' "Free Will"

>>4659841

http://www.naturalism.org/Dennett_reflections_on_Harris%27s_Free_Will.pdf

Oh, Sam. You child.

>>4659888
Sam wasn't writing for the philosophers, like this article assumes, he was writing for the general public, who's idea of "free will" is very different and not as well though out as philosophy's. Harris's claims of the non exiostence of free will are perfectly comparable with philosophy's claims of the existence of it.

>>4659897

comparable = compatible*

>>4659897

>Harris' claims of the non-existence, etc.

>The bookis, thus, valuable as a compact and compelling expression of an opinion widely shared by eminent scientists these days.It is also valuable, as I will
show, as a veritable museum of mistakes, none of them new and all of them
seductive—alluring enough to
lull the critical faculties of this host of brilliant thinkers who do not make a profession of thinking about free will. And, to be sure, these mistakes have also been made, sometimes for centuries, by philosophers themselves. But I think
we have made some progress in philosophy of late, and Harris and others need to do their homework if they want to engage with the best thought on the topic.

Harris isn't even conversant in the topic in which he's speaking, so falls into some pretty obvious conceptual and even logical traps, which are what Dennet spends most of his review pointing out.

Thats a misleading question. Check your concepts.

>>4658979
Why do people hate criminals so much if there is no free will?

>>4660196

Surely a murderer who was doing the only ting he could do has nor right to be hated.

>>4659666

Unpredictability has nothing to do with free will. If you could predict the future and alter your will to do the opposite of what is the predicted that is no proof of a free will, only further proof of determinism.

>>4660196
People that hate criminals are the kind that believe in free will, a.k.a. the kind that is wrong.

>>4660402
Our whole justice system is based on free will, and that the criminal could have acted otherwise.

>>4660196
If punishment was exacted simply by telling the criminal: "it's ok. You did not do it, it was determined from the beginning. There is no retribution or rehabilitation for you." There would be crime everywhere. Conditioning with punishment and reward is something that WORKS

I don't know what people believe their "self" is if they do not think it is the same thing as the brain and the behavior of the brain. Whatever they think it is, they think it should not be blamed for the behavior of the brain it is synonymous with, which I think is silly.

In terms of free will, determinism is an IRRELEVANT concept.

>>4659773
>I don't think you can put things that don't have free will together in a way that gives rise to free will.
>the body has to be composed of things with physical laws
>therefore free will does not exist for humans because the bodies components obey physical laws
how is this not the fallacy of composition

>>4660426
>In terms of free will, determinism is an IRRELEVANT concept.


Please clarify.

>>4660413
>Our whole justice system is based on free will, and that the criminal could have acted otherwise.
there is no difference
if his actions were predetermined the punishment should be the same

>>4660426
>Conditioning with punishment and reward is something that WORKS


Well then why does every academic report on the subject that comes out say the death penalty is not a deterrent? Surely if punishment can condition people against crime, the harshest punishment should be most effective.

Wittgenstein (in TLP):
>>5.1362 The freedom of the will consists in the fact that future actions cannot be known now. We could only know them if causality were an inner necessity, like that of logical deduction.—The connexion of knowledge and what is known is that of logical necessity.
>(“A knows that p is the case” is senseless if p is a tautology.)

>>4660448

Fair enough, but it is irrational to hate the criminal. For example when people hope that the prisoner gets his comeuppance in prison.

>>4660460
See >>4660208

Wittgenstein didn't think that through.

>>4660467
>Fair enough, but it is irrational to hate the criminal.
then it is irrational to hate anything
hatred is a driving force that causes things to happen
i dont think its necessary to undermine someones hatred of a criminal

>>4660482
>then it is irrational to hate anything

It is. Does a person hate a shark for biting his leg, even though the shark was doing what was natural for it. That person would be insane.

>>4660460
>5.1362

>>4660475
But can you really describe a world in which that is possible? It seems to play free will against determinism without either winning out.
Anscombe's "Aristotle and the Sea Battle" is useful, I think:
>Aristotle thinks that it is necessity that the sun will rise, Wittgenstein says that we do not know that the sun will rise; and that the events of the future cannot be inferred logically from those of the present. But he also says that we could not say of a world not going according to law how it would look. So though he thinks that anything describable can happen, he would enquire whether the sun's not rising tomorrow is a describable event. So why does he say we do not know that the sun will rise? Not, I think, because the facts may falsify the prediction, but because there may not be any more facts: as in death the world does not change, but stops.

