someone wrote: A lot of insightful and interesting things.
Hey, that type of quoting seems to work…
Yes, I agree with most things you say Bravo, but I disagree that our current version of free will is free enough. Freedom, to me at least, is a binary thing. You are either free, or you're not. I'm not. Neither are most of you. If there is any part of you that is restricted, any little thing you wish to do but can't, you're not free.
I am not saying that is a bad thing however. There would be a lot of "Evil" things happening if all of us were free to do what we wanted. I agree that our current level of free isn't that bad, but we are not free by any means.
Well, no one has absolute freedom, either physically or mentally. As Kroatz said, we're saddled with all sort of evolutionary animal-like throwback tendencies, combined with our human conscious, creating all sorts of neurotic behaviors… . Most modern thinkers (Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris…) that reject freewill do so because freewill of any sorts seems to demand some sort of break is the causal chain of physical determinism. IE. a 'thought' is a brain phenomenon brought about by physical events (a combination of your genetics (the way your brain works is built is due to physical DNA molecules) combined with sensory input (seeing, hearing…). The thought itself is just another physical/chemical reaction in a causal chain. If a thought is not that, then it is a totally random thing (like a quantum fluctuation), but in neither case is it a 'something' willed into existence by a will, ergo… Freewill doesn't exist. . The problem I have with that is, if that is true, then how do you know any of your conclusions are ever true…? A conclusion is a 'thought'. And if a thought is nothing but a particular culmination of your genetic brain makeup combined with various data you've taken in over your life (memories are just recordings of past sensory input, and imperfect ones at that), then a thought is ultimately 'programmed' by physical reality. And let me tell you as someone involved in IT, programming can be WRONG (it's called a bug)!! If thoughts are programmed, and conclusions are thoughts, then what are we using to ascertain if our conclusions are correct or not? . Kroatz says he 'knows' we don't have freewill - what is he using to 'know' that to be true? A program cannot, on its own, know it is calculating correct data - that results in circular logic. A program can only truly be shown to be correct when its output is compared with control data produced somewhere else, and judged by something BESIDES the program. Is the analogy clear? If the brain is the computer, what are you using to know it's concluding truth? . Don't ask me what freewill actually is - I don't know. However, if we assert that we don't have it (on some level), but still claim we can know truth… to me, such a statement is Reductio ad Absurdum!
The belief that free will does not exist does not necessarily exclude the possibility that logical thought exists in beings without free will. I see your point though.
The belief that free will does not exist does not necessarily exclude the possibility that logical thought exists in beings without free will. I see your point though.
I don't disagree with you Kroatz - I simply ask what are you using to conclude that logical thoughts do indeed exist in beings without freewill, assuming you yourself are one of these beings without freewill ;)
The thought process I went through was: - Free will is the ability to make a decision without any factors influencing that decision. - There are currently factors influencing every decision we make. - We are able to overcome some of them, but unable to overcome others. - As long as we're unable to overcome those factors, we have no free will.
Of course this is a shortened version of the thought process, and I have to admit that it doesn't adhere to the rules of philosophical thought very well, but in my defense, I only had a few minutes to think about it.
Kroatz wrote: The thought process I went through was: - Free will is the ability to make a decision without any factors influencing that decision. - There are currently factors influencing every decision we make. - We are able to overcome some of them, but unable to overcome others. - As long as we're unable to overcome those factors, we have no free will.
Of course this is a shortened version of the thought process, and I have to admit that it doesn't adhere to the rules of philosophical thought very well, but in my defense, I only had a few minutes to think about it.
In your third bullet point, you say we are able to overcome 'some' factors… What are we using to 'overcome' them? . If we're just 'deciding' too, well, you've admitted that every decision is influenced by factors, so that means the 'decision' to overcome 'factors' is itself influenced by factors. If we're not 'deciding' to (we just happen to be able to overcome some), then that's not true overcoming - it's just a quirk in our mental hardwiring (some have it - some don't), which again, is influenced by factors (genetics and environment). . Again, the dog chasing its tail - circular reasoning that I've yet to see a non-freewill proponent really weasel out of… hehe . I'm not arguing that freewill exists - I'm merely pointing the ramifications if it does not. I believe that the ability to know truth is intrinsically linked with the ability to formulate 'un-influenced' logical thoughts, which is just a fancy way of saying freewill. For, if what we use to know 'truth' is itself influenced by invasive factors - how can it be trusted? . The only non-freewill argument I've came across that sorta works is compatibilism (of which Daniel Dennett is a proponent). It's the notion that we're actually thinking and deciding, but us doing so is still woven in with the causal chain of determinism. But it has what I call a 'backwards-compatibility' problem. Any form of determinism means whatever happened couldn't have happened in any other way. So if decided to kill your spouse, you can't draw any comfort under compatibilism, because if you look back on your decision, the conclusion is still that's all you could have done - you could NOT have chosen differently. That's why the philosopher Williams James called compatibilism a 'Wretched Subterfuge'…
ozoneocean wrote: Have you seen Welcome to NHK? Interesting show!
