Free will (why discussions are pointless)

[apathy maybe]

Anyway, I just (about an hour ago) emailed off my essay on free will. I think it is such a crock of shit. Here are three small discussions on free will, only the first was used in the essay but the last two were attached.

Notes on the possibility of free will
The discussion about free will is ultimately pointless. There are two basic positions on the issue. One is that humans have free will; have the ability to decide what to do, when to do it et cetera (within the realm of the physical world). The second is that humans do not have free will and their actions are just the result of chemical processes and quantum physical events. However, even if the second is the case (and it is at least partly the case) the result is the appearance of freewill. That is even if free will is an illusion, we will still act as if we have free will, but we won't have any choice in the matter even if it appears we do.

Thus any discussion on the matter is ultimately going to produce nothing.

Free will compared to machine intelligence.
Artificial intellience is a field of computer science that attempts to create a computer or computer program that has the ability to think. Part of the problem is knowing whether a machine can think or not. Allan Turing propsed in the 1940s a test for deciding if machines have the ability to think. If a machine is able to fool a human whilst they are having a discussion, via the means of teletype (or similar), into thinking that the machine is really a human, then the machine is intelligent. A possible problem is knowing whether the machine was really thinking or was just cleverly programed. The point is however, if you can't tell the difference, what does it matter?

The same question applies to free will. Do we really have free will or are we just "cleverly programmed" to think we do? But the point is, if we can't tell the difference, what does it matter?

On moral responsibility
If we have free will then we have to take responsibility for our actions. In this case it is correct for others to judge us based on our actions and to punish or reward as apropriate. However, if we do not have free will, then we cannot take responsibility for our actions. In such a case it is not appropriate for others to judge us and reward or punish us. However, we can only say that they can only do this if they have free will. If no one has free will, then our saying that they should not judge us is silly, for they have no more free will then us, and thus cannot chooce to judge us or not. Thus we should take responsibility for our actions, and accept the judgement of others as if they had free will. Even if we do not have free will we shall still be judged, though those doing the judging will not have a choice in the matter.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Whether it exists or not is a difficult question, which I am inclined to answer with a no. However, I definately disagree with you when you say we should accept judgment if you define it as accepting responsibilty (or blame) for an action we commit.

Your conclusion is invalid, by the way, because you say we should accept resonsibility while we have already accepted a premise that denies free will and responsibilty for our actions. That is self-contradictory.

I think the answer is that we should accept that those casting judgment have a predisposition to do so - not that we can't change them - while refusing to accept that we have any responsibility for what we did. Certainly we have to take into account that are actions have consequences, but we do not have to take responsibility for those consequences but simply recognize their existence.

For example, I recognize that the bourgeoisie are inclined, due to material conditions, to be oppressive towards the proletariat. I will cast judgment if their actions are irrational, but my judgment will be rooted in a criticism of their actions (what make up their person) rather thant they do/did. Any criticism of them is fundamentally a criticism of an action - not the individual. I may deem it neccessary to start a revolution (and even kill them) because of material conditions causing me (rationally or not) to believe this. However, my actions are not fundamentally a critique based on their responsibility but rooted in a criticism of the actions they participate in that I disagree with.

In short, all criticism's of individuals should be rooted in a criticism of an action rather than a criticism of what someone did. We should strike at the root of the problem - not a symptom of it that appears did to the illusion of free will.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor+--> (Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor)Whether it exists or not is a difficult question, which I am inclined to answer with a no. However, I definately disagree with you when you say we should accept judgment if you define it as accepting responsibilty (or blame) for an action we commit.[/b]I am also inclined to answer that it does not exist

Originally posted by [email protected]
A more convincing account is one that rejects determinism (because of the existence of randomness), but also rejects free will. If we accept that all other processes are governed by physical laws, then to claim superiority simply because we are human, to claim that we alone are not governed by these physical laws, is the height of arrogance (and obviously wrong in certain regards, such as gravity). We have no evidence to suggest that the natural laws are not all encompassing, and it is common sense to think that they are.
Perhaps I was not clear about accepting judgement. We should accept that others will pass judgement, what we do is of cause irrelevant, as we don't have free will. But lets pretend we do.


Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor
Your conclusion is invalid, by the way, because you say we should accept resonsibility while we have already accepted a premise that denies free will and responsibilty for our actions. That is self-contradictory.Which conclusion? I tried to say that the discussion of free will is pointless. If we do have it we have it, else we don't but we think we do. We will act the same if we have free will or not.

The conclusion for the final segment was that, we should accept responsibility if we have free will, but if we don't have free will, we will accept responsibilty anyway because we don't have free will.

I won't bother answering the rest of your post because I am getting frustrated with my computer. I think I have made my point (hopefully clearer this time).

Anyway I'll repeat what I said above We will act the same if we have free will or not. And thus discussions on free will are pointless.

[liberationjunky]

This is all basically the question on determinism vs. free will.

Determinism (which I believe) is the idea that all events have a cause or a group of causes for it to happen. Every thing we decide is really just something we are "prgrammed" to decide though what we've been taught in the best, what are freinds have said about the issue, etc. Also, you have to realize is that the emotions that we are in at the time or whos around us at the tims, etc. can also change are decisions.

Like AM said earlier about how we seem to have free will is still true. We do still make choices and no one else can really predict what are choices will be but in my opinion deep down there is a reason for all choices and all actions.

[SecurityManKillJoy]

Free-will is simply a construction, a perspective, which emphasizes the infinity of consciousness and ultimately that it is very limited to try and make consciousness into a mechanical thing which is always absolutely limited. So I take a stance where consciousness is separated into pure consciousness and conscious-awareness which is caused by interactions of the body with the environment, giving certain awarenesses for the consciousness to work with (empirical experiences) and invent individual ideas and actions with.

Then we can simply attach or disattach the pure-consciousness from the body or conscious-awareness level in general or perhaps use pure mechanicalism in general to have the most well-rounded description of how consicousness may work or doesn't work by not denying all the possibilities. We can also make other constructions like self-awareness (a sub-section of conscious-awareness) and see the quantity and specific qualitative state of it in certain time-frames, etc. But that's just how I think to keep 'open minded' on the question. Also I don't think it's necessary to apply a reason to every conscious act, can't we see conscious acts in themselves for a moment?

[Akira]

Freewill has ties to conciousness.

[apathy maybe]

Bump :) :ph34r: :cool:

I know there are shit loads of other threads on Free Will I could have bumped, but I prefer mine (I hope for obvious reasons...).

Anyway, the reason I bumped the thread at all, was to provide a link to a very good short story I've just finished reading.

What's expected of us (http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_century_science/lectures/whats_expected.html) by Ted Chiang.


Originally posted by What's expected of us+--> (What's expected of us)By now you've probably seen a Predictor; millions of them have been sold by the time you're reading this. For those who haven't seen one, it's a small device, like a remote for opening your car door. Its only features are a button and a big green LED. The light flashes if you press the button. Specifically, the light flashes one second before you press the button.

Most people say that when they first try it, it feels like they're playing a strange game, one where the goal is to press the button after seeing the flash, and it's easy to play. But when you try to break the rules, you find that you can't. If you try to press the button without having seen a flash, the flash immediately appears, and no matter how fast you move, you never push the button until a second has elapsed. If you wait for the flash, intending to keep from pressing the button afterwards, the flash never appears. No matter what you do, the light always precedes the button press. There's no way to fool a Predictor.[/b]

What's expected of us
There have always been arguments showing that free will is an illusion, some based on hard physics, others based on pure logic. Most people agree these arguments are irrefutable, but no one ever really accepts the conclusion. The experience of having free will is too powerful for an argument to overrule. What it takes is a demonstration, and that's what a Predictor provides.

As you can see, it is a philosophical story, and at the same time, science fiction. The story goes on to say that it is a warning from the future, but even though there was no point to the warning, the author had no choice but to send it anyway...

Just to throw that out there.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

It's a pity this author did not consider a third possibility: that neither the doctrine of free will nor its opposite (determinism) make a blind bit of sense, unless, of course, you are prepared to anthromorphise nature and/or the central nervous system.

