The philosophy thread general discussion

It's a reaction to the idea that the meaning of people's lives is assigned to them by some outside force (God, generally) and that the way to live a good life is to discover the role that you've been assigned and then follow it as closely as possible. Sartre says "that's bullshit, you get to choose for yourself what you want your life to mean".

If the world is deterministic, then you (the entity that has the experience of existing, rather than just your body that acts or your brain that thinks) have no meaning, because you have no influence on anything. Your body acts as determined by the universe. Your brain thinks as determined by the universe. You just watch. If you were removed, then nothing would change. You can observe the meaning of other things, but you have no meaning, because you are just a passive observer — you can't do anything, not even interpret the things you observe (your deterministic brain does that).

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

That's true, but the universe, and your personal experience of it, can still have a meaning which is discoverable. One can observe a sunset and contemplate it's beauty, while believing that both the sunset and your observational experiences are all pre-determined.

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

No, no, you see, I was pointing at the link for the text beneath the comic. It goes on to say that there are two ways to write philosophy: to write in a way that everyone understands you, and to write in a way that no one misunderstands you. Additionally, it says that Sartre wrote in the first way, rather than the second.

@Native Jovian: Just because meaning has an outside, non-human source, that doesn't mean humans don't have any meaning to their existence. What's the problem with having another source give you the meaning of your existence? By which I mean: what in a source other than you giving the meaning to your existence, which you can't choose to decline or to change, turns your existence meaningless?

I don't think "the entirety of human existence" is based upon the premise we have free will. Not necessarily the literal sense, but to make sure to cover it, we didn't choose to exist, after all.

See, you're assuming that having influence is meaning, and not having isn't. I'm challenging that assumption.

P.S.: I don't even (necessarily) disagree with you. Or agree with you, for that matter. Although I think it's best to work with the assumption that humans do have free will. I just think, the meaninglessness you attribute to a deterministic existence would similarly be attributed to a free existence by a deterministic individual (one that exists in a deterministic universe, I mean; to which you'd reply that individual can't do anything, because their actions aren't theirs, thus they can't attribute meaninglessness to a non-deterministic existence; but I believe you understood my point).

@victin: Oh, I saw that. I'm just trying to take Sartre at face value.

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

Ah, I see what you guys are getting at. You're approaching the idea from the perspective that things have meaning, and humans discover that meaning by investigating those things. Existentialism (the whole "existence precedes essence" thing) says that things just exist, and humanity gives them meaning.

What's the difference between random marks on a surface and writing? Writing means something. If there's no one to read it, though, it doesn't mean anything — it's indistinguishable from random squiggles. The act of reading it gives it meaning. Humanity gives it meaning.

Same thing with basically everything else. You know that Japan has invested a bunch of meaning in Cherry Blossoms? Because they blossom for a short period and then fall from the trees while still in full bloom, Japan has decided that they represent the fragility and transience of life (around for a short time, then dying while still in their prime). That's not some deep meaning inherent in the cherry blossoms, though — it's a meaning that's been given to cherry blossoms. It wasn't something that already existed and was discovered by people, it was something that people created and assigned to cherry blossoms.

So, back to lack of free will. If you don't have free will, you can't create meaning, because you can't do anything, because you don't have free will. So no meaning can exist — nothing can mean anything — because people are not free to create that meaning, and meaning only comes from people creating it.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

I still disagree. Humanity can assign meaning in the presence of determinism, it's just that the meaning we assign (and experience) is entirely caused by factors outside our will. In other words, we are automatons, experiencing the meaning that materialistic forces create in our minds. But it's still a meaning.

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

Physics and your brain aren't separate things controlling you. You are a part of physics. You are your brain.

What you want, what you believe, and what you will are facts about the physical world. They're something that happens in you brain something it does, because you are your brain. Your brain is the observer and the thinker.

If you are making choices, and your actions are the result of what you will, then they should be deterministic. If you actions are caused be your will they are predictable at least in principle from your will.

...says one line of thought. The other is that the mind and the brain are related to, but distinct from, each other.

edited 30th Jan '16 7:12:23 PM by NativeJovian

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

Brain damage and it's effects are a pretty strong argument. The other main difference is in one version minds do things because of the nature and interactions of there parts. A lot of computation goes into seeing for example. In the other the mind does things because things.

The OS is not the CPU, right?

"If you are making choices, and your actions are the result of what you will, then they should be deterministic. If you actions are caused be your will they are predictable at least in principle from your will."

