LazyTheGreat
Bluelighter
Greetings Bluelighters! How does one make their own decision's when everything has a cause and effect? Is it even possible?
-
P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat
How to break cause and effect?
- Thread starter LazyTheGreat
- Start date
Nixiam
Bluelighter
Greetings!
You must be talking about determinism. I deeply believe that free will is just an illusion. Bu it's a good illusion! I've yet to understand if there is any free will anywhere in within our percieved entropy, but I kind of want to believe it is there. We just don't know.
On a subjective level, everything happens because something told it to happen. Something else set it up. So yea cause and effect, but it's more like probability theory.
For an interesting read, search for statistical probability, probability theory, and probability theory with quantum mechanics.
We have choices, or at least we percieve them, but your choice has already been picked for you. There are a variety of things you can "pick" from, but due to your chemical nature, caused by something else, you will pick what you've been set up to pick. Not that the universe "knows", it's more like "nothing else could happen".
If natural laws aren't broken, we aren't broken.
Honestly though, why would you want to break that cycle? Trying to fight what nature gave is like telling Gordon Ramsay his food sucks.
:D
You must be talking about determinism. I deeply believe that free will is just an illusion. Bu it's a good illusion! I've yet to understand if there is any free will anywhere in within our percieved entropy, but I kind of want to believe it is there. We just don't know.
On a subjective level, everything happens because something told it to happen. Something else set it up. So yea cause and effect, but it's more like probability theory.
For an interesting read, search for statistical probability, probability theory, and probability theory with quantum mechanics.
We have choices, or at least we percieve them, but your choice has already been picked for you. There are a variety of things you can "pick" from, but due to your chemical nature, caused by something else, you will pick what you've been set up to pick. Not that the universe "knows", it's more like "nothing else could happen".
If natural laws aren't broken, we aren't broken.
Honestly though, why would you want to break that cycle? Trying to fight what nature gave is like telling Gordon Ramsay his food sucks.
:D
belligerent drunk
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2015
- Messages
- 3,482
There have been numerous threads about the subject of free will and determinism, the most recent of them is worth taking a look at. My opinion is provided in there, but in short I believe that free will doesn't exist. However, that is not a reason to feel sad or anything, in my opinion it is rather liberating actually.
Nixiam
Bluelighter
I remember that^
Cosmic Trigger
Bluelighter
Slavery always feels liberating.
belligerent drunk
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2015
- Messages
- 3,482
I wouldn't put it that way. It might sound somewhat paradoxical, but I go about it this way: since I or anyone else still experiences the illusion/feeling of free will in making decisions, it doesn't really matter whether free will really exists as far as that is concerned. What is important, though, is that lack of free will means that anything goes, because you're basically not responsible for your decisions. Now, I'm not saying that it should be used as an excuse to commit crimes, because that's just unproductive, but rather that you're free to do in your life as you like as long as it doesn't harm anybody, and that you don't have to try to fit into some social norms if it feels like a waste of time. That's why I found it liberating, because I've never been good at being the median good member of society, who abides by all the norms and expectations. I decided to try to pursue happiness in my own way instead.
Nixiam
Bluelighter
I still think slavery is better.
JUST KIDDING. Social justice warriors...
It's 5 in the morning Jesus.
Honestly I think that's tge only thing gou should do, b_d. Was it Ayn Rand who said that happiness is man's highest moral obligation? Never figured her for a hedonist.
JUST KIDDING. Social justice warriors...
It's 5 in the morning Jesus.
Honestly I think that's tge only thing gou should do, b_d. Was it Ayn Rand who said that happiness is man's highest moral obligation? Never figured her for a hedonist.
Cosmic Trigger
Bluelighter
First I'd say how does lack of free will make a difference then one way or another? You are free either way then. And to say that it's not an excuse to commit crimes seems to suppose we have free will. If you don't have free will committing crimes is not under your control.
Nixiam
Bluelighter
At the end of the day, it all has to be ignored. Just play along and try not alluh akbar an airport, really.
I think the "will" aspect of free will is the only thing that may be able to influence a predetermined nature.
Another thing, if a non physical conciousness exists, might that be the tie breaker?
If our concious didn't play by quantum laws?
Though I'm dipping largely into speculation, keep in mind it is philosophy.
belligerent drunk
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2015
- Messages
- 3,482
The truth is, there is no difference. But as I said, we still do experience an illusion of free will, so it may feel like we're making choices. And if everyone were to just do whatever the fuck they wanted, without any regard for others, then the world would just be a mess and everyone would suffer because of it. The principle is simple. Do you want me to kill you, torture you, rob you? If not, then back off and don't do the same to me, and we can both live in peace and enjoy our lack of free will.
Nixiam
Bluelighter
Imagine if everyone were convinced that they were robots and had no control.