[apathy maybe]

Hehe. Oh Rosa love, you know I'm still not convinced that your argument about anthromorphising nature makes the least bit of sense.

Not that I'm interested in getting into another argument just here.

Do you agree though that discussions on free will (no matter what you make of it) are pointless?

[Le People]

No, its not pointless to discuss free will. Freedom to me, and many I know, is what keeps us living, because I know that I can change my outlook, my identity, my activites when ever I damn well pleased. If there is no free will, then I guess we're living in a Nihilistic universe, to which the only response could be is sucide.

[apathy maybe]

Hehe, funny I thought we were living in a nihilistic universe. The universe doesn't, can't care about you. There is no god. There are no objective rights or wrongs.

There is also no free will.

Read the story I linked to, your attitude is one which the story explores.


Typically, a person plays with a Predictor compulsively for several days, showing it to friends, trying various schemes to outwit the device. The person may appear to lose interest in it, but no one can forget what it means Ñ over the following weeks, the implications of an immutable future sink in. Some people, realizing that their choices don't matter, refuse to make any choices at all. Like a legion of Bartleby the Scriveners, they no longer engage in spontaneous action. Eventually, a third of those who play with a Predictor must be hospitalized because they won't feed themselves. The end state is akinetic mutism, a kind of waking coma. They'll track motion with their eyes, and change position occasionally, but nothing more. The ability to move remains, but the motivation is gone.

Before people started playing with Predictors, akinetic mutism was very rare, a result of damage to the anterior cingulate region of the brain. Now it spreads like a cognitive plague. People used to speculate about a thought that destroys the thinker, some unspeakable lovecraftian horror, or a Gšdel sentence that crashes the human logical system. It turns out that the disabling thought is one that we've all encountered: the idea that free will doesn't exist. It just wasn't harmful until you believed it.

Why people can't cope with the idea that we have no free will, I don't know. It isn't that big a deal, considering we appear to have free will anyway.

You can still do what you want, it just happens that "what you want" is not determined by you, but by quantum, chemical reactions, not by some mythical mind that somehow exists immaterially.

I wish such a thing as the "Predictor" really did exist. It would be fun to play with. :)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

AM:


Hehe. Oh Rosa love, you know I'm still not convinced that your argument about anthromorphising nature makes the least bit of sense.

Well, I have not set it out fully yet; I will be writing an ssay on this sometime next year.

Until then, feel free to keep anthropomorphising nature... :P

[Black Cross]

So none of the decisions you have ever made have been made by "you" but purely by a chance chemical reaction in your brain?

I'm sorry, I just find that harder to believe than this "mythical mind" you refer to.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LP:


No, its not pointless to discuss free will. Freedom to me, and many I know, is what keeps us living, because I know that I can change my outlook, my identity, my activites when ever I damn well pleased. If there is no free will, then I guess we're living in a Nihilistic universe, to which the only response could be is sucide.

If it keeps you happy, like religion keeps others happy, feel 'free' to discuss it, but do not think for one second that you will get even one millimetre closer to the answer.

2500 years of this 'debate' and we still do not even know what the correct questions are, let alone how to answer them.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

MR:


So none of the decisions you have ever made have been made by "you" but purely by a chance chemical reaction in your brain?

I'm sorry, I just find that harder to believe than this "mythical mind" you refer to.

Who are you asking this of?

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by Marxist-[email protected] 19, 2007 08:33 pm
So none of the decisions you have ever made have been made by "you" but purely by a chance chemical reaction in your brain?

I'm sorry, I just find that harder to believe than this "mythical mind" you refer to.
I didn't say chance...

But you are welcome to believe whatever you want, the fact that there isn't a shred of evidence to support you, and that any logically consistent materialist disagrees with you, should say something about your beliefs though.


@ Rosa, no worries! (Nature likes to be anthropomorphised :lol: :P.)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

AM:


Rosa, no worries! (Nature likes to be anthropomorphised

Have you been snorting white powder again? :P

[praxicoide]

Free will already assumes that there is a unconditioned "will" that arises from within a consistent, identifiable "I."

I don't think either of those assumptions have any basis; they're mystical in origin.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

P:


Free will already assumes that there is a unconditioned "will" that arises from within a consistent, identifiable "I."

