Schopenhauer, the ultimate red pill?

[dsayers]

Look at history and you will find that some of the greatest, most original and productive thinkers were determinists.

This is an objective claim that is predicated on subjective valuation. Stating opinion as fact is a sure fire way of demonstrating that you understand that your position lacks the capability of standing on its own merit.

 

It seems to me that in this discussion here there are very different understandings of what "determinism" (as a technical term in philosophy) means. 

This is an assertion. Instead of making such a claim, why not add the clarity that you think is missing?

[labmath2]

Determinism is paramount to self-knowledge, as I see it. People over here seem to equate self-knowledge with scapegoating their parents to a certain extent. Steven Pinker, in his book “The Blank Slate,” pointed out that most parenting research is useless because it does not control for hereditariness. I’m not saying that treating children right isn’t important, but it’s not all. If you accept that a monkey reared by wealthy and virtuous parents will not even become a person, you accept that a monkey is not a monkey because it was reared by monkeys, but rather because it has the DNA of a monkey. You accept thereby that an organism’s personhood or lack thereof and much of its personality is dependent upon its DNA, which varies across individuals and populations.

 

Caspi et al. 2002 is a good study showing how our genetic makeup mediates the effects of childhood abuse. Keep in mind that they researched ONE polymorphism in ONE gene. You have 20,000+ protein coding genes, each whereof may have a couple of polymorphisms.

 

 

I agree that you can change those things. However, that does not address my argument that you have certain intrinsic desires which you did not chose, which you just have, and all of your actions are based upon them.

You seem to completely missunderstand the first part and talk around the second.

 

For the first part, even if all your response is true, you still fail to answer the argument. How would your experience be different if determinism were untrue as compared to now? The aparent answer is there is no difference. If you reverse the position and say there is free will now, then the world of determinism would be that of non living objects.

 

For the second part, you seem to conflate absolute free will with free will. The absence of physical, biological, and phsychological restrictions on human intention and action is absolute free will. Free will is capacity to choose beween two or more options. What would you do if you had no desire to do anything? You could not choose your desires becaus that would presuppose at least one desire, a desire to choose your desires. It would seem non living objects are closer to this standard than humans.

[Kevin Beal]

I doubt that. Look at history and you will find that some of the greatest, most original and productive thinkers were determinists. Were they resigning? (I intend to mean only philosophers here but the same case could surely be said about great men in other fields of human endeavour..)

 

It seems to me that in this discussion here there are very different understandings of what "determinism" (as a technical term in philosophy) means. 

And I know a tall chinese man. I know some famous nihilists, so therefore nihilism has no negative effects on a person's psychology.

 

And I didn't say you can't be productive. Coming up with rationalizations to excuse what you feel like doing anyway, rather than what is right, can take a ton of effort, and be some amazing mental gymnastics.

 

I know full well what determinism is. I'm talking about the consequences of beliefs, not the beliefs themselves, necessarily.

[labmath2]

Huh? this doesnt make sense. what is it that has some influence over the brain? consciousness?

Our experience has influence over brain development. More specifically things like drugs, sleep, exercise and therapy can affect our brains which by extension gives us some way of fundamentally altering our consciousness. An example is someone who is depressed and decides to exercise regularly to manage their depression. Who they are will be noticeably different due to just one decision they made.

[mkaru]

And I know a tall chinese man. I know some famous nihilists, so therefore nihilism has no negative effects on a person's psychology.

Why so aggressive? I clearly didn't imply that in my post .. 

 

I know full well what determinism is. I'm talking about the consequences of beliefs, not the beliefs themselves, necessarily.

Talking about consequences - so you're a determinist yourself..

Mind you, either you are talking off causalities and consequences, and then you're a determinist consequently; or you don't, and you aren't..

This is an objective claim that is predicated on subjective valuation. Stating opinion as fact is a sure fire way of demonstrating that you understand that your position lacks the capability of standing on its own merit.

Of course it is an objective claim. What else should it be? I don't even know what you would mean by something being a "subjective" claim.

And of course it is "subjective valuation". I don't even know what you would bean by "non-subjective" ("objective"?) valuation. Maybe you think that values (original, good, beautiful, etc.) can be empirically measured. I don't.

 

Apart from that, I also don't know what the problem would be with making a statement about certain men being great, original, productive etc. Anyone can contest that valuation, and as long as he is willing to give reasons for his differing valuation, people can enter into a debate about it.

Or is your problem my claim that some great thinkers were actually determinists? 

 

 

This is an assertion. Instead of making such a claim, why not add the clarity that you think is missing?

 

I see no need to play the role of being your dictionary of philosophical terms, or to spare you from doing the work of looking up things yourself. Wasn't it enough that I pointed you to the fact that you might want to do that? 

[Will Torbald]

I know full well what determinism is. I'm talking about the consequences of beliefs, not the beliefs themselves, necessarily.

 

Are we talking here about probabilistic consequences, or deterministic consequences? Can you plot the distribution of people who become depressed as a direct consequence of believing in determinism and those who are immune to it - or is it a deterministic result that will always lead a person to become nihilistic? Because attacking determinism with determinism kind of seems to defeat itself. And there is no way out of it, either. If it's a probability, is it directly correlated with IQ? In that case the probability of being a nihilist because of determinism is determined by IQ which is genetically and environmentally influenced and largely out of anyone's control. If it is a direct causation, you're also being deterministic. But then, what about the non nihilistic determinists? What makes them not depressed?