Free will seems incompatible with scientific determinism. Now if it could be demonstrated that there is some degree of genuine uncertainty in physical phenomenon then there might be some room for free will.

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

Only if people are unphysical. If people are souls and can act on the physical world then their actions won't come from physical events, and thus you won't have physical determinism.

If people are physical systems, then physical determinism is in line with free will.

Only if you take it as a given that people have free will. If minds are physical and physical determinism is true, then our actions are deterministic and free will is an illusion.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

Uh no. Determinism is more of a requirement. If my actions are the result of my will, they need to be somewhat predictable from my will.

If I decide to do B instead of A and it's because I decide B's a better idea, or it would be easier, or any mental reason at all, then it was in principle predictable, to something that knew enough about me at that moment and had enough processing power. To whatever extent my actions are predictable in principle their not even mine.

That chain of cause and effect does eventual trace back pass you. You can't imagine options or compare them, and none of them can win, before you even exist. But the physical universe determines your starting point by producing you instead of someone else. Being born with the same initial content for no reason wouldn't help.

Guys, I must warn you that if you keep this up.......

The question of whether or not free will exists is one of those maddening "chicken or egg" riddles that will just leave you chewing on the back of your neck if you think about it for too long.

edited 1st Feb '16 6:57:58 PM by nervmeister

Strict determinism is incompatible with free will. To be considered "free", the will must be able to make decisions and initiate actions that cannot be predicted even if one could comprehensively collect complete data on all physical influences affecting the decision. This means that in order for free will to be true, it must be impossible to know what someone will do ahead of time even if you have complete information about all sensory input, all genetic factors, and all learned influences. Once every causal factor has been accounted for, if it is still impossible to predict what a person would do next, then you have room for free will.

The clear implication is that the brain is showing activity isn't caused by anything, at least anything observable. Leading directly to the question: "Where is it coming from?"

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

Begs the question of whether or not randomness even exists anywhere in the universe.

It does. We're pretty damn sure about that one.

Don't be ridiculous nervmeister. Biology answered the chicken or egg riddle a long time ago (the egg came first, and was produced by a bird similar to, but not quite a chicken)

edited 3rd Feb '16 10:44:26 AM by Xopher001

The egg came first and was laid by some sort of fish.

The riddle never specified a chicken egg.

Well then free will is out of luck. Decisions need to be predictable given complete information about your mind, to be yours. But it can't be free if there if all causal chains eventual lead out of yourself. Even if your initial state is like that for no reason, this doesn't give you more control. So unless you've existed for an infinite about of time, or you choice your initial state using time travel. So so much for that.

I predict that throwing my hands up in the air and saying "it can't be helped" will lead to a sub par outcome. That prediction and the judgement attached to it are events in the physical world and can thus cause things.

But this doesn't always work, sometimes habits and impulses get in the way. So my predictions and judgements don't have full control over what I end up doing. I don't have any full proof way around that. I can however train counter impulses in to an extent.

edited 3rd Feb '16 2:39:25 PM by supermerlin100

"Decisions need to be predictable given complete information about your mind, to be yours."

Well there's an argument I've never seen before. How do you figure? Doesnt it depend on how you define "you"? Not many people think of themselves as chains of causal events.

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

Unless they happen to survive being teletranspoted somewhere else, and the officials in this side of the teleporter are trying to get rid of this version of you in order to fix a mistake

Actions follow from decisions, which follow from reasons, which you find compelling for over reasons.

If you decision just come from nowhere not having anything to do with want you want, or believe or how you think, then what part did you even have.

The difference between A causes B and A happens followed by B, is the B is predictable at least in principle.

There's a difference between [A caused & B caused C] and [A cause B & C]. Once you know B happened knowing A doesn't make C more predictable.

In a deterministic universe every instant is caused by the previous one, regardless of why the previously one happened. Physics is local with respect to time.

The problem with your model, as far as traditional conceptions of free will are concerned, is that the "free" in "Free Will" is usually interpreted to mean "free from causal influences that originate outside the self." The problem is when you say that "decisions follow from reasons, and you find those reasons compelling for other reasons." Well, there has to be an "original reason" does there not? Most people believe that the will is only free if the ultimate reason lies within one's own self- and the "self" is almost always defined as the conscious awareness. One's own conscious decision must be the original cause of an action for it to be "free."

Do you agree with this understanding, or do you think that all decisions originate in the environment (or even the Big Bang)?

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."