Just a thought I had about free will

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

I listened to Sam Harris's talk on determinism, both the one you embedded and an hour long lecture he conducted. He makes the point that we are not consciously in control of our thoughts and actions, we are merely witnesses of what is taking place. If we cannot control our own actions, and are passive puppets of determinism, as well as helpless spectators, how is that any different from the conclusions of fatalism? How can he use words like decide and responsibility in a lecture where he argues the foregone conclusion that we don't do any decision making, not do we consciously control our actions?

It is different in the sense that you can not throw your arms in the air and say "fuck it! things happen anyway" and expect that life will simply go by as if you didn't, that things will get done if you just sit and wait for it.
Fatalism is about the self fulfilling prophecy that "life will go bad anyways" so you restrospectively think "might as well do nothing", then life does go bad in the future and the reason why that happened was because you got convinced "that life was going to go bad" (as it turned out to be true) and you did absolutly nothing. You didn't had a choice to believe what you believe, but then hey, sad day for you. If you had convinced yourself that you are going to continue with your life despite the future being determined then the future would be promissing. But sense I am a persuasive guy you will be convinced by the second, and you will go on with the rest of your life being a productive member of society contrary to what fatalism would sugest.
Anyways, who are we kiding the first scenario is not even possible, you will get hungry and feel the impulse to get up and eat, you will have the urge to do things and do them, and before you know it you are an active and productive member of society.

This subject is particularly confusing, even this sorts of conversations are decieving. We are "world simulation" machines, we create scenarios in our brain and we ask ourself "well if this is X then Y would happen, but if it was Z then W would happen" and this is an evolved mecahnism to avoid dangers that would otherwise harm or kill us (there we go with the decieving language again) or to unfold desirable outcomes that keeps us a "keep on going stuff" keeping on going. And because we can simulate scenarion X or Y or Z but we can't really see into the future, we have the ilusion (either in retrospect or not) that you could have had option X or that you could just a well had option Y instead when in fact that was never the case.

 

[unkerpaulie]

The self fulfilling prophecy analogy goes both ways. If you live as if determinism is true, and adopta que sera sera attitude in a passive way, life goes by as a series of events that happen to you, and if you have any emotion at that point, you're miserable. However, if you act as if free-will is true, and believe that your life is a result of your conscious decisions and efforts to attain your goals, it too becomes a self fulfilling prophecy, and the outcome gives you a sense of achievement and growth. So whether determinism is true, we cannot build upon the foundation, and can only build on the "false premise" if free-will. This is pretty much exactly the point devilsadvocate was making: its either something you're wrong about or don't care about. If determinism is true, fatalism is the outcome of applying that truth. Otherwise we must ignore it and act as if its false.

 

[CommonEnlightenment]

"I do not at all believe in human freedom in the philosophical sense. Everybody acts not only under external compulsion but also in accordance with inner necessity. Schopenhauer's saying "A man can do what he wants, but not want what he wants," has been a very real inspiration to me since my youth; it has been a continual consolation in the face of life's hardships, my own and others', and an unfailing well-spring of tolerance." - AE


If only I could try to remember this on a minute by minute basis. IMHO, it's something that this world needs more of........

 

[devilsadvocate]

Of course it makes a difference, it is a different world. It may not make a difference to you, but that is different matter. And no, it can't be compared to a none-statment. A question about relevance isn't about things having a truth value or not, determinism has a truth value, it either is true or it isn't.

That's naive epistemology you're clinging onto here. How would I know whether determinism is true or false, if it doesn't make any difference to me?

 

[devilsadvocate]

"I do not at all believe in human freedom in the philosophical sense. Everybody acts not only under external compulsion but also in accordance with inner necessity. Schopenhauer's saying "A man can do what he wants, but not want what he wants," has been a very real inspiration to me since my youth; it has been a continual consolation in the face of life's hardships, my own and others', and an unfailing well-spring of tolerance." - AE

Albert was a big fan of Spinoza. He gives a rather more uplifting account what a life under determinism can be than Schopenhauer does. I think this is a lens through which Einstein approached Schopenhauer's philosophy.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

That's naive epistemology you're clinging onto here. How would I know whether determinism is true or false, if it doesn't make any difference to me?