>>4660493
>That person would be insane.
>it is insane to hate something that destroyed a part of you
i dont know about that "natural" or not. it isnt unreasonable to hate a deterministic system.
just because something is natural doesnt mean we shouldnt dislike it

>>4660493
I've hated table legs for less.

>>4660459
That's beside the point, because it's fairly obvious that at least some form of reward/punishment system works

>>4660453
The free will that I believe exists gives "us" the ability (us being the exact same thing as our brains structure) to modify our choices and observe the environment. Because this is something that happens, our choices are something that actually occurs, there is no "illusion" of choice.

Is our brain making decisions, yes. Are the decisions are brain makes determined by determinism? Yes. But does that lessen the value of the concept of "making decisions"? No, I don't think so anyway

>>4660467
feelings of hatred are just another part of the reward/punishment conditioning system. Averseive feelings toward people can be useful and can deter the prisoner away from doing something like that again

>>4660563

Recidivism rates don't suggest that.

>>4660467
But them hating it is natural too, nobody can help anything.

>>4660563
>The free will that I believe exists gives "us" the ability (us being the exact same thing as our brains structure) to modify our choices and observe the environment. Because this is something that happens, our choices are something that actually occurs, there is no "illusion" of choice.

That is exactly deterministic.

>>4660570
>Recidivism

Recidivism is something that exists, but so is conditioning with reward/punishment, so recidivism alone can't make a good argument against some actions having consequences.

>>4660574

Yes they can, once they are programmed with certain data.

not going to bother to read

has anyone defined free will yet

>>4660576
and so I think free will can exist alongside determinism

>>4660196
they can't help it

>>4660493
What do you think hate is exactly? If something hurts you, then you are aware that it has the potential to hurt you again. As a result you see that thing as something that could potentially hurt you. You dislike hurt, so you dislike things that cause you hurt. How is that irrational?

Can someone give me an example of freewill existing in a human being?

>>4660715
their actions

>>4660727
Can you give a more specific example in a context please.

The Nietzschean response would be no, you cannot have a truly free will, as willpower is simply a mechanism ranking the hierarchy of drives to take different actions/decisions. There is no way to act without being influenced.

The answer to your question is that it does not matter. If we believe that we have free will, it is essentially the same as having free will. And the converse is also applicable.

However, the question I find wholly more stimulating is how much our actions are caused by external forces. Obviously our birth circumstances have some control over our destiny, but how much control do we ourselves have?

Thirdly, I have conflicted feelings towards the chaos theory. Yes, it may seem like small actions can affect our lives in huge ways, but I think that had that small action not been performed, one would still head in the same direction regardless. Maybe the small things really don't make a difference (sometimes).

This debate has taken the wrong turn early on.

"Free will" is free from what?

It's as if people saw themselves as something apart from the world around them. It's not that there are things that determine how you'll act, they are part of yourself. Our will most certainly exist and the source of it is whatever you call "I". This is neither free nor captive of anything, for it is the culmination of all else, an expression of the universe around us. And from then on, it is in our hands to make the choices and engage in the game.

What is there to determine the way the universe behaves?

Laws? The laws comes later, they are rationalizations of what we see on how the universe behaves and nothing can see the whole from inside of it to tell. The universe neither obeys nor commands, it is as it is. Determinism is an abstraction.

We may be locked up inside several layers of cages: our history, our society, our bodies. But freedom must not be confused as from being separate from the rest of reality, for the universe is not a cage. Through enhanced consciousness we may be aware of some of these shackles and use our will to go against the odds and seek freedom from them. But the goal is not to seek freedom from the universe itself, as much as meaningless as it is to escape reality. Instead, it is about resonating with the rest of the universe on a more essential level, to realize that you are part of it. Neither to obey or command and to release yourself from the prison of this idea.

>>4660783
>whether people are responsible for their actions doesn't matter
>being able to theoretically completely predict everything doesn't matter

>>4660792
yes, nicely said.