I have watched the entire series of Welcome to the NHK. I have gone back to that story multiple times because it teaches many of life's darker lessons from social anxiety, psychology, being a recluse, multi-level marketing/pyramid schemes, MMORPG, high school mentors, isolation in adulthood, Internet suicide pacts, conspiracy theories, romantic dating, abuse, and depression. It is rare for a story to dive into the deep end of triggering subject matter and still come off as a lighthearted show because the intro song is about pudding.
The soundtrack for the series is also very moving. There are several scenes that take place in a classroom in the afternoon and there is a certain feel of nostalgia and longing that I get from the conversations that take place between the main character and a female upperclassman.
I am glad you have discovered that series, Oz. I first watched it about eight years ago, and it has remained my favourite one since then.
And none of the debate matters a bit whether it is determinism or any other -ism. Actual life-living and life choices matter. Most philospophy might as well be the circular discussion of angels dancing on pin heads.
During the great theological debates of the Middle Ages one scholar said all thes detailed arguments and long-winded essays on what is or isn't were all so much hooey. It was a debate over angels dancing on pinheads. If angels have mass no angels can dance on a pin head. If angels are creatures of pure spirit an infinte number could dance on a pinhead. And all evidence one way or another was purely imaginary and worthless when it came to figuring out what was for breakfast. (to quote Douglas Adams) And the whole exercise was a waste of time when people were starving and depression weighewd odwn psyches because of seemingly insurmountable life questions.
I've read it was William of Occam. The guy who came up with Occam's razor that the simplest explanation is the one most likely to be accurate. So all of this was decided over a thousand years ago and we are whipping a dead horse expecting it to take us to market to get some fresh bread and cheese for breakfast.
When is an explanation ever good enough if you continue to make your system more complex? It never is. You argue over free will into a massive quandry that is without a solution when you might as well sit down and have breakfast.
If you say that the detemination about the existence of something depends on wheter you can know anything you might as give up the debate because you cannot settle anything until you decide how you can know anything. Then say X is how I know anything and proced from there. To leave everything open mean free will is irrelevant because you have a mess where nothng can be known or even thought so you might as well just get a mop and clean it up and go back and make some breakfast. But you've wasted so much time it's time for lunch.
If you think that I find this all absurd, you are quite right. It is only by embarcing the absurd that the universe comes into view. But the view will never be clear because you are only dealing with probability and that's fuzzy. This is why I'm a Taoist.
lol Bravo, okay I'm saying this with a good-natured smile so don't think I'm spitting acid ;) . That sort of flippancy can apply to any sort of metaphysical thinking. What I'm hearing is a long winded version of if it doesn't have a bearing on the four F's (fleeing, feeding, fighting and fu… er reproducing) then it's not worth burning too many brain cells over… You may not be saying that but that's how it seems to me *shrug* . Glad that works for you, but if day to day living is all that matters… Well, my puppy would agree! But for me (and quite a few others) reflecting and taking some sort of stance on the inscrutable things is the spice that makes a pretty good life even better!
I was just thinking about the Resident Evil game series and other games that came after it… such as Dead Space and Parasite EVE.
I know it's supposed to be about the story, but the science behind the monsters mutating gives me a headache. I know that in order for an ordinary five foot human to mutate rapidly into a monster twice his size (or larger) they'd need extra energy and mass. The games don't explain this… well except Dead Space where the mutagenic catalyst is simply "alien". Resident Evil 6 attempted to solve this with one boss being mutated from a pile of corpses, but there's not enough visible corpses to justify its mass.
And despite that the original Resident Evil scares me because the zombies featured in it are an entirely possible reality…
Lonnehart wrote: Now for a subject out of left field…
I was just thinking about the Resident Evil game series and other games that came after it… such as Dead Space and Parasite EVE.