[dsayers]

Maybe you think that values (original, good, beautiful, etc.) can be empirically measured. I don't.

lol. Thank you for making my point If you don't think these things can be empirically measured, then you are admitting that "greatest, most original and productive thinkers" cannot be measured. Therefore, to put it forth as if it is an objective claim above reproach is disingenuous. Kind of like claiming that nobody knows what they're talking about, but making no effort to clarify. Not an argument!

[mkaru]

lol. Thank you for making my point If you don't think these things can be empirically measured, then you are admitting that "greatest, most original and productive thinkers" cannot be measured. Therefore, to put it forth as if it is an objective claim above reproach is disingenuous. Kind of like claiming that nobody knows what they're talking about, but making no effort to clarify. Not an argument!

I do exactly that, I "admit" that this cannot be "measured" AND I put it forward as an objective claim.

The error in your thinking lies in the tacit assumption that "objective" and "measurable" are synonyms. They aren't.

Another error you commit is claiming I said anything in the sense "above reproach". 

[dsayers]

They don't have to be synonyms. You stated opinion as fact and I called you out on it. At no point since have you done anything other than deflect from taking responsibility for this. That's a lack of integrity and all I need to know about interacting with you.

[mkaru]

They don't have to be synonyms. You stated opinion as fact and I called you out on it. At no point since have you done anything other than deflect from taking responsibility for this. That's a lack of integrity and all I need to know about interacting with you.

 

i'm leaving, this is absurdely irrational and arrogant here.

[Natalia]

Sorry for taking long to respond to my own thread, I have been reading and thinking a lot about the matter. I came to the conclusion that there’s no such thing as a free will vs determinism discussion, that those arguments are purely semantics.

 

Free will and determinism pretty much rely on each other.

 

I want to reiterate that the will itself is not free (and that’s my qualm with free will), but that doesn’t change things. I don’t say it is inexistent, unimportant or invalid—just that it, in all its complexity when found in humans, is predetermined.

 

Certainly, humans have many wills, and they may conflict one another, but with “will” I mean the collection of all those desires. As Schopenhauer put it, “all desiring, striving, wishing, demanding, longing, hoping, loving, rejoicing, jubilation and the like, no less than not willing or resisting, all abhorring, fleeing, fearing, being angry, hating, mourning, suffering pains—in short, all emotions and passions.” You could call it the will to happiness.

 

Libertarians (in the philosophical sense, aka the ones that believe in free will) seem to consider free will as the capacity of choosing long-term benefits over short-term gains, or choosing right over wrong. I don’t see what is the fundamental difference between choosing either that makes one free will and the other compulsion. Both choices would have one goal, to satiate inherent preferences or desires. Intellect itself is just an evolutionary tool to achieve such goal, as Schopenhauer pointed out. But then, I could be misunderstanding something.

 

Such a will is by definition necessary for life, and thus predetermined, built by the billions of years of evolution. It is entirely compatible with determinism, since its conception obeys the laws of physics and cause and effect. And thus, Stefan’s non-argument that determinism is incompatible with preferences is absolute bullshit.

 

Now, absolute freedom would negate the existence of this Will, and thus be incompatible with life, and with cause and effect. Perhaps it is something like this that determinists have in mind when arguing against free will: with absolute freedom I mean liberum arbitrium indifferentiae, the freedom of indifference. The freedom to be indifferent to the consequences of your actions. Possessing such a freedom, a positive, absolute freedom, would mean that you, when conflicted with any options, would have the exact same probability of choosing either, basically, you would decide your actions by random chance. It is the indeterminist, accidental argument. That is incompatible with both determinism and free will.

 

If you deny that such freedom is possible, you’re arguing both for what determinists call determinism and what libertarians call free will.

[Natalia]

I didn't say free will was free from desire and I do not accept this premise as given that to have desires is to be a slave to them. The very idea being ridiculous. Of course you want to satisfy desires. What point would there be in having free will except to get what you want? You failed to understand what I said, not the other way around.

 

And you're wrong, again. A K-selection strategy is in your control. I'm wired for r-selection by my own estimation, but I made a commitment to myself to live a more principled life. You use "hardwired" and "instinctive" like they are logical arguments, but they are vague terms that seemed to be used more out of convenience than to clarify. At least, it doesn't help me understand anything more about why it should be described deterministically.

 

You've used multiple examples of situations which definitely are in your control that you claim are out of your control. That's a problem for sanity, self esteem, happiness.

 

You need more personal responsibility (e.x. you chose the guys you did).

It seems to be that you indeed understood my argument, but did not accept it as determinism. After reading your post, I pondered and read more about the matter and reached the conclusion in my last post (that free will and determinism depend upon each other.) This is an interesting essay by Hobart claiming exactly that, from 1934.

 

In this thread I did not want to address only “free” will, but the rest of Schopenhauer’s philosophy as well. You do not seem to be familiar with it. It goes much deeper than any philosophy discussed in this board, or any other philosophy at all. That’s why I call it “the ultimate red pill.” Here’s an introductory video:

 

 

I do not fully agree with it; namely, I consider the Will as a product of natural selection and therefore only present in living beings. And I know that not everyone is miserable all the time, although he is right in saying that all suffering comes from willing.

