ItWillNeverWork
Messy Crimbobs, fellow humans.
Fuck this pointless bollocks - there’s a thread over yonder about whether you put salt on a boiled egg.
<scarpers>
Will it tell us how many grains of salt can fit on the head of an egg though?
Determinism, Randomness, and Free Will
- Thread starter NoXion
- Start date
Will it tell us how many grains of salt can fit on the head of an egg though?
8ball
Maximum Facepalm
NoXion
Craicy the Squirrel
Photons, Quasars and the Possibility of Free Will
Flickers of light from the edge of the cosmos help physicists advance the idea that the future is not predeterminedgetpocket.com
That's the same article I posted in the OP.
bcuster
Well-Known Member
oopsThat's the same article I posted in the OP.
BigMoaner
What A Load of Old Bollocks
when i decide something, giving the impression of free will, the decision comes from nowhere - is as random as a throw of the dice. and in that decision a decider is implied - but really there's no decider. if i suddenly have the thought "go for a bath, it's time for a bath" - that thought has come to me much like a pang of hunger comes to me. and if i then have the thought "no, i will hold off, i can have one tomorrow", that thought also has come from nothing. certainly not a decider.
Heidegger nailed it - "we don't come to thought, thought comes to us".
but still we drag around out dated, punishing modes of a subject - entirely responsible, all the time. but try and find the subject, and all you will find is more thought, thought arriving to us, constantly, out of nowhere. we are being imprinted on forever, but the trick we are told is that we are the imprinters. it's the complete reverse.
i have spend decades gazing at my navel, trying to find a subject, and all i have ever found is more thought. this to me puts free will on tenuous, word game grounds. sure, there's an appearance of a doing subject, but ultimately that subject can, in my experience, never be found.
Heidegger nailed it - "we don't come to thought, thought comes to us".
but still we drag around out dated, punishing modes of a subject - entirely responsible, all the time. but try and find the subject, and all you will find is more thought, thought arriving to us, constantly, out of nowhere. we are being imprinted on forever, but the trick we are told is that we are the imprinters. it's the complete reverse.
i have spend decades gazing at my navel, trying to find a subject, and all i have ever found is more thought. this to me puts free will on tenuous, word game grounds. sure, there's an appearance of a doing subject, but ultimately that subject can, in my experience, never be found.
Last edited:
BigMoaner
What A Load of Old Bollocks
i rattle away at work, totally in the zone, hours past, i do shit, i get things done, i impress the boss. yada yada.
on the train home The Subject pops up "I have had a good day at work today." the subject claims it and is formed. what's it formed within? just another thought.
the whole thing happens by itself. that whole day at work was happening by itself. an imprint, thought spinning its way to me over and over. but the "self" on the train claims it. that self had fuck all to do with it lol!
we see decisions, but no-one, anywhere, knows where the decisions come from or how. we slap a "subject" onto it and spend our lives tremblign in terror.
that's no excuse to just be an arsehole or sit around all day. but it's certainly valuable in my view to losen up the idea of their being a subject always entirely doing this stuff. all of my decisions just happen.
on the train home The Subject pops up "I have had a good day at work today." the subject claims it and is formed. what's it formed within? just another thought.
the whole thing happens by itself. that whole day at work was happening by itself. an imprint, thought spinning its way to me over and over. but the "self" on the train claims it. that self had fuck all to do with it lol!
we see decisions, but no-one, anywhere, knows where the decisions come from or how. we slap a "subject" onto it and spend our lives tremblign in terror.
that's no excuse to just be an arsehole or sit around all day. but it's certainly valuable in my view to losen up the idea of their being a subject always entirely doing this stuff. all of my decisions just happen.
BigMoaner
What A Load of Old Bollocks
8ball
Maximum Facepalm
So you're talking about the subject rather than where the decisions come from?
BigMoaner
What A Load of Old Bollocks
you said there's no void, i.e. just stuff that is out of awareness that we are not aware of yet. which i agree with.
the knower can know the entire accesable universe - but what is the knower? that's the void! you will never know the knower. so what i am saying is the in-observable universe is not what i meant by the void.
8ball
Maximum Facepalm
I think a 'yes' would have done there - I agree that part is more nebulous.
Or you could take the view that what is in front of the curtain is of the same nature as what is behind it.
BigMoaner
What A Load of Old Bollocks
i don't know how it can't be. we are taught to focus on the details but never the context. but it's unknowable. the idea of discovering some sort of substrate to everything, i dunno how that could ever be done. but what ever it is, then it's okay to think we are it so what's the point of looking for something we are anyway?