Xorkoth
Bluelight Crew
So what you're saying is, when someone has the choice whether or not to take an action, be that a crime, or a good action, or whatever, the choice seems to be yours, but in reality, all the factors of the world around and your life leading up to that choice caused you to make the choice you "made", so it was inevitable that you would choose the way you did?
I'm not sure I buy that, but I'm undecided. I've pondered this question quite a bit. Particularly when I think about time as a dimension... we float along in a fairly locked-in perception of time, but if time is a dimension, then the future is already laid out, thus predetermined, even though we haven't perceived it yet.
I prefer to think of it like this: free will exists, but an individual will choose the way they choose in a given instance, so the future is predetermined, but as a result of the free will of various life forms.
Nixiam
Bluelighter
Maybe the future becomes set after every decision. But as another choice comes along, then a whole new future is set again.
start with nondualism
belligerent drunk
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2015
- Messages
- 3,482
Yes, that is essentially what I'm saying. Not to sound arrogant, but one needs a solid understanding of how the world works and what we're made of to really see that. As far as my knowledge of the scientific literature on the subject goes, I recall no evidence suggesting that we're more than just the chemistry. And chemistry is very straightforward, and "not open up to suggestions", so to speak. I know that it may be mind-boggling to think that what you're doing is just a result of simple chemical reactions (both dependent on the direct environment, and "saved" chemical information, such as the genome), but I see no other way of describing it.
This subject is an interesting one. Being on this forum is actually the first time I've encountered so many opinions about it. It seems to me that everyone has an opinion, but few can actually back it up with factual evidence. And that is what upsets me. People just think what they want to think, without considering what the reality is. Of course, it is more comforting to think that one has free will, and is making choices, but one must always think about the evidence. Reality doesn't shape up to what we want it to be, it must be the other way round - we must adjust our understandings according to reality.
Img_9999
Bluelighter
What you are questioning here is exactly what Sartre used as his justification of free will. He's philosophy teaches us that all matter obeys the laws of physics, but since consciousness is by definition "immaterial", it doesn't obey the same laws that "objects" do. Therefore, consciousness is free of any form of external determinism, be it physical or cultural, or moral, or whatever. So he goes from that starting point to highlight the importance of responsibility, and how we are always responsible of who we are because we build ourselves through our actions.
If this interests you, you should look into his philosophy. Maybe start somewhere else than 'Being and nothingness' though, it's a heavy read.
This is the kind of though that Sartre's existentialism tried to fight against. The illusion of determinism is indeed liberating, because it liberate's us from the responsibility of our actions. It is the ultimate fantasy of the tortured subjectivity. Truth is, we are never free from being free. No matter how we try to justify ourselves, we are a result of our actions. This world is a result of our compromise with it. We must do as we can to build a better ourselves. That doesn't come without it's sacrifice, without it's good investment of will. There's no closing our eyes to our own responsibilities
There is no evidence in the scientific literature because this is not a scientific question. However, there is also no evidence of the contrary, ie that we are ONLY chemicals. If you take all of the compounds from a cell and mix them together in a test tube you don't get a self reproducing organism. There is something that organizes matter beyond pure chemistry/physics to make life happen. I'm not saying it must be something metaphysical in the orthodox sense, like an immaterial substance, or god, or whatever. But biology is far more complicated than pure chemistry. And it doesn't behave by the rules we observe in pure inorganic matter, the behavior of life is more in line with the substance of HISTORY: Will.
Regards to everyone interested in this engaging topic. Drop you Spinozas and embrace the cold air of our own responsibility's tragic heights !!
Cosmic Trigger
Bluelighter
But are all those actions conscious? Are they? How would you tell?
Nixiam
Bluelighter
What you are questioning here is exactly what Sartre used as his justification of free will. He's philosophy teaches us that all matter obeys the laws of physics, but since consciousness is by definition "immaterial", it doesn't obey the same laws that "objects" do. Therefore, consciousness is free of any form of external determinism, be it physical or cultural, or moral, or whatever. So he goes from that starting point to highlight the importance of responsibility, and how we are always responsible of who we are because we build ourselves through our actions.
If this interests you, you should look into his philosophy. Maybe start somewhere else than 'Being and nothingness' though, it's a heavy read.
This is the kind of though that Sartre's existentialism tried to fight against. The illusion of determinism is indeed liberating, because it liberate's us from the responsibility of our actions. It is the ultimate fantasy of the tortured subjectivity. Truth is, we are never free from being free. No matter how we try to justify ourselves, we are a result of our actions. This world is a result of our compromise with it. We must do as we can to build a better ourselves. That doesn't come without it's sacrifice, without it's good investment of will. There's no closing our eyes to our own responsibilities
There is no evidence in the scientific literature because this is not a scientific question. However, there is also no evidence of the contrary, ie that we are ONLY chemicals. If you take all of the compounds from a cell and mix them together in a test tube you don't get a self reproducing organism. There is something that organizes matter beyond pure chemistry/physics to make life happen. I'm not saying it must be something metaphysical in the orthodox sense, like an immaterial substance, or god, or whatever. But biology is far more complicated than pure chemistry. And it doesn't behave by the rules we observe in pure inorganic matter, the behavior of life is more in line with the substance of HISTORY: Will.