I don't think either of those assumptions have any basis; they're mystical in origin.

The opposite belief is equally mystical.

[praxicoide]

what opposite belief? Free will is a faulty concept to start with.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

P:


what opposite belief? Free will is a faulty concept to start with.

Determinism.

[praxicoide]

Ah, OK. I don't see as the other choice, but simply as another belief, with its own assumptions. Disproving free will does not mean that you end up with determinism.

I agree with you on this, it's mechanistic and oversimplified.

But I think free will is an unsustainable concept.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

P:


But I think free will is an unsustainable concept.

Well, I can give you an example of the use of free will if you want one.

And determinism, too.

[praxicoide]

You mean the "appearance" of free will or determinism, these are after all internal processes.

What we see is the external "results", like conscious motivation and actions. We can view the actions themselves as what the persons are actually doing, or we can inquire to these possible "motivations" which are post-festum and external also.

We could say that motivation is simply the rhetoric of action, their justification.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

P:


You mean the "appearance" of free will or determinism, these are after all internal processes.

No, I do not mean that.


We could say that motivation is simply the rhetoric of action, their justification.

You could, but you'd be wrong.

[Le People]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 19, 2007 02:34 pm
LP:


No, its not pointless to discuss free will. Freedom to me, and many I know, is what keeps us living, because I know that I can change my outlook, my identity, my activites when ever I damn well pleased. If there is no free will, then I guess we're living in a Nihilistic universe, to which the only response could be is sucide.

If it keeps you happy, like religion keeps others happy, feel 'free' to discuss it, but do not think for one second that you will get even one millimetre closer to the answer.

2500 years of this 'debate' and we still do not even know what the correct questions are, let alone how to answer them.
Just one question; why in the hell are you advocating leftism then? For after all, if everything is set in stone with the chemicals in our brain, then it is utterly pointless to change things, for things will changes themselves. To elevate the suffering of the masses would be stupid, because their brain chemistry accept their suffering, so why bother? If there is any value to be found in Marxism or Anarchism, then it will be found in freewill.

[praxicoide]

You mean the "appearance" of free will or determinism, these are after all internal processes.

No, I do not mean that.

Let's hear it then.



We could say that motivation is simply the rhetoric of action, their justification.

You could, but you'd be wrong.

How so?

[praxicoide]

Originally posted by Le People+July 20, 2007 02:41 am--> (Le People @ July 20, 2007 02:41 am)
Rosa [email protected] 19, 2007 02:34 pm
LP:


No, its not pointless to discuss free will. Freedom to me, and many I know, is what keeps us living, because I know that I can change my outlook, my identity, my activites when ever I damn well pleased. If there is no free will, then I guess we're living in a Nihilistic universe, to which the only response could be is sucide.

If it keeps you happy, like religion keeps others happy, feel 'free' to discuss it, but do not think for one second that you will get even one millimetre closer to the answer.

2500 years of this 'debate' and we still do not even know what the correct questions are, let alone how to answer them.
Just one question; why in the hell are you advocating leftism then? For after all, if everything is set in stone with the chemicals in our brain, then it is utterly pointless to change things, for things will changes themselves. To elevate the suffering of the masses would be stupid, because their brain chemistry accept their suffering, so why bother? If there is any value to be found in Marxism or Anarchism, then it will be found in freewill. [/b]

You are drawing normative implications where there are none to take.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by Le People+July 20, 2007 04:41 am--> (Le People @ July 20, 2007 04:41 am)
Rosa [email protected] 19, 2007 02:34 pm
LP:


No, its not pointless to discuss free will. Freedom to me, and many I know, is what keeps us living, because I know that I can change my outlook, my identity, my activites when ever I damn well pleased. If there is no free will, then I guess we're living in a Nihilistic universe, to which the only response could be is sucide.

If it keeps you happy, like religion keeps others happy, feel 'free' to discuss it, but do not think for one second that you will get even one millimetre closer to the answer.