>>4660792
>muh solipsism

>>4660792
>And from then on, it is in our hands to make the choices and engage in the game.

>And from then on, it is in our hands to make the choices and engage in the game.

The choices were made long ago, there is only accepting

>>4660851

This.

Coelho shit.

>>4660851
>what is solipsism

>>4660851
Far from it.

>>4660792

If you scrunch up a wrapper of a chocolate bar into a ball and release it, it can only unfold on the creases made scrunching it up, it can not form new crease and unfold anyway it likes. That is the universe.

>>4660856
They were most certainly not. As much as the options in a store are not the choices you make as you enter it. You may have to accept the limitations for the given time, but they are only choices as you make them.

All that matters is that I will something. Why I will it makes no difference. It shall be obeyed regardless.

>>4660870
Yes they were.

>>4660869
But there is no one who scrunched it.

>>4660877
Ok don't take it literally, it could be a flower in it's bulb, it can only bloom in one way.

>>4660869
And the idea that it could is absurd, just as the idea that people are free from the laws of the universe is absurd

but there is free will.

no

>>4660881
I'm not taking it literally. I like these metaphors, I think they speak of how we relate to the world better than most other ways to say it.

My point is that there is no creator or law outside of the universe. The flower obeys the bulb as the bulb obeys the stem and so on back to the flower again, there is no real authority. Even though it blooms in one way, it is not determined by something outside of itself. It is it. In the first metaphor, there is a clear distinction between scruncher and scrunched, which I don't agree. It can only be in one way, I concur, but it is an everlasting process in itself, not a reaction to something outside of it and I think there is a key difference there.

>>4660869
What if the creases were aware they were creases, and therefor aware they were unfolding, does that change anything? Is what is causing the crease to be aware a smaller crease unfolding within a crease causing the self-aware crease to be self-aware?

>>4660436
You say that it is fallacious to argue that if all actions of particles of the brain are determined, then so is the action of the brain. However, can we agree that "the action of the brain" is synonymous with a list of all actions of particles within the brain, whereas "the weight of the beach" is synonymous not with "the weight of an individual grain of sand on the beach" but with "the sum of the weights of all grains of sand on the beach"? If so, then I believe we have bypassed the fallacy, since "the action of the brain is determined" is now synonymous with "the actions of all particles within the brain are determined."

Depends on your definition of 'free'.

I'm fairly determinist, but I can believe that there exists the ability to choose from a limited field of options.

>>4661034
>fairly determinist
w-what the fuck

Explain the process of choosing from this limited field of options that shows that it was not predetermined what you were going to choose.

>>4659888
Poor old Dennett, go to bed. Your feeble old mind is no match for my youthful mind.

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-marionettes-lament

>>4659225
If you read the context around this, you can notice Stirner make the mistake all incompatibilists from the Greeks on made: That because all things cause other things, human behaviour is 100% predictable from smaller bits.

This is a vestige of belief in an omniscient god that put things into motion. Newton's oversight of the three body problem was precisely because of this, and looking at it closer eventually led to our understanding of modern complexity.

In reality, understanding the smaller bits is not be possible by humans, so downward causation of human behaviour would end at larger scale patterns in a deterministic universe. Our will would be free of small bits, but still capable of asserting will in the same universe as them, and affecting them.

Not to say he's not useful or worth reading. Reading it on a park bench whilst sipping a latte can impress other posers.

>>4661055

>values are an object of the natural sciences

yeah, okay kiddo, whatever you say.

>>4661381
We're talking about Free Will here, not The Moral Landscape.

>guy is wrong about x so he must be therefore be wrong about y

shiggydiggydoo

>>4661047
You're not predetermined to do shit.

>>4661384

we were really just comparing the dick sizes of Dennett and Harris, but--

the notion of free will is as fraught as the notion of causality, so to construct any case against the former using some deduction from the principle of the latter is try and build a castle out of sand. (or tear it down, maybe--what's accomplished in either case?)

That the arguments for Free Will and The Moral Landscape are meant to complement each other, even support one another, I think it enough to find fault with one to condemn the other. But both could be deconstructed on their own.

>>4661381
Then what are they?

>>4661425

they aren't objects, period.