 

I fully accept personal responsibility! That’s one of the reasons why I’m a Libertarian/anarcho-capitalist. Read my previous post and Hobart’s essay on how personal responsibility is not destroyed by determinism. There’s no problem with the guy I chose himself, apart from getting into an adolescent narcissistic phase that rendered him unable to keep loving me, and now I’m pining, but that’s another matter.

[Will Torbald]

Schopenhauer is not particularly deep if you understand his views as the rationalization of a depressed and selfish man, universalizing his emotional cripplings on others. The problem with philosophers who say "we are all one, and a manifestation of the will" is that they are from a pre-science era. It is, as I said before, mystical. It puts the will before the man, as if the will exists non physically like a spirit or a god and manifests the man out of it, when in fact it is the other way. "You can never feel happiness, only the absence of pain" yeah, well, sorry for you Schoppy. You would have loved some of the anti-depressants we have now.

[Natalia]

Schopenhauer is not particularly deep if you understand his views as the rationalization of a depressed and selfish man, universalizing his emotional cripplings on others. The problem with philosophers who say "we are all one, and a manifestation of the will" is that they are from a pre-science era. It is, as I said before, mystical. It puts the will before the man, as if the will exists non physically like a spirit or a god and manifests the man out of it, when in fact it is the other way. "You can never feel happiness, only the absence of pain" yeah, well, sorry for you Schoppy. You would have loved some of the anti-depressants we have now.

I can understand that. I like to think I can discern the parts of his philosophy that are pure dysthima and the ones that are actually useful to know. Especially because he basically explained why asceticism is encouraged in literally all religions—how then would his entire philosophy spring from his own particular suffering?

 

snip

Thank you for caring. An entire city is quite suffocating! I’d be much more concerned with the quality rather than the quantity of people that care about me. In fact, I’m sadly in a state of mind wherein, to a certain degree, I only care if one particular person cares about me or not, and he doesn’t. But well, that’ll dissipate with time and reflection, I am sure.

[Eh Steve]

Yeah a city might be overwhelming  This post will hopefully offer a more realistic example.  This will be less poetic and emotional, but I still feel the same desire for your well-being and hope this will assist you in your life and feeling better.

 

  How you feel is unique to you and specific, but our situations may be similar enough that you might be able to relate .

 

What I suspect may be going on for you is that you developed an attachment and strong feelings for another person.  And that might have been very new for you or even the very first time.  It certainly was for me until very recently.  I didn't feel an attachment and connection to another person until I was friggen 29.  I've had girlfriends  before, I've had friends I spent time daily with, and I still didn't really feel any sort of connection or attachment to them.  Certainly not to the depth and magnitude I experienced with this person.  And when it happened with this new person it was extremely disorienting, confusing, and overwhelming for me.  It wasn't by any means all bad, I liked it a lot, but I had very little experience with those feelings.  I had all kinds of new feelings I simply did not know existed before then and had a ton of trouble interpreting and dealing with them.

 

I also am not dating the person I've felt this way about.  And it is really bizarre for me to still have that feeling of connection.  We are no longer interacting much...why the hell do I still care about them?  Why do I still feel any kind of attachment and fondness?  It's so unique to me to actually attach to anyone that it's really been disorienting to not have that one person, that first example of this feeling in my entire life.  And I've only found that by considering the possibility that I could feel that way about someone else that I find much solace in not being with that person.  And it has been very hard to consider the possibility that I might be able to do it again when every other interaction and person I had been with did not make me feel that way.  There is hope to have that feeling once more, and if not with this person, perhaps it is possible to feel this way about other people.

 

It has been very hard for me to recognize what it was about this person that made me feel this way.  Why did I attach?  I never attach, what the hell happened?  Why am I having feelings?  I never have feelings, what the hell happened?  And to deal with losing those feelings and that person when it was so much better than how I usually feel and have felt has been pretty upsetting for me.  

 

I feel like to me...I've never intellectually ascribed to determinism.  But in many ways my actions and feelings reflected it very strongly.  I was passively reacting to my environment and I was expecting how I felt to never change.  And very much how I felt was the same all the time.  When I ran into someone new and things felt completely differently than they had ever before I was very confused.  I was so used to feeling basically disconnected from everyone, everything, and myself all the time; I had no idea or expectation that I could feel attached and feelings other than what it is I usually felt.  I had no idea the depth and persistence of new feelings I could feel, rather than have feelings be short biips on my radar with a quick correction back to my baseline of non-feeling.  That I could feel completely differently much of the time.

 

It felt almost purely by random that I had met this person and had this new feelings.  I didn't consciously seek out anything new, I didn't consciously feel like I was doing anything differently from what I had always done.  Certainly how I met them was not particularly different from what I had always done.  There was no feeling of conscious choice or free-will in the matter, it felt very much random and unexpected to me.  I acted differently, I felt very differently, everything was profoundly different.

 

 In time I have found there was a massive difference in how I related to this person and how I connected to this person.  I've found that time spent with someone, discussing thoughts and feelings as honestly as possible, and doing so in a vulnerable and consistent manner, was what produced this wonderful attachment and connection to another person.  These behaviors were mutual on our part.  To the extent either of us weren't honest about our feelings things went badly and the feeling of connection, security and attachment suffered.