8ball
Maximum Facepalm
We've got a few more urgent problems right now anyhoo.
BigMoaner
What A Load of Old Bollocks
exactly. couldn't agree more. it's all a bit so what when you see what's really going on.
BigMoaner
What A Load of Old Bollocks
i'll shut up after this but i like the thought experiment of someone going up to the purley gates and saying to god "i've meditated for years trying to find ultimate, nondual reality, the substrate of everything and the fundemental nature of being."
"you should have paid child maintenance you arsehole, fuck off down the road."
8ball
Maximum Facepalm
(((Alan Watts)))
smmudge
i know the smudge is true
He just says that to sound more posh but it's definitely more like croydon
I actually couldn't disagree with this more. This question is at the heart of the way we approach, design and implement everything related to people.
8ball
Maximum Facepalm
Come on boffins! Let get this nut properly cracked and it’s onto war and climate change next!!
<and if a passing mod could change the title to ‘PHILOSOPHICAL EMERGENCY!!!’ it might help focus peoples attention somewhat>
Last edited:
Jeff Robinson
Marxist-Lentilist: Jackboots and Jackfruit
I haven't listened to this yet, but should be a great debate for interested people. List and Caruso are, imo, amongst the best proponents of the libertarian and determinist positions on free will respectively:
NoXion
Craicy the Squirrel
Oh come off it. We still had time for philosophy even back in the days when most people had to till soil in order to survive. You think they didn't have any urgent problems back then?
This urge to gut the humanities in times of crisis is really damaging, but in a way that's not directly quantifiable and thus more insidious. Part of the reason the United States is in such an awful state is because of the anti-intellectual culture that's running rampant over there. Looks like we're not that much better, if your feckless trolling in this thread is any indication.
Come on boffins! Let get this nut properly cracked and it’s onto war and climate change next!!
<and if a passing mod could change the title to ‘PHILOSOPHICAL EMERGENCY!!!’ it might help focus peoples attention somewhat>
Yeah no, as the OP I object to giving the thread such a fucking stupid title.
You do realise that we can work on more than one problem at a time, yes? "Boffins", FFS.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I don't think this is a question strictly (or at all) for the humanities tbh.
That said, it's one of those questions in philosophy where you get stuck on the question - Wittgenstein's point that sometimes there is no answer because the question is wrongly formulated and thus meaningless.
I still think questions to do with free will are ill-defined. We have certainly evolved to have such a notion within our consciousness - observing 'decisions' we've made, coming up with reasons why we made those decisions, and imagining what might have happened with a different decision. That might be all we need to then feel that we have something we call 'free will'. But when we dig down into it, the thing we think we have disappears from view.
I think a lot of the concepts we use to make sense of our conscious perception are ill-defined. Understanding is another one. What exactly does it mean to understand something? And yet we feel we have a good understanding of the term understanding! Such infinite recursions are something of a feature.
That said, it's one of those questions in philosophy where you get stuck on the question - Wittgenstein's point that sometimes there is no answer because the question is wrongly formulated and thus meaningless.
I still think questions to do with free will are ill-defined. We have certainly evolved to have such a notion within our consciousness - observing 'decisions' we've made, coming up with reasons why we made those decisions, and imagining what might have happened with a different decision. That might be all we need to then feel that we have something we call 'free will'. But when we dig down into it, the thing we think we have disappears from view.
I think a lot of the concepts we use to make sense of our conscious perception are ill-defined. Understanding is another one. What exactly does it mean to understand something? And yet we feel we have a good understanding of the term understanding! Such infinite recursions are something of a feature.
Jeff Robinson
Marxist-Lentilist: Jackboots and Jackfruit
You're making hasty generalisations - bordering on anti-intellectualism - about vast literatures discussing these concepts in very detailed and fine-grained ways. How can you assert - in good faith and without qualification - that 'questions to do with free will are ill-defined'? What, all of them? This just suggests to me that you need to read more.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
The concept of free will itself is ill-defined. That is my contention. And so yes, all questions to do with free will are also ill-defined.
I did what I thought was best at the time, and how could I not?
Why not offer a rebuttal?
Jeff Robinson
Marxist-Lentilist: Jackboots and Jackfruit
The concept of concept is ill-defined, the concept of ill-defined is ill-defined. See, anybody can play childish semantic games.
Similar threads
