Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Why do I even bother...
You have clarified nothing. Especially the "flimsiness" of determinism.
You underestimate our building blocks, we don't possess properties they lack, the properties they possess can be ultimately used when the variety of atoms we possess interact with each other in an extremely complex way. Consciousness and our ability to think so deeply is the result of those complex interactions. If there is a deeper consciousness then what we experience, we wouldn't even be able to imagine it for the sole reason our minds lack the processing ability to do so, which is the reason we aren't able to imagine/understand any other color than the combination of 3 colors (red/blue/green) when there is obviously many more colors that exist.
FlusteredBat
is addressing doesn't concern the empirical validity of determinism (in whatever form). We currently lack the tools/means to verify whether our own experience is in fact (pre)determined, and without those tools, that topic doesn't lend itself to productive discourse (however plausible the science of determinism seems to be).
It seems much healthier from a psychological standpoint to believe in free will, believing in it or not doesn't affect our outcome as we already experience free will (although it is likely a false experience), I suppose you could call it useless but interesting information.The question @
The only fruitful discussion left to us is the philosophical/ethical angle. Our experiences may be manufactured in part or in whole, but it remains that in that system, we have the experience of choice, and these choices do indeed affect and impact ourselves and others. Learning whether the universe is actually determined is only of interest to us inasmuch as that discovery might help inform out actions and attitudes about the choices we make.
Seems the contention in play is that you can assert that the universe is deterministic -- so long as you don't use determination as justification for any given action (e.g."I had no choice in murdering this person", "My murder of this person was inevitable and beyond any of our control", etc.).
I don't think most people here would embrace that view, though, since I doubt anyone here would deny that we have the experience of choice -- and that anyone here has such insidious intents that they would find using the Appeal to Determination as worthwhile. But it is worth thinking about how determinism might inform things like agency, moral responsibility, and other ethical concerns. The science of it all is, while interesting in its own right, not the real crux of the issue.
FlusteredBat
's beliefs aren't falsifiable, as you said we simply lack the means to verify whether or not free will exist so there's no definite way to tell for sure. However, because of facts concerning how everything in the observable universe is predetermined (energy & matter) it is MUCH more likely that free will is illusive, we only have hope that it isn't. Believing in what is most likely to be true makes for a generally wiser individual.
The vast majority of matter in the universe is inanimate, that does not invalidate the existence of life. Perhaps you will start proposing that consciousness is an illusion too?
I don't think that's what he was saying.
In what world or setting does what I said invalidate the existence of life? Where's the connection? Even if the vast majority of matter in universe is inanimate, does that mean the other forms of matter lack necessary properties to develop life? Hell no.
You are missing the point. It is unscientific to dismiss something as intuitive as free will without reason and evidence. Humans lack the capacity to comprehend "why?" despite what we assume to be likely vs. unlikely in relation to "how?". Yes, free will represents a bizarre anomaly, but so does consciousness.
I've already demonstrated on the first page how you've been making this all up, and here you are still making these claims without backing them up or defending them after you were incapable of addressing any of it.
Holder of the Heel
, "why?", not "how?". It does not matter how we justify our choices after the fact, determinism answers nothing about our experience in the moment. "Just an illusion" constitutes neither science nor philosophy.
@
As I've noted several times in this thread, life/consciousness itself is evidence that aggregations may possess traits in complete opposition to their individual parts. This does not prove free will, but keeps it open as a possibility and I would sooner embrace it than be slogged with the multitude of preferential/ethical contradictions associated with determinism.
It's ludicrous how determinists can care so much about this topic while insisting that we possess no internal capacity to change the external world.
Why do you become defensive when I affirm the potential validity of choice?