If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is there to care, does it make a sound?

 

[devilsadvocate]

It doesn't matter.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

It doesn't matter.

Just because you don't care it doesn't mean that it isn't true. The world doesn't stop existing when you close your eyes.

 

[unkerpaulie]

There's a man in your house. His name is Bob. But he's invisible and completely undetectable. He doesn't move any of your stuff, he doesn't displace the air by taking up any space, nor distort gravity by having mass, nor alter carbon dioxide levels by breathing. He doesn't get in the way, communicate or affect your daily activities. In fact, life for you would be no different if he wasn't there. But he is. This is a true fact. Something you can be aware of or ignorant of.

Being the kind of guy that likes knowledge for the sake of knowledge, you become aware of the fact that Bob actually exists, and has been there all along, watching in undetectable silence. Finally, one more nugget of truth to add to your list of facts about reality. What then? Are you better off now that you have this extra knowledge? Does this fact make a difference to you? Does it matter at all?

 

[devilsadvocate]

What unkerpaulie said, though when the difference might go beyond this. Bob's existence doesn't only not matter, but statements about Bob's existence could well be considered gibberish by contemplating on the process how we become to know things.

 

[bluejatheist]

There's a man in your house. His name is Bob. But he's invisible and completely undetectable. He doesn't move any of your stuff, he doesn't displace the air by taking up any space, nor distort gravity by having mass, nor alter carbon dioxide levels by breathing. He doesn't get in the way, communicate or affect your daily activities. In fact, life for you would be no different if he wasn't there. But he is. This is a true fact. Something you can be aware of or ignorant of.

Being the kind of guy that likes knowledge for the sake of knowledge, you become aware of the fact that Bob actually exists, and has been there all along, watching in undetectable silence. Finally, one more nugget of truth to add to your list of facts about reality. What then? Are you better off now that you have this extra knowledge? Does this fact make a difference to you? Does it matter at all?

I imagine that knowing that a stranger can watch everything you do in private makes a big ass deal.

 

[unkerpaulie]

How so? He makes no judgments, offers no opinion, doesn't communicate what he learns to you or anybody else. Life for you was no different before you became aware of his presence, and will be no different having learned of hits existence, except if you now decide to act differently. Remember, even though you are now aware of the fact that invisible Bob is ever present and observing, he is still completely undetectable. Had you not been made aware of his presence, he'd still be there. But now that you have this knowledge, nothing else in your life has changed or will change. So why exactly does it matter?

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

What unkerpaulie said, though when the difference might go beyond this. Bob's existence doesn't only not matter, but statements about Bob's existence could well be considered gibberish by contemplating on the process how we become to know things.

But in unkerpaulie scenario you already know of its existence for an unspecified reason, you cannot then complain about the way you know things, the implied argument here is that you couldn't know of such a thing in the first place. If you couldn't know they existed in the first place then you could say that you just know as a premise of the scenario. Of course this couldn't possibly make sense.

The problem you guys are having is that you can't distinguish an argument about a truth value and an argument about relevance. One has absolutely nothing to do with each other. No matter how much you argue that A is irrelevant it doesn't make A not true, nor does A being irrelevant makes it not have consequences or be unknowable. Relevance is about it's utility.
And it is really important that you understand this difference or else you will not understand why your objections aren't really any objections at all, and it will be kind of hard to continue this conversation.

 

[CommonEnlightenment]

"I do not at all believe in human freedom in the philosophical sense. Everybody acts not only under external compulsion but also in accordance with inner necessity. Schopenhauer's saying "A man can do what he wants, but not want what he wants," has been a very real inspiration to me since my youth; it has been a continual consolation in the face of life's hardships, my own and others', and an unfailing well-spring of tolerance." - AE

Albert was a big fan of Spinoza. He gives a rather more uplifting account what a life under determinism can be than Schopenhauer does. I think this is a lens through which Einstein approached Schopenhauer's philosophy.

