• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: Xorkoth | Madness

Free Will?

the idea of a just punishment is to give the offender a feel for the pain he caused to others in his doing. a punishment should always be in an as strict equality of quantity as possible. for this reason. Not to let an offender know of the harm he caused would be inethical to the offender himself, as well as the victims. one can only truly express ones regrets if one understands the pain caused. in order to understand that pain, one must get a 'feel' for it. also not punishing the offender would be denying him a chance to mend his ways, because he may never have to face the pain he causes. as such, he may never come to understand the pleasure he could take in doing the right thing, because noone would tell him what he does is wrong and there are more fruitful ways to (genuine) enjoyment then by hurting others.
 
to be aware of something, one must be able to escape that something of which it is aware.

Why? Sorry, I really don't see how this needs to be the case?

in a determinite universe, where does this idea of freedom come from? self-awareness is freedom.it is something that is not what it is aware of (ie. Sartres 'Néant' (lit.: "non-being")

This all just sounds like sophistry to me :D (reminds me of the ontological argument a little).

I'm quite happy thinking that notions of freedom can absolutely exist within a deterministic universe, that my ideas of freedom are patterns of neural connections and electrical activity across them within my brain, which is a deterministic biological computer, albeit a hugely complex one.

there is no real way to tell if another human being is self-aware,

Yes, I can not know whether another human is self-aware, but that is not the same as saying 'only I am aware' (which is the solipsistic position). I happen to believe that other humans are aware, and I believe all sorts of other stuff, though I can't have absolute knowledge of any of it - I tend believe the general model of reality that my deterministic brain has built, largely because it's self consistent and I've got nothing else to go on, but I can conceive that I may be being deceived somehow, say by some malevolent entity.

you see, you need a closed system to seperate your self awareness (=freedom) from the deterministic world; to prevent there from being a free will, and maintain only the 'will' (if you can call it that) or laws of the deterministic system.

Sorry, I really 'don't see' - this is not a priori to me!;)

as for morality, your self-awareness may be able to judge determined processes happening to it as good or bad. but it would be a degenerate subjectivism.

Who says it would be degenerate? That's a fairly emotive word to use there!

you can only judge pertaining your own relative position. you can only say this is good or bad, insofar as what is happens to do to me alone. you see, a deterministic event is not good or bad by itself, intrinsically.

Yes, I agree, but one might take a utilitarian view point and say that events or actions that cause pain or suffering are bad(of course, you don't have to take this view point, but it seems like a sensible starting point and one that most people would find reasonable).

when a certain building collapses in such a way due to causal laws that it crushes someone, you cannot say "that is one mean, bad building"

Of course there is a difference between a bad event and what some people might think of as bad actions that are the result of 'evil intent'. I would say in the above case that the collapse of the building was a bad event, in so far as it caused pain and suffering.

Given that you do not have acces to others' self-awareness, your ethical judgement of their actions becomes meaningless. they have no personal influence on their actions, therefor no intention, and as such, their actions remain morally neutral causal consequences. furthermore, given that the self has no willful action whatsoever, how can you hold anyone responsable for his deeds?

Yes, that, in a roundabout way, is my view.

is it ethically responsable to punish some presumably there awareness for a deed that is not his own, but rather a consequence of the determinism of the universe?

No. Rather than being unethical, it would be meaningless. There is however, the saying that "a horse thief is not hanged for stealing a horse, but to prevent others from doing so".
 
Last edited:
Azzazza, it doesn't seem as if you have a clear understanding of determinism and lack a solid argument defending freewill.

Mr. Wobble, I too was a staunch believer in full blown determinism and the whole mechanistic universe and timeless-block universe theory. I concluded that everything has a preset fate via the natural laws of physics, in that all matter, including the human brain, is but a product of the universe and subjected to act accordingly to these physical laws which assumes an infinite chain-reaction, as every action (from the most minute sub-atomic particle) is sparked as a reaction to another action which sparks an eternal reaction.

So as determinism would dictate: as humans, we are made out of quarks, including the brain to which our consciousness comes from. So choice/freewill/volition is all but an illusion that only feels as if we possess from inside the algorithm. Knowledge, beliefs, memories, and experiences are just part of our brain's makeup. External stimuli causes reactions with the brain on a microscopic level which produces our thoughts and behaviors. So in actuality your belief in determinism is because of determinism, and not out of choice.

All of this is just the general concept of determinism. I no longer hold such ideas to be true as I have found certain loopholes. One flaw being that determinism is based under the premise of classical physics and how we are now discovering more axioms within quantum physics to which are suggesting that a single neuron has a countless number of possible states, as the changes in activity is a spectrum, meaning that the neuron's state is incalculable or indeterminable.