But to answer "how" something came about is to explain "why" it happened. Why does the Earth revolve around the Sun and How does the Earth revolve around the Sun are the exact same questions; you might say with life it is different, but the deterministic assertion is that it isn't so yeah. Anyways, I'm not sure how a free will answers much of anything either, out of the two choices it is the least defined and determinism claims that there is a total, however complex, explanation for "our experience in the moment".@
1 + 1 = 2, and yeah 2 is different from 1, but it's made up of 1 and 1. It's not 1 + 1 = 4 where something supranatural emerges. The fact that two things in reality interact and create an effect that didn't exist prior isn't exclusive to life, it's the basis of everything, and I'm not given reason currently why the brain is to be treated differently.
Actually I don't care much for the topic but I have nothing better to do than tell people on the internet their wrong.
Although, people do have a capacity to change the external world, as I've already explained, precisely because there's no free will, not to say that they couldn't necessarily if there is a free will.Because I disagree with your claims. I'm confused you'd make this aside out of anyone though, if purposeful (like, if the answer is supposed to be indicative/hinting of something), because honestly the adjective in your name tends to describe your demeanor with most people you discuss with down here. Not that it really matters, just as this question here doesn't actually matter, or that you're doing that with me right now because you aren't which I appreciate.
Nope.
Did you type that with a straight face? Understanding how gravity works does not explain why it happens.
Life is not an exception to "How?" vs. "Why?"
Whether you like it or not, life is 1 + 1 = 4 as we fail to understand it. Nobody can explain why particular clusters of molecules start jiggling around on their own accord and begin to self-replicate.
It is a mystery, not supernatural.
It is not fallacious, but determinists can still be labelled hypocrites if they make preferential exceptions against the consequences of their own principles.
Determinism implicitly negates ethics. A consistent determinist is not allowed to meaningfully discuss good and evil.
You're using the language of free will. Consistent determinists are not allowed to judge a selection of potential actions as better or worse.Actually I don't care much for the topic but I have nothing better to do than tell people on the internet their wrong.
Again, you're communicating in terms of free will. Two predetermined objects possess no capacity to change their final destinations by bouncing off one another because it could not have occurred any other way.
Disagreement requires a preference for truth, consistent determinists are not allowed to meaningfully disagree.
I am allowed to meaningfully express emotional preference in favor of particular ideas as somebody who accepts free will. Consistent determinists do not possess the same luxury.
Yeah, the human experience is as meaningful as worms thrashing around in dirt without free will.Not that it really matters, just as this question here doesn't actually matter, or that you're doing that with me right now because you aren't which I appreciate.
I knew it!!!!!
You don't seem to be interested in backing up your claims still. Why means either the purpose or reason of something. And unless you are a believer of some sort of theological or cosmic teleological end to which reality works, which as an atheist I doubt you are, then you mean the reason for gravity's existence. And if someone doesn't understand what gravity comes from, then you can't rightly say anyone understands how it works; I mean, it's very properties are dependent upon the body it comes from, you can't extrapolate the concept of gravity away from what it revolves (that's why it is a great example for the topic of determinism). I'm very confident you'd, in a different setting, would certainly point this obvious fact out, so I'm confused as to why you'd try and make this false dichotomy in this circumstance outside of trying to slither out of a situation that you cannot refute in order to maintain your narrative, which I believe to be the case because you've still not protected your absolutely extraordinary claims and refuted my own.
Both of which still exist in a deterministic framework which you haven't explain to the contrary (while I have) and still carry a misapprehension about what this topic is even about. It's extremely difficult to continue talking to someone when you don't intend to actually talk about the subject at hand and instead your own made up conception of it. If free will doesn't explain anything in a discussion of how to explain the mind, then it is flat out a useless concept that cannot be true.
When the time comes that humans develop an equation which perfectly projects the start of existence can we have unquestionable proof for God. However, from what we can see, there's absolutely no logical constituency to believe it, nor a physical demand, or some ethical imperative to believe it, despite your unsubstantiated claims for the latter to be true and lack of arguments against my reasons for the contrary.