 

In my post to you I hoped to offer the possibility that maybe there were other people you could attach to and interact with in a similar way with this other person.  And that maybe things would go better this time.  Maybe you could identify what it is that went wrong with this other person and seek to change things in the future.

 

You may have little control over how you feel about this previous person.  But it is possible you may find yourself able to feel similarly or even better with someone else.  That it wasn't necessarily this person on their own you had feelings for, but the way you interacted, the way you both expressed yourself, the time spent together, that was what developed these feelings for someone else.  And maybe if you interact this way with others you can feel a similar feeling of connection and all the feelings that entails for new people.

 

I personally recommend journaling or therapy to help get in touch and process your feelings.  It helps stabilize the connection when you develop the skills to better express yourself and understand yourself.  This will help in the future when you connect and attach to others to have it be more reliable and hopefully help you find stability and connections that will last forever

 

I hope this helps Natalia.  My heart truly does go out to you and I as best I can over a message board I do empathize and sympathize with the feelings and situation you are dealing with.  I hope you can find it within your heart and mind that it is possible for you to have whatever it is you would like out of life

[Gavitor]

I want to reiterate that the will itself is not free (and that’s my qualm with free will), but that doesn’t change things. I don’t say it is inexistent, unimportant or invalid—just that it, in all its complexity when found in humans, is predetermined.

 

Certainly, humans have many wills, and they may conflict one another, but with “will” I mean the collection of all those desires. As Schopenhauer put it, “all desiring, striving, wishing, demanding, longing, hoping, loving, rejoicing, jubilation and the like, no less than not willing or resisting, all abhorring, fleeing, fearing, being angry, hating, mourning, suffering pains—in short, all emotions and passions.” You could call it the will to happiness.

 

 

You haven't pointed out how will is predetermined in humans, you just assert that it is.

 

 

Libertarians (in the philosophical sense, aka the ones that believe in free will) seem to consider free will as the capacity of choosing long-term benefits over short-term gains, or choosing right over wrong. I don’t see what is the fundamental difference between choosing either that makes one free will and the other compulsion. Both choices would have one goal, to satiate inherent preferences or desires. Intellect itself is just an evolutionary tool to achieve such goal, as Schopenhauer pointed out. But then, I could be misunderstanding something.

 

 

Choices aren't binary, you literally have millions of choices at any given time.

 

 

Now, absolute freedom would negate the existence of this Will, and thus be incompatible with life, and with cause and effect. Perhaps it is something like this that determinists have in mind when arguing against free will: with absolute freedom I mean liberum arbitrium indifferentiae, the freedom of indifference. The freedom to be indifferent to the consequences of your actions. Possessing such a freedom, a positive, absolute freedom, would mean that you, when conflicted with any options, would have the exact same probability of choosing either, basically, you would decide your actions by random chance. It is the indeterminist, accidental argument. That is incompatible with both determinism and free will.

 

If you deny that such freedom is possible, you’re arguing both for what determinists call determinism and what libertarians call free will.

 

You can't argue for both because arguing that everything is determined means that free will is nothing more than an illusion. Also being indifferent is compatible with free will because being indifferent is also a choice...

 

 

Such a will is by definition necessary for life, and thus predetermined, built by the billions of years of evolution. It is entirely compatible with determinism, since its conception obeys the laws of physics and cause and effect. And thus, Stefan’s non-argument that determinism is incompatible with preferences is absolute bullshit.

 

What are you talking about? How exactly is it necessary for life? and how does that make it predetermined? How did you come to the conclusion that evolution is predetermined? How does obeying the laws of physics and cause and affect make something predetermined?

 

What does any of that to do with preferences not being compatible with determinism?

[Kevin Beal]

Dear all determinists:

 

Are we talking here about probabilistic consequences, or deterministic consequences? Can you plot the distribution of people who become depressed as a direct consequence of believing in determinism and those who are immune to it - or is it a deterministic result that will always lead a person to become nihilistic? [Like this implies anything whatsoever about the validity of free will]

 

First off, I didn't say determinism results in nihilism, but I guess it does in a sense, but that's not the main point I'm making. More below:

 

 

Consideration #1: Cause & Effect is Beside the Point

The fact that causes have effects, outcomes can be knowable, is not evidence of the Determinist position (as it relates to free will).

 

Just because you can describe things as causal relationships between objects over time, that means nothing for the Determinist / free will debate. If you set me up with my same desires, my same options, etc. – the fact that I choose one repeatedly and that this is knowable, can be predicted at a neurological level and whatever else, is beside the point. All it says is that if everything is the same, then everything will be the same.

 

A conscious volitional choice is a variable, an effect and a cause. You could go lower down describing the same event at another level, but that's only half the story (i.e. "I didn't do it officer, my neurons did!"). That just results in an infinite regression because the neurons are just collections of molecules which are collections of atoms, quantum stuff, etc.

 

Consideration #2: Consciousness Matters

The role that consciousness plays in our decisions matters. Each of these levels of description, these emergent phenomena, have their own causal relationships, new properties and functions that exist only at that level (gold atoms aren't solid, H2O molecules don't splash, neurons aren't conscious, etc.).

 

Any event can be modeled in physically deterministic terms. (Maybe I'm just ignorant or stubborn or whatever, but I'm convinced that includes quantum events, despite the authorities saying otherwise). That's not the same thing as the Determinist position. Determinism here is used in a different sense than the Determinist position (as it relates to free will). Treating them the same is to equivocate between different senses of the word.