2500 years of this 'debate' and we still do not even know what the correct questions are, let alone how to answer them.
Just one question; why in the hell are you advocating leftism then? For after all, if everything is set in stone with the chemicals in our brain, then it is utterly pointless to change things, for things will changes themselves. To elevate the suffering of the masses would be stupid, because their brain chemistry accept their suffering, so why bother? If there is any value to be found in Marxism or Anarchism, then it will be found in freewill. [/b]
Because we have no choice.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LP:


Just one question; why in the hell are you advocating leftism then? For after all, if everything is set in stone with the chemicals in our brain, then it is utterly pointless to change things, for things will changes themselves. To elevate the suffering of the masses would be stupid, because their brain chemistry accept their suffering, so why bother? If there is any value to be found in Marxism or Anarchism, then it will be found in freewill.

You obviouly have not read what I posted with any care; both the idea that we have a 'free will' and the idea that we are all 'determined' in the way you say I reject as nonsensical ideas.

To make one or both work, you have either to attribute to nature human qualities, or attribute to ourselves a god-like capacity.

Now we have thrashed this out many times here; check these threads out:

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic...13&hl=free+will (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=51313&hl=free+will)

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic...03&hl=free+will (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=54203&hl=free+will)

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic...67&hl=free+will (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=57667&hl=free+will)

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic...44&hl=free+will (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=63044&hl=free+will)

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic...45&hl=free+will (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=62845&hl=free+will)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

praxicoide, I guarantee you will be disappointed.

Here are just two examples of one of the only ways to make sense of 'free will' and 'determinism' (or for something to be determined) available to us in language:

1) 'Free will'; normally a lawyer will charge to draw up your will, but if she is a relative quite often she will refuse to send you the bill; in that case, you will have a free will.

2) Determine; two weeks ago, I went into London. When I got to the local station, I looked at the display board to determine the time of the next train.

Now, you may be tempted to laugh at these as ridiculous examples, but they are, I contend, the only ways to make these words work -- or ways like them.

In relation to 1) you might regard it as a very poor joke, but until you, or anyone else, can say what a 'free will' is, denying we have one (or asserting that we do) will make no sense.

In that case, the example I gave goes by default. There is no other use we have for this phrase.

2) Same point.

I said you'd be disappointed.

The reasons can be found in the threads I posted above

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

AM:


Because we have no choice.

So, you were forced into saying that.

In that case, you do not really believe it.

Neither do we. :P

[Marsella]

To make one or both work, you have either to attribute to nature human qualities, or attribute to ourselves a god-like capacity.

Why do you have to attribute human attributes to nature (to accept human nature) to form a conception of determinism?

Could not a person's decisions be entirely determined by society? (OK there are exceptions such as the fundamental desire to eat- but these are constant in all epochs)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Martov:


Why do you have to attribute human attributes to nature (to accept human nature) to form a conception of determinism?

Traditionally that is what all theorists have in the end done.

There are only two options here.

In scientistic philosophy, we attempt to specify a law or set of laws that determine causally what you or I do in any circumstances.

In other words we try to set up pre-condtions A, B, C..., such that they constrain us to to X, Y, or Z.

The two ways this can be viewed are as follows:

1) Either this is a mere description, and there is no such thing in nature as a constraint, or

2) Nature forces us to do things.

If the first is the case, then we have no explanation of why X, Y or Z were carried out, merely a description.

If 2) is the case, to make this work, nature must have a will of its own to force the events in the way it 'determines', so that, when A, B, or C are present P, Q, or R do not result, but always X, Y or Z, and they cannot fail to occur by iron 'law' (notice, another human artefact).

A, B and C are said to 'control' the outcome (another human trait).

Now, no one has yet been able to solve this problem.

And it is not surprising; the word 'determine' only works in relation to the decisions agents make (or in connection with the activites of agents). [An agent being someone who can decide.]

So, you determine to go on a march, or the best way to get from A to B. Or you can be a determined character, not giving in easily, and so on. The word is at home in such contexts.

When applied to nature, the word either works as a mere description or has anthropomorphic overtones in the way I described above.

And this is not to pick on this theory; all philosophical theories depend on a similar misuse of language.

That explains why not a one has been solved in 2500 years.