Regards to everyone interested in this engaging topic. Drop you Spinozas and embrace the cold air of our own responsibility's tragic heights !!
This Satre prick stole my idea! Fucking bullshit guys,
I don't get enuff credit.
All jokes aside, you can't really prove external conciousness, but if you can be rational about spiritual enlightenment, I think you can prove it to yourself.
Then and only then do I think a Sartre esque philosophy is intelligently justified.
belligerent drunk
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2015
- Messages
- 3,482
What you are questioning here is exactly what Sartre used as his justification of free will. He's philosophy teaches us that all matter obeys the laws of physics, but since consciousness is by definition "immaterial", it doesn't obey the same laws that "objects" do. Therefore, consciousness is free of any form of external determinism, be it physical or cultural, or moral, or whatever. So he goes from that starting point to highlight the importance of responsibility, and how we are always responsible of who we are because we build ourselves through our actions.
If this interests you, you should look into his philosophy. Maybe start somewhere else than 'Being and nothingness' though, it's a heavy read.
This is the kind of though that Sartre's existentialism tried to fight against. The illusion of determinism is indeed liberating, because it liberate's us from the responsibility of our actions. It is the ultimate fantasy of the tortured subjectivity. Truth is, we are never free from being free. No matter how we try to justify ourselves, we are a result of our actions. This world is a result of our compromise with it. We must do as we can to build a better ourselves. That doesn't come without it's sacrifice, without it's good investment of will. There's no closing our eyes to our own responsibilities
There is no evidence in the scientific literature because this is not a scientific question. However, there is also no evidence of the contrary, ie that we are ONLY chemicals. If you take all of the compounds from a cell and mix them together in a test tube you don't get a self reproducing organism. There is something that organizes matter beyond pure chemistry/physics to make life happen. I'm not saying it must be something metaphysical in the orthodox sense, like an immaterial substance, or god, or whatever. But biology is far more complicated than pure chemistry. And it doesn't behave by the rules we observe in pure inorganic matter, the behavior of life is more in line with the substance of HISTORY: Will.
Regards to everyone interested in this engaging topic. Drop you Spinozas and embrace the cold air of our own responsibility's tragic heights !!
I'm going to drop the nice-guy face for a change and tell it how it is. Your argument is faulty because you're basically saying that "since I can't disprove it, then it may as well be true". The problem with that argument is that there is practically nothing that can be disproven by the sole virtue of the evidence saying "it isn't that". Usually the evidence suggests that that something is something else, so by that virtue it cannot be what you're proposing. For example, how do you disprove that the Earth is flat? By showing that it is something else - a rough sphere. Likewise, you cannot disprove that there is a dead bee orbiting around Venus at some particular radius. But that is not an argument to believe that there is?! Surely not?
What I'm saying is that you must believe something if there is reproducible, objective, and unbiased evidence supporting the idea. For example, if I release a rock from my hand, it is going to fall towards the ground, and every experiment that you conduct will arrive at the same conclusion - and that is why I believe that releasing a roughly similar object from my hand will result in it falling down.
You say that this isn't a scientific question. I beg your pardon. Science is our attempt to describe reality. If something is not a part of reality, it is poorly describable by science, but then it also cannot interact with reality and be a part of it. Consciousness cannot be separate from reality and affect it at the same time. If it affects it, then it is a part of the equation, and that could be described/measured.
I'm not one to make assumptions about people, but I know very well why you're arguing what you are. Emotions. It feels bad to not have free will. It feels weird to be a machine that is dependent on physics. Well, guess what. Feelings don't account for shit. It is what it is no matter if you like it or not, and whether it is or it is not depends on experiment.
Last edited:
Nixiam
Bluelighter
Tis true^
If something outside of the physical universe exists, surely it cannot be expected to interfere with a physical reality by nature.
Because as soon as it does, it becomes measurable and is a physical phenomenon.
So truly any argument you come up with has to have reasonably sound science to support a free will stance.
Believing in something irrational because it hasn't necessarily been disproven is quite like intellectual laziness.
If something outside of the physical universe exists, surely it cannot be expected to interfere with a physical reality by nature.
Because as soon as it does, it becomes measurable and is a physical phenomenon.
So truly any argument you come up with has to have reasonably sound science to support a free will stance.
Believing in something irrational because it hasn't necessarily been disproven is quite like intellectual laziness.