 

Determinism (as it relates to free will) is taking the accuracy of causally deterministic descriptions and concluding that this must mean that our subjective experience of choosing between multiple options is illusory – that the actual "decision" is being determined at a lower level than consciousness. Talking about a series of causal events in terms of desires, decisions and other mental states is not very satisfying to most Determinists who conclude that a more deterministic level of description (i.e. at the neuronal level) must be more true / scientific.

 

Consideration #3: Free Will is not Magic

Free will isn't free from cause and effect in the physical world. Descartes might argue otherwise, but he was a lunatic, and he does not represent a modern philosophical libertarian position on free will. If free will exists, it is clearly a biological phenomenon and must be part of the physical world.

 

Y'all Determinists have a weird conception of freedom of the will, like it should not obey any kind of logic or physics or biology – like it should be random or magical. We aren't actually slaves to logic or gravity or causal relationships between objects and events, or whatever. They are limits within a system. Because a board game has rules doesn't mean it's lacking in any choice. That would be the stupidest game ever.

 

Free will is creating outcomes according to value, desire, and reason; the highest expression of which being able to choose things which meet a standard despite desiring something different (e.x. deferring gratification). Free will is free to make our own choice despite instinct, inclination, addiction, desire, etc.

 

It's not random or probabilistic. It can be described causally just like everything else. It's simply the acceptance that this subjective experience of choosing one option over others is causal in the way we experience it being causal.

 

Consideration #4: Determinism is a Rejection of Reason

The whole concept of a desire is a rational one. It is something which has a condition which must be satisfied. Conditions imply logic. Reason is a subjective process – not in the sense of propositions being subjectively true/false, but it's a conscious volitional act (i.e. consciousness exists subjectively).

 

If it's our neurons which do the choosing (prior to consciousness), then reason is not a volitional process, but an illusory, superfluous, inconsequential one.

 

Trying to reason a person into thinking reason is illusory is a self detonating argument. It is to say "listen to my reason so that you can reject my reason."

 

--------------------

 

This doesn't disprove determinism. It may still be true despite this significant challenge, but please don't misrepresent the free will position. Trying to say "causes have effects, therefore determinism" is such a lazy, unthinking non-position.

[dsayers]

For what it's worth, as somebody that accepts that morality is objective, I personally would not watch a video that claims to talk about morality/ethics that belongs to somebody. 

[Will Torbald]

This doesn't disprove determinism. It may still be true despite this significant challenge, but please don't misrepresent the free will position. Trying to say "causes have effects, therefore determinism" is such a lazy, unthinking non-position.

 

My argument was about your heavy implication that determinism leads causally to nihilism to depression, and that her depression is either exacerbated or caused by thinking in Schopenhauer's terms. Then you deny any implications, change the subject to cause and effect as part of the argument of determinism itself - but I never debated that. The cause and effect in question is between determinism and psyche status. In so far as your big worry for her and for everyone else I guess is that people will definitely suffer negative consequences deterministically (cause and effect) in their minds (determinism in consciousness) as opposed to a free will process where the origin of their distress comes from their free decisions to be sad.

[Jakethehuman]

Good girl for reading nietzsche, Bad girl for being so into boys at 16 years old.

 

If you're into philosophy and have been watching Stefan for a while it should be impossible to "fall in love" with an unlovable person ie a person that would hurt you, so I suspect that what you felt was not love but childish lust and infatuation, which is notorious at your age, that along with a deterministic streak is apparently quite depressing.

 

The only use you could have of "willing your will" would be to remove the annoying tugs of lust, gluttony etc (innate desire) and be 100% at peace 100% of the time with the decisions and behaviours you are engaging in. If you are rational and mindful you are going to make the correct decisions despite what your animal brain wants, so the "will" actually has no bearing on the physical world (outside of annoying biochemical reactions in the brain). I know as a vegan that the annoying  biochemical reactions in the brain eventually fade away to the point where the things you previously craved for can now become repulsive. It is the same as going out for a night drinking, the idea repulses me because of all the implications, and I have decided that other things are more important. The desire to ride motorbikes dangerously fast has gone because of rational thought, mindfulness, and other things in my life that have destroyed that desire for risk. The animal desire to conserve energy and sit around has been destroyed by the need to be fit and healthy for as long as possible. The same can be said of the application of mental exertion and the daily decision to improve it. The list goes on.

[Kikker]

This doesn't disprove determinism. It may still be true despite this significant challenge, but please don't misrepresent the free will position. Trying to say "causes have effects, therefore determinism" is such a lazy, unthinking non-position.

 

How about this:

In the physical world everything has a cause,

The physical world is governed by a fixed set of laws,

So theoretically you can, with the cause known and all the laws known, predict anything,

This includes conscientiousness, as long as it is part of the physical world.

 

This is the basis of determinism. Important to note is that free will and determinism aren't opposites like you suggested. There are 4 positions:

 

1. Determinism is True therefore free will doesn't exist (hard determinism)

2. Determinism is False therefore free will exists (libertarian)

3. Determinism is True and Free will exists. (compatibalism)

4. Determinism is can be either true or false but free will doesn't exist (Hard incompatibilism)

 

Your position seems to be compatibalism.