I feel like your more so talking to yourself here rather than anything I've actually said, but it should be obvious that determinism, while in itself doesn't explain anything, it's consequence is that through science we can explain everything, which is a potential that we depend on and believe throughout our daily lives. Therefore so is the brain.
1 + 1 = 2 isn't just math, that's a logical equation. So basically what you're saying here is that it is something beyond logic, even though your claim is simply "we fail to understand it [right now]", an argument from ignorance.
That's not an explanation for why understanding conduct becomes impossible without free will.
Determinism isn't a principle of preferences, it's a principle about how preferences come to be. I'm not sure how you continue to keep missing this fact. You've still not researched this topic.
Free will implicitly denies that which ethics is based on. A consistent free-willist is not allowed to meaningfull discuss good and evil.
Consistent free-willists are not allowed to use reality and its consequences as a basis for a judgment regarding potential actions as being better or worse.
You've noticed that you can't refute what I've said, so you change the meaning of my claim to something that you can beat but has absolutely no baring on the discussion or reality. Your claim was that people cannot change the external world, I explain why this is clearly false, and now you talk about "final destinations"? It's as if there is some Godly plan in your mind of how things will go, and indeed there's ultimately one possibility... in hindsight, which you yourself within this post have acknowledged to be deterministic and irrelevantly so.
Disagreement requires a preference, which requires a distinct foundation in oneself; consistent free-willists are not allowed to appeal to anything within themselves and thus cannot meaningfully disagree.
Still no arguments explaining any of these made-up rules. Sigh.
I'm sorry you have such a pessimistic view of reality.
Holder of the Heel
. Why don't you just admit being uncomfortable with the idea of free will? There is not much I can say in response to misinterpretation.
That's twice now that you have posted about the pointlessness of posting in this thread. Do you expect people to take your dismissive passive-aggressive patronizing seriously? All I see is your reluctance to admit fault in the reckless certainty of disregarding free will. You would prefer to disengage and forget this thread ever happened rather than introspect - fine, do that, but you hold zero authority in closing this discussion for everyone else.
Someday you may realize the extent of your intellectual immaturity and inability to process new perspectives. If I have repeated myself in this thread it is because people like you keep pushing back while taking the truth of their position for granted. Have you ever actually thought about this subject or are you just parroting what somebody else has told you? I assume the latter considering how you believe validating determinism is as self-evident as running biased search terms through Google.
Attaching yourself to a conclusion is not the same as understanding an argument.
No, I'm saying that search engines encourage confirmation bias. Google bots do not prioritize good arguments, they only recognize key words and site hits.
By what standard?
Then why do you continue posting?
Very mature indeed.
This is such a great summation of the argument.
If you decide maturity by a set of letters, then good luck to you sir.
Zale
If someone truly comprehended the implications of Determinism then they would not hope for scientific confirmation. Must I keep mentioning that life itself represents blatant evidence which blows any material justification for determinism out the window? Determinism is not 'the more rational position' because observation always trumps theory in science.
Desu_Maiden
You're incorrect right off the bat. Human behavior cannot be predicted without error. Perfect behavioral prediction is only a pipe dream for control freaks at this point.
Sucumbio
Miraculous decisions do not represent an avenue for free will. All decisions are based upon the accumulation of experience, it is not within human capacity to generate concepts from nothing - if we cannot or have not experienced an idea then it will never cross our minds. Either way, miracles would actually serve as evidence for determinism rather than free will because they implicitly bring omniscience into the mix through whatever divine hand is at work.
Our range of motion is limited by experience, though that does not automatically lead to predetermination. I am not concerned with the perceived domino effect of sequential choices which will always be apparent in hindsight no matter what.
Sehnsucht
so eloquently put, our limited understanding essentially negates the importance of the question in many ways.
FlusteredBat
Both of these statements have just displayed your weak reasons for arguing. You are shouting opinions, and "phrasing" them as FACTS. They are not facts. Free-will is at the core of what it means to be human? You have to be kidding me... Just please stop.