Also the belief in omniscience created by hindsight in conjunction with principles of physics creates a greater psychological plausibility of concluding determinism. Regardless of what occurs, there will always be a physical explanation of how it actually occurred in terms of physical necessity. But the truth of the explanation of its occurrence is derived from the facts and is not the explanation that caused the facts. Physical explanations incorporates choices as facts and it is not a physical explanation that makes choices into facts. The notion of explanations or predictions causing facts is essentially an appeal to primacy of consciousness and an error.
 
All of this is just the general concept of determinism. I no longer hold such ideas to be true as I have found certain loopholes. One flaw being that determinism is based under the premise of classical physics and how we are now discovering more axioms within quantum physics to which are suggesting that a single neuron has a countless number of possible states, as the changes in activity is a spectrum, meaning that the neuron's state is incalculable or indeterminable.

Yes - I find this a more plausible counter argument (yes, loophole is a good word ;) )to my hard determinist view. I am aware of the strangeness of the quantum world - the superposition of quantum states that you mention and I did mention the apparently random behaviour (uncaused agency) of the radioactive decay of atomic nuclei. There are, though, deterministic interpretations for quantum behaviour - but I wouldn't claim to understand them =D (then who truly understands QM?).
 
I am not a determinist. I believe in a creative power outside of our limited scope of our perception in this material universe. However, free will is a matter of perception. On some level, everything is cause and effect, but the cause might not be limited only to those chemical and physical processes that we can understand with science.
 
Why? Sorry, I really don't see how this needs to be the case?
This all just sounds like sophistry to me :D (reminds me of the ontological argument a little).

it is the subject-object relation. to be aware of an object means that something (the awareness itself) escapes that object. it itself is free from the object. take it to be the empty space in your mind in which the object appears. if this were not fundamentally an empty ('free') space, but filled entirely with the object it views, it would be the object, and thus not aware. the subject is not the object. it represents an object within itself. it reconstructs it (quite convincingly, apperantly) within itself on the basis of sensory data in recieves. as such, awareness is essential a non-being, an emptyness. when the awareness takes itself as its 'object', it becomes aware of this freedom, emptyness that it is.


Sorry, I really 'don't see' - this is not a priori to me!;)

it hinges on understanding my previous point; that the subject is not the object itself. the subject does not view the world an sich. your subjectivity itself is not what it it is aware of. your subjectivity is not an object! you, that what is you, is not an object, you are a person. subject does not equal object. 'being aware' is not the same thing as 'being aware of something'

the incompatibilist can only do maintain his position by seperaing this 'self' from a will. thus it cannot have direct influence.



Who says it would be degenerate? That's a fairly emotive word to use there!
its not used in the emotive sense, its degenerate because it can logically pertain to only one subject, instead of the usual 'all subjects'.


No. Rather than being unethical, it would be meaningless. There is however, the saying that "a horse thief is not hanged for stealing a horse, but to prevent others from doing so".

what good would a deterrent be if people have no influence on their actions?

philocybin; it may seem that way. i am however very well aware of this 'intuitional determinism'. i've been there. it has a serious problem. and im trying to point it out. this kind of 'determinism' does not really exist philosophically speaking. you will not see any self-respecting philosopher defending it like that. it is ill-defined. the position is simply not philosophically viable this way. as soon as you are able to discern your subject from your object, this 'intuitional determinism' collapses. it is completely inconsistent and contradictory. you are overlooking a fundamental categorical distinction.

also introducing something as QM would make it 'soft-determinism'. which is less riddled with the extreme consequences of hard determinism. yet it cannot really say that the introduced 'uncertainty/coincidence' is anything other then an other term for 'free will'.
 
Last edited:
All of this is just the general concept of determinism. I no longer hold such ideas to be true as I have found certain loopholes. One flaw being that determinism is based under the premise of classical physics and how we are now discovering more axioms within quantum physics to which are suggesting that a single neuron has a countless number of possible states, as the changes in activity is a spectrum, meaning that the neuron's state is incalculable or indeterminable.

that can only hold true if you make the assumption that we have no influence whatsoever upon the order, and are merely puppets experiencing phantom string syndrome.

to say that we're subservient to the order is, imho, just a mindfuck cop-out for those that wholeheartedly want to believe in determinism. i mean, how did you establish that in the first place? what evidence is there to indicate that we are subservient to the order instead of influencial within it?

animals are forced to live ruthlessly by their instincts, but we have always had a choice... a number of ways in which to tackle the same situation. it may be that our end is determined, but there is always plenty left for us to decide along the path to the end. what evidence do i have for that? simple: we each have the potential to become someone else. how can our lives be preordained if we have the power to make or break ourselves no matter what path we're on?
 