Meaning that Free will exists in the physical world, ("Free will isn't free from cause and effect in the physical world")

therefore decisions can be predicted if the cause and the rules are known. ("If you set me up with my same desires, my same options, etc. – the fact that I choose one repeatedly and that this is knowable,")

 

The obscure thing about your argument is that you define free will within the bounds of a deterministic world but then proceed to change the definition into the conclusion of determinism.

 

("Determinism (as it relates to free will) is taking the accuracy of causally deterministic descriptions and concluding that this must mean that our subjective experience of choosing between multiple options is illusory")

 

First of you don't need multiple options to make a decision of free will, Frankfurts thought experiment "Docter black" illustrates that.

Secondly, in a deterministic world (as I have defined) you don't have alternative options to begin with.

 

"that the actual "decision" is being determined at a lower level than consciousness. Talking about a series of causal events in terms of desires, decisions and other mental states is not very satisfying to most Determinists who conclude that a more deterministic level of description (i.e. at the neuronal level) must be more true / scientific."

 

A more deterministic level doesn't exist, something is either deterministic or not. You say that a series of events in terms of desires, decisions and other mental states can be deterministic and compatible with free will but a explanation through neurological events cannot. That is highly contradictory. You can argue about the accuracy of reasoning from neurological observations but that doesn't contradict the notion of series of events in terms of desires, decisions and other mental states which would lead to a decision.

 

Therefore my question is: how do you define free will and conscientiousness?

[Kevin Beal]

How about this:

I addressed everything you said already in the post you're responding to. It's as if you didn't read or process any of it.

 

If your definition of determinism is simply that we live in a rational, predictable universe, then I'm a determinist. This, however, makes no comment on free will for the reasons I already mentioned ("everything is the same, then everything will be the same"). If that is your definition of determinism, then you are the compatibilist, not me.

[Kikker]

I addressed everything you said already in the post you're responding to. It's as if you didn't read or process any of it.

 

If your definition of determinism is simply that we live in a rational, predictable universe, then I'm a determinist.

I refuted your premise which means that any argument coming from that premise isn't trustworthy. You say you believe in a world of causes and a fixed set of laws, yet you believe you have multiple options, yet you believe that consciousness doesn't include neurons. It's contradictory.

 

It's not 'my' definition of determinism, it's the common definition of determinism. Look it up, the first page of google all use the definition of determinism I used.

 

This, however, makes no comment on free will for the reasons I already mentioned ("everything is the same, then everything will be the same"). If that is your definition of determinism, then you are the compatibilist, not me.

 

And like I said that is a compatibilist position, a world where determinism doesn't contradict free will. You obscure the debate when using determinism in a different manner or when you misunderstand your own position. Also you seem to refuse to believe you're a compatibilist due some disdain to the word itself instead of logical reasons.

 

Secondly you argue that a determinist thinks that we should give in to our instincts and desires when even Schopenhauer, the name of this topic, argues otherwise. You're arguing against a position which doesn't exist in this discussion.

[dsayers]

It's not 'my' definition of determinism, it's the common definition of determinism.

Not relevant. A willingness to define one's terms is not only a baseline mark of integrity, but is actually a requisite for any meaningful conversation stemming from a point of contention. Asking somebody to define their terms isn't for the purpose of etymology, but to establish what's being talked about to eliminate the potential for miscommunication, which is ineffective an inefficient.

[Kikker]

Not relevant. A willingness to define one's terms is not only a baseline mark of integrity, but is actually a requisite for any meaningful conversation stemming from a point of contention. Asking somebody to define their terms isn't for the purpose of etymology, but to establish what's being talked about to eliminate the potential for miscommunication, which is ineffective an inefficient.

Using the same word for 2 different positions is illogical at best, kevin himself already complained how the word free will got interlocked with a claim with free will as a premise (free will has cannot have a cause), rightly so because that would be a misrepresentation of free will. On the other hand you shouldn't interlock determinism with a logical and empirical claim with determinism as a premise (decisions are made regardless of your reasoning).

[Kevin Beal]

I refuted your premise which means that any argument coming from that premise isn't trustworthy. You say you believe in a world of causes and a fixed set of laws, yet you believe you have multiple options, yet you believe that consciousness doesn't include neurons. It's contradictory.

You refuted nothing. You simply offered other definitions. I never said consciousness doesn't include neurons. It clearly has to. That's obvious to anyone who thinks about it for even a single second.

 

"Fixed laws" in no way means there is only ever one option. At least, you've done nothing at all to demonstrate this claim. That's the lazy "cause and effect, therefore no free will" I complained about. Don't just assert it, show your work! No determinist will ever do this, because to do so is to prove they have no idea what they are talking about. It's a naive conception of cause and effect that doesn't take into account that different objects have different causal relationships to each other. It's all just billiard balls bouncing off each other to the determinist.

 

And like I said that is a compatibilist position, a world where determinism doesn't contradict free will. You obscure the debate when using determinism in a different manner or when you misunderstand your own position. Also you seem to refuse to believe you're a compatibilist due some disdain to the word itself instead of logical reasons.

No. I explain what the debate is about in the last paragraph of consideration #2. Nearly every person who talks about determinism is talking about it as that thing which makes free will illusory. I'm not offering some obscure definition, I'm distinguishing between a completely immature debate tactic most determinists use by saying "cause and effect, therefore no free will" and the actual position itself as it relates to free will.