The validity of ethical judgement is contingent upon choice. Without choice we cannot say people are responsible for their actions. That is to say humans helplessly bounce between the external influences which compel them like any other piece of matter in the universe. Would you extend ethics to inanimate objects?I still don't quite get how determinism negates ethics completely, like how acknowledging freedom of your/others will would give you a reason to behave in a certain way that a determinist worldview wouldn't. (Or a reason to anything.)
The question "why" always assumes an intention or a goal behind the event in question, and intentions, goals and preferences do exist within human interaction as a part of thought process regardless of free will. They do not exist anywhere else (or hardly anywhere else w.e.)
I'm genuinely curious, show me the logic @
Zale
You're responding to conclusions as if they represent my entire argument which you have been avoiding like the plague (especially the part about hypocrisy). We seem to have come full circle. Perhaps I will stop now, but not because you would prefer it.
We make what we believe are choices, not ACTUAL choices. And to the "validity of ethical judgement"... Ethical judgement is a joke, nothing we do is a choice. We are all equals... Serial killers are just as innocent as little girls. None of us are any different in that sense. Anything we do is just another reaction from a great chain of events of the universe.
I sure hope so! :D
Point out everything I made up, because otherwise it, not humorously at all, makes it ironically seem that you are the one making things up. This also makes it seem like you are uncomfortable, as I had engaged with your statements fully. Although that's not to my credit, you didn't actually support them, so it didn't take any fortitude on my part.You're making stuff up at this point, @
Do you know what congruent means? Determinism doesn't include religion or anything supernatural, like your free will, which is an idea associated with, yep you guessed it, religion. Once more you try to get by actually backing up anything or addressing what I've said directly, you do what you accused me of within this same post, again not in a humorously ironic way: you're making things up.
It is positively amazing that you can deny the remarkability of the brain, let alone anything about us from out evolutionary process at all, just because there isn't a trait that you can't prove, discern from a world without it, or define. And how you erroneously make the decision that without it, every other feature of life is forfeit, even though that's not how science works, especially since you admit that you can't tell the difference between a world with it or without it by acknowledging that determinism can be proven with what we know.
Indeed, we are in agreement, discussion over.
You're more concerned about what we can say then what is the truth or any consideration over whether what is said really makes any difference at all as to what we do. You're the one who said you claim that actions mean more than words and questioned whether I am the opposite, another case of irony, because I'm the only one interested in cutting out words that don't describe reality and dealing with literally nothing but action, activity, the state of being active. Determinism is that, and nothing more. You're the one that has the position that is more than that (although the way you word it, the basis of activity is entirely ignored lest any of it be validated for that'd be enough to collapse your misanthropic claims about humanity), and none of your actions have been based around action or reaction.
Would I extend an observation and consideration of the consequences and properties of everything? Yes, and this is the only objective understanding of conduct, and it's all that is needed. You encounter paradoxes and strange ways of viewing the world because you're holding onto strange ideologies, when really everything is simple and we spend much of our life making it complicated for ourselves. I've already explained that though, but you still think that if you gave up your belief in free will today, you'd take to court any rock you stubbed your toe on because you'd think that'd help you as you perceive no different in its physical make-up and a humans because you skipped out on all your classes that had to do with science. Not really sure what can be said to dissuade anything associated with that kind of thinking.
Meaning is subjective, so it's just your belief being subjugated on others. "I couldn't find a meaningful existence with this belief, so that must mean others can't too!" Actually reality doesn't conform to thought, which we can all be thankful for.
CHOICE IS AN ILLUSION BECAUSE CAPS and emoticons mean I am totally not a condescending prat
Holder of the Heel
I really can't be bothered responding anymore, the way you twist definitions and attempt to insultingly psychoanalyze me is far too tiresome.
If that's what you think my arguments consist of, then I'm afraid you might be illiterate.
You must be joking.@