Could not a person's decisions be entirely determined by society? (OK there are exceptions such as the fundamental desire to eat- but these are constant in all epochs

Well, I prefer not to anthropomorphise society, making it a human being.

We have other ways of saying what I think you want to say here that do not do that, and which allow historical materialism to work.

[Hit The North]

We have other ways of saying what I think you want to say here that do not do that, and which allow historical materialism to work.


It would be instructive if you could provide an example of saying this in words you think are more appropriate to historical materialism.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

To anyone else I would, but not to you -- until you can learn to be fair minded.

[Hit The North]

Cop out.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Well done, you have just put off by at least 24 hours the day when I treat you with modicum of respect.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 20, 2007 12:08 pm
Well done, you have just put off by at least 24 hours the day when I treat you with modicum of respect.
How will I cope? :wacko:

I think you vastly overestimate how much your "respect" means to me.

Nevertheless, other interested posters will note that once again, when asked to state your position in a positive way, you fall at the first hurdle.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


How will I cope?

Probably in the usual way: sniffing around me.


I think you vastly overestimate how much your "respect" means to me.

Not at all; I know you mystics only respect one thing -- gobbledygook.


Nevertheless, other interested posters will note that once again, when asked to state your position in a positive way, you fall at the first hurdle.

No need to; Marx worked it out 140 odd years ago.

Have you not heard?

[praxicoide]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 20, 2007 09:17 am
praxicoide, I guarantee you will be disappointed.

Here are just two examples of one of the only ways to make sense of 'free will' and 'determinism' (or for something to be determined) available to us in language:

1) 'Free will'; normally a lawyer will charge to draw up your will, but if she is a relative quite often she will refuse to send you the bill; in that case, you will have a free will.

2) Determine; two weeks ago, I went into London. When I got to the local station, I looked at the display board to determine the time of the next train.

Now, you may be tempted to laugh at these as ridiculous examples, but they are, I contend, the only ways to make these words work -- or ways like them.

In relation to 1) you might regard it as a very poor joke, but until you, or anyone else, can say what a 'free will' is, denying we have one (or asserting that we do) will make no sense.

In that case, the example I gave goes by default. There is no other use we have for this phrase.

2) Same point.

I said you'd be disappointed.

The reasons can be found in the threads I posted above

Ha! Good one.

I think we are in agreement. The only difference is that I call an unsustainable or contradictory statement as false, and you call it meaningless.

I suppose this is for logical reasons and more likely than not your usage is correct.

I still don't see how what you said disproves viewing "motivation" as a rhetoric of action. I suppose you call motivation meaningless, too.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

P:


The only difference is that I call an unsustainable or contradictory statement as false, and you call it meaningless.

Not really,

A contradictory propostion cannot be meaningless or we would not know it was contradictory, and if it cannot be substantiated then i would call it 'verification transcendent'.

Meaningless (or even nonsensical) propostions are ones that contain words that do not work in the way intended (eg "Socrates is identical") --, or, alternatively, no matter how we try, no sense can be made of them. [It will help if you know I am a Wittgensteinian Marxist -- or will it???]

The ones in this thread tend to fall in the latter category.


I still don't see how what you said disproves viewing "motivation" as a rhetoric of action. I suppose you call motivation meaningless, too.

Well, I just did not understand it.

[rebel_lord]

Originally posted by Le People+July 20, 2007 02:41 am--> (Le People @ July 20, 2007 02:41 am)
Rosa [email protected] 19, 2007 02:34 pm
LP:


No, its not pointless to discuss free will. Freedom to me, and many I know, is what keeps us living, because I know that I can change my outlook, my identity, my activites when ever I damn well pleased. If there is no free will, then I guess we're living in a Nihilistic universe, to which the only response could be is sucide.

If it keeps you happy, like religion keeps others happy, feel 'free' to discuss it, but do not think for one second that you will get even one millimetre closer to the answer.