 

Address it or don't, but don't just pretend it never happened.

 

Secondly you argue that a determinist thinks that we should give in to our instincts and desires when even Schopenhauer, the name of this topic, argues otherwise. You're arguing against a position which doesn't exist in this discussion.

I'm not saying that this is what they say you should do. I'm saying that this is a natural consequence of the belief. If you don't create your own situation but only find yourself in it, then you are describing exactly the mind of a depressed person.

 

If a determinist believes in Determinism but completely ignores what it means for their lives, then great! There's no problem.

[Kikker]

"You refuted nothing. You simply offered other definitions. I never said consciousness doesn't include neurons. It clearly has to. That's obvious to anyone who thinks about it for even a single second."

I refuted your premise that the only position a determinist can have in relation to free will is the one you described.

 

Just to get this straight, you agree that consciousness exists out of neurons?

If so what is the problem with the statement:

 

"If it's our neurons which do the choosing (prior to consciousness), then reason is not a volitional process, but an illusory, superfluous, inconsequential one."

If you believe that neurons make up you consciousness. You just need to say neurons=consciousness and the whole argument of your "determinism" falls apart. You don't need to write 4 paragraphs about it.

 

Even if the claim is prior to consciousness, to clarify, the empirical claim that neurons can be observed making decisions before the person self is aware of it, can be easily refuted as a difference in delay. It's simply a different way of observing the same thing.

 

"Fixed laws" in no way means there is only ever one option. At least, you've done nothing at all to demonstrate this claim. That's the lazy "cause and effect, therefore no free will" I complained about. Don't just assert it, show your work! No determinist will ever do this, because to do so is to prove they have no idea what they are talking about. It's a naive conception of cause and effect that doesn't take into account that different objects have different causal relationships to each other. It's all just billiard balls bouncing off each other to the determinist.

 

"Fixed laws" means that only one option is chosen, previous events caused that option to be chosen thus the option was predictable and therefore fixed beforehand. In this case free will is part of the equation, so even though a consciousness gets multiple options, the one chosen was already fixed beforehand by the different idea's, thoughts and urges present in that consciousness.

 

So some people may call free will an illusion, since your decisions are fixed beforehand. This easily refuted; in order for free will to be a illusion it must contain a false premise, but if your definition of free will is within a deterministic world, then free will as a concept isn't an illusion. It is describing a part of the decision making progress.

 

Doesn't mean your description using free will can't be factually wrong.

 

No. I explain what the debate is about in the last paragraph of consideration #2. Nearly every person who talks about determinism is talking about it as that thing which makes free will illusory. I'm not offering some obscure definition, I'm distinguishing between a completely immature debate tactic most determinists use by saying "cause and effect, therefore no free will" and the actual position itself as it relates to free will.

 

Address it or don't, but don't just pretend it never happened.

Using the same word for a deterministic worldview and for a logical claim with a deterministic world as a premise is obscuring the debate (that there is no free will because determinism is true). You yourself already rightly complained how free will gets confused with a logical claim with free will as a premise (that free will can't have a cause). So I am unsure why you're still objecting to my comment.

 

I'm not saying that this is what they say you should do. I'm saying that this is a natural consequence of the belief. If you don't create your own situation but only find yourself in it, then you are describing exactly the mind of a depressed person.

 

If a determinist believes in Determinism but completely ignores what it means for their lives, then great! There's no problem.

You mean a hard determinist.

[RichardY]

Natalia, I remember in an earlier thread when I asked. What is best in life? You said, achievement. 

 

Though from the video I watched that you posted, it seems that Schopenhauer seems very similar to Buddhism and talks about eliminating desire, which invalidates achievement. Also it refers to eliminating suffering, by eliminating desire. To kill desire, is to kill love.

Eh Steve said something about keeping a journal. Might be a good idea to write down some thoughts now and again, you might find that some contradict themselves or are manifestations of the same thing.

 

I noticed that you mentioned about learning German if you are working towards a degree you could always consider living in Europe perhaps Switzerland for a awhile. Or if you have Portuguese ancestry it is possible to get citizenship in Portugal and then work in Switzerland or an English speaking country like Ireland. I did some backpacking in Portugal and stayed with a Portuguese and German family there in the North and South respectively. 

 

Part 2 a few thoughts on Freewill

Coming up with such concept made me question the possibility of such thing as a free will. 

 

Freewill, to me basically means the activity within the frontal and mid ranges of the brain 

with more primal areas like the Hypothalamus controlling responses to stimuli, but not the longer term planning and simulations(and dreams) going on in the frontal areas.

 

I think the Development of Freewill would follow some of the following categories.

 

Self-Awareness. ("I")

Universality and Contradiction. ("Pattern matching")

Anticipation of the future. ("Empiricism + Reason")

Internalisation of Values.

Conception of Morality.

Ability to restrain base impulses. ("Stealing is wrong")

 

Acting in accordance with Morality, Base impulses, Internal Values and Managing Freewill

 

I think if you resolve issues and inconsistencies related to your internal values and morals

you can act more in accordance with a FreeWill to what is Just or Fair or to survival. Though just to survive seems hollow to me, almost like an insect or tapeworm.

 

 

"What does it mean to be free, if you can do what you want, but you cannot choose what you want?"

 

Contradictory statement. When you use the term "you" or "I" you are implying that the entity has choice. I could call my car or bike "you", but, unless it had the ability to make choices that would be crazy.