>>4661427
You didn't answer the question.

>>4661451

>what is thing (x)

(x) isn't a thing, so I can't very well tell you what it is, now can I?

>>4661457
>implying existence requires being a thing
>being unaware of functionalism
>obscuring the issue
>being an obscurantist
>any century
>ever

>>4661463

>implying i'm making a predication error

>implying I was suggesting values weren't "real

>implying being an object doesn't require being a thing

>implying that's not a tautology

>misunderstanding and so misapplying the term functionalism

>>4661471
>>4661463

should read >implying i'm the one making the predication error.

Nothing in life is free! /capitalism

>>4661471
Hey guys I called something a value and that means its covered in a magic shield. Automatically now, and never will be science. No take backsies.

This post is green text. Forgot the may may arrow. Oopsies!

>>4658979
I paid $20 for it

If free will exists we are determined.
to want something is to feel a need to do something greater than all the fears of doing it. Wanting to do something, is actually just a not yet realized action. It is evident that we have to want something at any point, even if it is doing nothing, since we can't decide on an action, doing nothing hereby becomes the action itself.
what we want is determined by who we are. If we accept that we are anyone at all, which is needed to make a decision, which is needed to have free will that actually possesses meaning, we also accept, that what we want is already determined by who we are, rather than anything else.
it might be arguable that thinking isn't predetermined, regardless of our personalty and logical thinking defies this personality. To those I simply say, that this might be true, but what we want is something inherently place upon desire. Even if I determine something to be the right thing by logical thought, without a desire to act upon that thought, it becomes meaningless toward,my actions.
combining all arguments, we can draw the conclusion, that free will, means we will act upon others r desires, of which the strngest, if we have to decide, is what we want, against which we cannot act. Furthermore our desires are,predetermines by who we are and we are someone since a being without personality couldn't posses free will in the first place, since it could never decide upon anything, or would be completely determined by logic,but not by itself
therefore the very concept of free will is a concept of being determined.
typed on my phone.

>>4661520

just trading like for like. if you wanted a serious conversation you should have indicated such by taking a position, explaining your reasoning for taking that position, and trying to convince me that I should take it as well.

evaluative propositions are not about the world, they are more like statements about how the world should be. they do not pick out objects in the world, which would be verifiable, but seek to place a limit on it.

>>4658979
yes

>>4662285
Come off it faggot.

Human values are held for reasons. How effective they are at meeting these reasons can be studied, and which ones form, and the reasons they do can be studied. Sam Harris was wrong though, but because this science already exists.

Feminists study what makes men most likely to support their rape panics (There's a reason liberal media and Reddit started pushing male rape as a concern, where before feminist jurisprudence didn't even bother acknowledging it or defined it away). There are studies on whether color blindness or acknowledging differences leads to more tolerance. Studies on how tolerant people are on whether they think being gay is biological or not. Studies on when what triggers unconscious discrimination and whether it exists. Violent video games. etc etc etc.

>>4662517

You seem confused. The examples you give are, when they're relevant, about the probability of whether a given individual within a population will hold some value--i.e. whether they have a "belief" that ethical proposition p is "true." The inquiry isn't into the content of the proposition (there isn't any)--it's into the "belief" about the proposition.

>>4662751

>there isn't any content that a natural scientist actually doing natural science would be interested in

to be more accurate

>>4662770
Folk psychology.

>>4662868

Yes, you're describing, in part, the study of "folk psychology."

Good, glad you're starting to understand.

Will exists, free will doesn't.

>>4662895
Harris argues from a sort of consequentalism, not that truth values are an morality. You haven't read him have you? lol

Why do so little who think they can speak on Harris seem to have read him?

>>4663036

He argues that "science"--whatever he means by that term--is able to give us objective moral values. Another way to say this is that there are ethical propositions, these propositions are about some fact(s) of the world, and so have a truth value. This is a meta-ethical position, a form of moral realism.

You can be a consequentilist and at the same time hold either a view of moral realism or of anti-realism. Neither betokens a contradiction.

>>4659028
Benjamin Libet

>>4660869
This is what reductionists actually believe. The entire universe is comparable to a balled up piece of paper. Determinism is a sham. There's uncertainty at the quantum level.