2500 years of this 'debate' and we still do not even know what the correct questions are, let alone how to answer them.
Just one question; why in the hell are you advocating leftism then? For after all, if everything is set in stone with the chemicals in our brain, then it is utterly pointless to change things, for things will changes themselves. To elevate the suffering of the masses would be stupid, because their brain chemistry accept their suffering, so why bother? If there is any value to be found in Marxism or Anarchism, then it will be found in freewill. [/b]


The only reality is the will to power, and nothing besides. And you all are a will to power, this world is a will to power. The masses have will to power. Don't say nothing in this world is impossible like El Che Guevara said

rebel_lord

[rebel_lord]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 20, 2007 05:11 pm
Meaningless (or even nonsensical) propostions are ones that contain words that do not work in the way intended

Hey Rosa: Watch CNN, or any traditional media news and even Bush, Cheney or any traditional politician and listen to how they talk. hahaha, they like to control people thru a twisting of meanings, words, stuff. I suspect that they their linguists and think-tanks tell them what to say to the masses. Wow it is so easy to rule the world, by twisting meanins of words :-)

rebel_lord

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Rebel Lord, they also have the state and the media behind them.

That helps!

[praxicoide]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 20, 2007 05:11 pm
P:



A contradictory propostion cannot be meaningless or we would not know it was contradictory, and if it cannot be substantiated then i would call it 'verification transcendent'.

Meaningless (or even nonsensical) propostions are ones that contain words that do not work in the way intended (eg "Socrates is identical") --, or, alternatively, no matter how we try, no sense can be made of them. [It will help if you know I am a Wittgensteinian Marxist -- or will it???]

The ones in this thread tend to fall in the latter category.

OK, thanks. I think I already explained my position on this on the common sense thread.



Well, I just did not understand it.

So, therefore it is wrong?

[Le People]

Originally posted by rebel_lord+July 20, 2007 08:08 pm--> (rebel_lord @ July 20, 2007 08:08 pm)
Originally posted by Le [email protected] 20, 2007 02:41 am

Rosa [email protected] 19, 2007 02:34 pm
LP:


No, its not pointless to discuss free will. Freedom to me, and many I know, is what keeps us living, because I know that I can change my outlook, my identity, my activites when ever I damn well pleased. If there is no free will, then I guess we're living in a Nihilistic universe, to which the only response could be is sucide.

If it keeps you happy, like religion keeps others happy, feel 'free' to discuss it, but do not think for one second that you will get even one millimetre closer to the answer.

2500 years of this 'debate' and we still do not even know what the correct questions are, let alone how to answer them.
Just one question; why in the hell are you advocating leftism then? For after all, if everything is set in stone with the chemicals in our brain, then it is utterly pointless to change things, for things will changes themselves. To elevate the suffering of the masses would be stupid, because their brain chemistry accept their suffering, so why bother? If there is any value to be found in Marxism or Anarchism, then it will be found in freewill.


The only reality is the will to power, and nothing besides. And you all are a will to power, this world is a will to power. The masses have will to power. Don't say nothing in this world is impossible like El Che Guevara said

rebel_lord [/b]
I'm glad to see someone can be a leftist and accept Neitzsche! What do you think of eternal recurrnce, Rebel Lord?

[Hit The North]

I'm glad to see someone can be a leftist and accept Neitzsche! What do you think of eternal recurrnce, Rebel Lord?


Oh, please! Don't you Nietzchians have your own web site to play on?

[Le People]

Wait a minute! I'm not a Nietzschean, though I do like to bullshit about him. I personally think his philosophy is fucked up. I am more a kin to the French existentialists myself.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

P:


So, therefore it is wrong?

How could I say if I do not understand it?

[Black Cross]

Can we, please, veer around the childish squabbles and stick to the proposed argument?

Rosa, you're a mod; you should be monitoring this sort of thing and making sure it stays at a minimum rather than engaging in it yourself. Not that I am only condemning you for it, but you are the one who has to put a stop to it.

[Raúl Duke]

Rosa, since you consider Free Will and Determinism to be wrong or meaningless...than what is there to take their places? Some sort of Compatibalist (both free will and determinsim exist in same or varying degrees,etc) view or something else?

[apathy maybe]

Considering that all the compatiblist claims are mere sophistry (intentional or not) and word play, I doubt that Rosa would have much time for them. Neither do I.

Just to throw another option into the ring (one that Rosa also disagrees with... :)), non-determinism (indeterminism), the existence of randomness. The claim that "god does not play dice with the universe" is (in my opinion) flawed and ignores the facts of quantum mechanics.