 

"it’s not up to you, and it was decided billions of years before you were born" 

 

Decided by who? You could say God (Omniscience), but that would obliterate freewill (and you would be destined for heaven or hell which would make no sense(Christianity)). Unless you say that God is not Omniscient and therefore not Omnipotent and therefore not God (maybe the universe itself).

[dsayers]

Using the same word for 2 different positions is illogical at best

I fear you're missing the point. I have friends in different time zones. So if either of us say a time, it could represent "two different positions." It doesn't matter WHAT you mean, just that you clarify what it is that you're talking about. Like I don't care if we agree to chat at 8pm EDST or 8pm PDST, as long as we're ON THE SAME PAGE.

 

It doesn't matter if a word has 100 definitions. You cannot have a meaningful discussion if you're talking about two different things.

 

Don't take my word for it. Next time your car is running, turn the key to the start position. You'll hear a very loud grinding noise (it can be very bad for your car). It's because the solenoid on your starter and the flywheel are not "shaking hands" because the starter's solenoid gear was meant to engage an idle flywheel. So you can either define your terms, shake hands, and put that solenoid's work to use, or you can object, try to start a running car, and render your car immobile.

 

Anecdote: This isn't a hypothetical. I once turned a car off and realized I didn't mean to and tried to turn it right back on. This is a car that would "diesel," so it was technically running when I tried to restart it. The flywheel torqued the started in such a way that its electrical got grounded and shorted the battery. The car was immobile up until the point the starter was replaced. So yeah, make sure you hand shake before you start talking past people

[Kevin Beal]

"Fixed laws" means that only one option is chosen, previous events caused that option to be chosen thus the option was predictable and therefore fixed beforehand. In this case free will is part of the equation, so even though a consciousness gets multiple options, the one chosen was already fixed beforehand by the different idea's, thoughts and urges present in that consciousness.

An outcome isn't a law. "Fixed laws therefore fixed outcomes" is just being asserted here. Demonstrate this claim.

[Kikker]

An outcome isn't a law. "Fixed laws therefore fixed outcomes" is just being asserted here. Demonstrate this claim.

I made a mistake there in formulation by not mentioning the causes first.

 

But I already said essentially the same thing the first time I responded to you, if you don't think this is a logical proof which needs to be refuted before doubting it's outcome then in don't know what to say.

 

In the physical world everything has a cause,

The physical world is governed by a fixed set of laws,

So theoretically you can, with the cause known and all the laws known, predict anything,

This includes the decisions you have yet to make.

 

I also explained how this doesn't mean free will is an illusion but I can elaborate on that. Because even though any change in your consciences is fixed, that doesn't mean that nothing changed, in fact you consciences can change things. A important note is that consciences then simply becomes a term which describes a process in your brain which turns stimuli into actions, and can be both described as a conscience experiencing itself and as other consciences experience another conscience.

 

By the way I don't know if it's possible and by all means don't do it if you don't want to, but if you have changed your opinion about my previous post please retract the downvote since it will hide my comments eventually. I am assuming ofcourse you did downvote it, ignore this if you didn't.

[Kevin Beal]

In the physical world everything has a cause,

The physical world is governed by a fixed set of laws,

So theoretically you can, with the cause known and all the laws known, predict anything,

This includes the decisions you have yet to make.

This doesn't conclude in there are fixed outcomes or that choice is an illusion. You are making an argument for something else.

 

There is nothing about having a cause or being predictable which necessitates that only one outcome is possible. If we were all billiard balls, then maybe you'd have a point, but we're conscious agents. Free will requires that more than one outcome is possible, otherwise this subjective experience I have of choosing is an illusion.

 

This is the entire debate, as far as I'm concerned, summed up in one premise. If you can show that only one outcome is possible, then my position has been refuted. I am wrong in that case. Otherwise, as I've defined my terms, I consider what you're saying to be just another way of saying that I'm right about Determinism, and that it is the free will position which is the right one.

[Jakethehuman]

Let's take a fairly relatable example:

 

One of your good friends has been offered a better job on the other side of the country, he has lived in a small town all his life and would be leaving his entire social network, however the job is really well paying. He's always been very goal oriented but loves his family is very much.

 

There are three options here: 1he could take the job. 2 he could keep his current job. 3 something totally random.

For rational people option 3 is not really an option. So we are left with 2 choices, reason tells us this cannot possibly be a 50/50 situation. With your knowledge of the persons history and personality, the current events in his life, if you are interested in the outcome and spend some time thinking about it you should be able to predict to a high degree of certainty what his choice will be.

 

Now consider a computer that had access to all of his history, experience, thoughts and feelings, would not this machine be able to predict within a 99% certainty?

[Kevin Beal]

Now consider a computer that had access to all of his history, experience, thoughts and feelings, would not this machine be able to predict within a 99% certainty?

Yes, if it was programmed to evaluate the same conditions we would in making our choice, and was programmed to weigh these conditions in terms of a number value. Technically, it doesn't predict anything, all it does is move 1's and 0's around according to a program, and it's just a representation of logic, but close enough, yes.

[dsayers]

Now consider a computer that had access to all of his history, experience, thoughts and feelings, would not this machine be able to predict within a 99% certainty?

The topic isn't about computers. Could you explicate what you think this proves?