-are you the computer that you are looking at? if so, how can you become something else once you turn your head? how would the computer that is you turn your head in the first place? not your body mind you, the computer itself you are looking at. furthermore, i wasn't aware that any object you look at suddonly become self-aware. with your awareness nota bene! god forbid another person coming into your line of sight, he'd become you! me, me, me! you really want to argue that there exists no otherness to yourself?

i also wonder how you have a visual perspective.

also, if you do not accept this, you just found a way to refute solipsism. you have an indestructable bridge between your mind and the world registered by your senses. in fact you are the world. feel free to defend that in a philosophical magazine. you'll be famous. not only that, you just solved the entire mind-body problem as well!
 
Last edited:
we each have the potential to become someone else. how can our lives be preordained if we have the power to make or break ourselves no matter what path we're on?

But the deterministic interpretation would say that the very desire to change one's life would be pre determined.

And I'm not saying that the deterministic view is necessarily true - I certainly can't prove it to be so - it's just the model that makes the most sense to me.
 
your bridge!

when you say you are the objects, you have two options:
1. im identical with the world. you have an irrefutable bridge between your mind and body. you have effectively terminated all ortherness in favour of your own limited perspective and awareness. you should be omniscient! since you are everything.
2 solipsism itself. there is no world outside myself, im a brain in a vat.
 
Last edited:
So, I would say 1.

That said, I'm not sure what 'mind' is (a collection of desires? a propensity to act?) - I'm not proposing mind/body dualism.
 
^heres the pickle lol

both options are the same thing

there is no other whatsoever, the only thing that exists is my self!

'mind' is the non-local, a-temporal representation of things. an object has a space and time. a mental image does not. it is not like a mini chair or whatever 'in the wood', as exactly the same thing it is in the outside world suddonly bursts into your brain.

you've got to be kidding me, no?
 
Last edited:
I'm still not at all clear about the concept that you're trying to communicate - that you feel that there is a indeed fundamental concept is coming across loud and clear, but I'm just not getting it - that's either because I'm slow on the uptake, or your failing on the explanation part (or a bit of both).

Can you point to any links that explain this further?
 
And ... I don't desire fame, whether or not it found in the pages of 'philosophical magazines'. ;)
 
what happens when you set eyes on another person? are you that person? are you completely aware of him in his totality? are you his person? is there no other mind then your own? since your egoic self is actually God, i wonder why you took offense to my referencing to you in my first post in this thread?

also, since you're here, i would like to ask you this question i find unaswered as of yet. How does an evil intention really come into Being? or in your christian words; How could Adam have come to decide to sin if he lived in paradise, and was not shorted of anything he wished for?
 
i know it is a difficult concept. it took me a lot of time to truly grasp what it means, and i will not assume i grasp it all the way down. but its there; you cannot possibly deny that. (save for solipsism). if you accept there is an outside world, you accept there is a difference in your percieving it and this world itself. it is after all, outside.

another way of illustrating the difference is this. a subject percieving an object is (realively) unproblematic. but lets fill in the subject itself as its object. the minute the subject takes the subject itself as is subject, you have an infinite regression:

you get: a subject that is subject of a subject that is subject of a subject that is subject of a subject that is subject of a subject that is subject of a subject that is subject of a subject that is subject of a subject....

alternatively, close your eyes. ignore your senses. quiet your thoughts. is there still someting? or just empty space?

heres the wiki page on it, for starters
 
Last edited:
since your egoic self is actually God, i wonder why you took offense to my referencing to you in my first post in this thread?

I didn't take offence - I just don't believe in God or Gods.

also, since you're here, i would like to ask you this question i find unaswered as of yet. How does an evil intention really come into Being? or in your christian words; How could Adam have come to decide to sin if he lived in paradise, and was not shorted of anything he wished for?

My 'christian words', Adam and Eve, original sin? It means nothing to me, I'm an aetheist!

And re: 'evil intention', what actually I said was:

what some people might think of as bad actions that are the result of 'evil intent'

Note: what some people might think and 'evil intention' - the quotation marks there were meant to indicate that that is not my view.

Anyway, it's probably best if we leave it here. It seems that, for whatever reason, I've caused you offence. Well, that certainly wasn't my intention and, if I've said something out of turn, or if there has been anything in my tone that has upset you, I apologise.:)
 
oh no no no, not offended at all. i have been enjoying this discussion very much, really :) im just a bit stupefied/baffled that you seem completely unwilling to accept that there is a distinction between a subject and an object, between the percieved and the perciever. its also not exactly a point of which the real depths get explained or grasped easily. Heidegger used 550 pages to explain its depths, and it still isn't crystal clear. im not holding my point of view as absolute or anything, im just trying to explain the road i took. somewhat. it really doesn't mean you have to as well! i was happy as a determinist as well. =D
i really wouldn't be giving you so much attention if i did not took a liking to your position. i can only (badly, perhaps) try to relate to you the world that opened to me personally when i moved beyond that position. anyway,...

btw anything beyond my point about another person was sarcasm. a few things before that as well. hopefully you don't take offence to that either. might not really do the best job at getting something across.
 
Last edited:
Top