Well yeah. Einstein was using Schopenhauer's quote in reference to dealing with life's hardships. Not life in general. If my original statement came off as "life in general' then it wasn't meant that way. In his youth I would venture to guess he used the quote to push through his parents telling him..... "No, you can't have that or you can't do this". He could have then realized that when dealing with things that were out of his control he could have used it to comfort himself when something was missing or out of place. But this type of statement is of little use in a philosophy thread when trying to dissect truth ONLY using a binary logic system. Its a deep quote when you stop to think about it.

Remember that scientists will often use a combination of fuzzy logic and binary logic systems when trying to uncover/discover 'truths' and/or facts.

Again, no supernatural entity is needed to have this type or kind of discussion.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

There's a man in your house. His name is Bob. But he's invisible and completely undetectable. He doesn't move any of your stuff, he doesn't displace the air by taking up any space, nor distort gravity by having mass, nor alter carbon dioxide levels by breathing. He doesn't get in the way, communicate or affect your daily activities. In fact, life for you would be no different if he wasn't there. But he is. This is a true fact. Something you can be aware of or ignorant of.

Being the kind of guy that likes knowledge for the sake of knowledge, you become aware of the fact that Bob actually exists, and has been there all along, watching in undetectable silence. Finally, one more nugget of truth to add to your list of facts about reality. What then? Are you better off now that you have this extra knowledge? Does this fact make a difference to you? Does it matter at all?

I imagine that knowing that a stranger can watch everything you do in private makes a big ass deal.

Agreed.

And not necessarily in the sense that it might bother the home-owner.

In a deterministic sense, it will change things.

If we think of ourselves as shifting sands, where stimuli - both internal and external - cause the sands to shift, then this extra piece of information is another stimulus, which shifts the sands further.

Comparing the results of the sands without and with this extra stimulus would show that you get two different - if only slightly - patterns.

So, it does make a difference.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is there to care, does it make a sound?

I know what you are trying to say here, but I would not use this analogy. Sound is created in the ear, thus if a tree falls and no one is there, it cannot make a sound since there is no ear to turn the vibrations in the air into sound.

I love the discussion going on here and I hope this does not derail it. I just had to point that out.

 

[CommonEnlightenment]

I imagine that knowing that a stranger can watch everything you do in private makes a big ass deal.

Or when you suspect that the whole damn neighborhood is following your every typed conversation, that could be the recipe of vague and ambiguous writing styles. I mean there is something creepy about that. When this happens, it's time to move to Mars or something.


OK....... Back to business or something like that.

 

[Go4th&X]

If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is there to care, does it make a sound?

If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is there to see it, shouldn't it still be standing?

 

[nemesiss]

If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is there to care, does it make a sound?

If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is there to see it, shouldn't it still be standing?

if a creationst makes an argument that is stupid, but no one hears it... is he really an idiot?

 

[unkerpaulie]

The problem you guys are having is that you can't distinguish an argument about a truth value and an argument about relevance. One has absolutely nothing to do with each other. No matter how much you argue that A is irrelevant it doesn't make A not true, nor does A being irrelevant makes it not have consequences or be unknowable. Relevance is about it's utility.
And it is really important that you understand this difference or else you will not understand why your objections aren't really any objections at all, and it will be kind of hard to continue this conversation.

You are right. The objection isn't about truth, its about relevance, and there is a difference. However, irrelevant truth that you know is actually less useful than irrelevant truth that you don't know. It doesn't interest me what the ratio of gravitational pull of pluto to mars is, the amount of rainfall in chile last year, or how long the elevator in your apartment building takes to get from the second floor to the fourth. We are constantly inundated with factual f data coming through our 5 senses, which are much more relevant to our lives than whether invisible undetectable Bob is watching us, or if determinism is a fact, yet we filter them out to make room for facts that are relevant.

There is a saying that I like (i first saw it on the shirt monogram on the uniform of belmont junior secondary school, in trinidad,where I'm from), which says: "to learn is to change". It took me a while for the wisdom in that to sink in, but its very true. The evidence that you've learned something is the change that manifests as a result. Furthermore, if you don't change, then you really haven't learned. Change us the inevitable outcome of learning something. Once you learn a new truth, if no change follows, then you really haven't learned it. The problem with irrelevant truth is it compels us to resist the change that results from learning it. If we must believe that determinism is true, yet in reality act as if its false, then we are better off believing that it is false.