Rosa (as I understand it, and correct me if I am wrong), throws away both determinism and indeterminism as anthropomorphising nature.

(Personally, I don't know how she can claim this, but that is what she thinks).

She doesn't offer another position, leaving that up to scientists rather then philosophers.

( http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=57667 and http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=51313 provide "reasoning" behind that position.)

[Raúl Duke]

She doesn't offer another position, leaving that up to scientists rather then philosophers.

Than what do scientists and scientific studies say on this matter? Determinism (since you mentioned something that its opposite, non-determinism, ignores quantum mechanics, which is a scientific field)?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

JD:


Rosa, since you consider Free Will and Determinism to be wrong or meaningless...than what is there to take their places? Some sort of Compatibalist (both free will and determinsim exist in same or varying degrees,etc) view or something else?

My position is in fact uncategorisable. Indeed, as soon as you label me succesfully as this or that (if you can), I will abandon that view, and apologise profusely.

All I will say here (I have said enough above, and in other threads) is that, in order to make determinism (or its oppooste) work you have to attribute human qualities to nature.

That, of course, defeats the whole purpose, for if you appeal to human qualities to explain human beings and the things we do, you merely go round in circles.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

MR:


Rosa, you're a mod; you should be monitoring this sort of thing and making sure it stays at a minimum rather than engaging in it yourself. Not that I am only condemning you for it, but you are the one who has to put a stop to it.

First of all, I have been away for 3 weeks. As wonderfull as I am, even I cannot moderate RevLeft from atop a mountain in Scotland, or, indeed, from a relative's bedside in hospital.

Secondly, I am not too sure what you have taken exception to.

This thread seems fine to me.

[Faux Real]

I should have seen this thread sooner. Don't want to get too off subject but I'm relatively new to the subject of Determinism(read about it last night!) and it makes quite a bit of sense. Does anyone have some good external links to learn more about it?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Sorry, rev0lt, determinism makes sense only if you think nature can think.

[Faux Real]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 16, 2007 02:31 pm
Sorry, rev0lt, determinism makes sense only if you think nature can think.
That would require proof that it can or cannot, which we obviously don't know as of yet.

In any case, I should rephrase that. Determinism doesn't make sense to me per se, though it catches my eye and I'd like to read more about it. Not to mention watching the Final Destination movie trilogy didn't fuel some interest. :P

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

rev0lt


That would require proof that it can or cannot, which we obviously don't know as of yet.

Not really.

I laid a challenge down here last year for anyone to try to spell out the details behind determinism without having to attribute to nature human capacities.

Every attempt failed, just as every attempt so far in the history of Philosophy has failed (this is in fact because of the conventional associations we have with words like "determine" and "cause", so it is in fact unavoidable).

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

As I noted above:


Traditionally that is what all theorists have in the end done.

There are only two options here.

In scientistic philosophy, we attempt to specify a law or set of laws that determine causally what you or I do in any circumstances.

In other words we try to set up pre-condtions A, B, C..., such that they constrain us to to X, Y, or Z.

The two ways this can be viewed are as follows:

1) Either this is a mere description, and there is no such thing in nature as a constraint, or

2) Nature forces us to do things.

If the first is the case, then we have no explanation of why X, Y or Z were carried out, merely a description.

If 2) is the case, to make this work, nature must have a will of its own to force the events in the way it 'determines', so that, when A, B, or C are present P, Q, or R do not result, but always X, Y or Z, and they cannot fail to occur by iron 'law' (notice, another human artefact).

A, B and C are said to 'control' the outcome (another human trait).

Now, no one has yet been able to solve this problem.

And it is not surprising; the word 'determine' only works in relation to the decisions agents make (or in connection with the activites of agents). [An agent being someone who can decide.]

So, you determine to go on a march, or the best way to get from A to B. Or you can be a determined character, not giving in easily, and so on. The word is at home in such contexts.

When applied to nature, the word either works as a mere description or has anthropomorphic overtones in the way I described above.

And this is not to pick on this theory; all philosophical theories depend on a similar misuse of language.