I know it's supposed to be about the story, but the science behind the monsters mutating gives me a headache. I know that in order for an ordinary five foot human to mutate rapidly into a monster twice his size (or larger) they'd need extra energy and mass. The games don't explain this… well except Dead Space where the mutagenic catalyst is simply "alien". Resident Evil 6 attempted to solve this with one boss being mutated from a pile of corpses, but there's not enough visible corpses to justify its mass.
And despite that the original Resident Evil scares me because the zombies featured in it are an entirely possible reality…
Ya know, this is a problem with the Hulk and Werewolves (the big 'uns) too . I wrote a Werewolf story once and tried to put a plausible spin on this, saying that shifters had access to extra-dimension realms where the extra mass was 'stored' and they could somehow pull it over into our dimension and add to (or exchange with) their existing mass… . Finally just said it's magic haha!
I was really into the Marvel Encyclopedia back in the day, and interestingly, they explained the Hulk's transformation working that way. They extra mass comes from an extradimensional source. Sounds like great minds thinking alike! ——
Extraordinary discussion of determinism/free will! I agree, that I would rather the discussion is there than not!
The aspect of it that really interests me are those random influential forces that CAN be overcome.
Recognizing and at least trying to overcome those with our decision making resources is maybe the essence of maturity, or bettering ourselves. It's spiritual, too, one might say: Growing character via good decisions ("good" being decisions that benefit ourselves, others, and society in general)
And the example I often think of is commercials and marketing, like Kroatz mentioned. Most marketing seems designed to infantalize us and make us buy without thinking, by appealing to our emotions or those powerful instincts of ours. To have better regulation of our instincts and emotions, or maturity, gives us more freedom. Because good decisions put us in a better position with more options.
Had to chime in with something…loving this discussion greatly!
I was really into the Marvel Encyclopedia back in the day, and interestingly, they explained the Hulk's transformation working that way. They extra mass comes from an extradimensional source. Sounds like great minds thinking alike!
Really…? Well… On one hand it's sorta nice - on the other hand… ain't that a bitch lol! You come with what you think is an original idea only to discover it ain't so original after all!! All good though!
Skullbie wrote: So I havent been in the webcomics scene in a while and weatherby was complaining about the trend of 'girls with social anxiety who are tired' comics. I'm like wtf
I suppose a lot of comics get made by people who don't get out much, or sleep much. Who else has the time? Why it should be mostly girls I don't know. Come on guys - where are your tired social anxiety comics? The girls are owning it here!
Ironscarf wrote: Skullbie wrote: So I havent been in the webcomics scene in a while and weatherby was complaining about the trend of 'girls with social anxiety who are tired' comics. I'm like wtf
I suppose a lot of comics get made by people who don't get out much, or sleep much. Who else has the time? Why it should be mostly girls I don't know. Come on guys - where are your tired social anxiety comics? The girls are owning it here!
Dude you should be the first one. Be like "it was another normal day with crippling social anxiety and a weiner until I fell asleep on the couch." What a laff a minute!
I think I remember that style of comic from a few years ago, even Skoolmunkee toyed with it fpr a while… It's like an "introvert" theme. There were some male ones out there back in the day. I suppose they're popular because the subjects are so relatable. ——-
So I shaved off my experimental beard. My nude face is weirding me out. I don't even have to SEE it to be weireded out by that smooth reptillian vissage. UGH! I almost wish I had another beard to cover up again with now, if they didn't feel so awful.
@Kawaii- Welcome to NHK is an interesting show, I like animes with quirky stories :)
@Skullbie- Those were the darndest, funniest comics I have read in a long time. I really liked the second one where the girl decides to stay at home in a blanket browsing the Internet instead of hanging out with friends. Thank you for linking them and addtional thanks to Mr. Weatherby for pointing out this trend so we could all enjoy them.
@ozoneocean- There is a simple remedy for that empty feeling you have on your face where the experimental beard used to be. Just get a crocheted wool beard/hat combo!
kawaiidaigakusei wrote: @Skullbie- Those were the darndest, funniest comics I have read in a long time. I really liked the second one where the girl decides to stay at home in a blanket browsing the Internet instead of hanging out with friends. Thank you for linking them and addtional thanks to Mr. Weatherby for pointing out this trend so we could all enjoy them.
@ozoneocean- There is a simple remedy for that empty feeling you have on your face where the experimental beard used to be. Just get a crocheted wool beard/hat combo!
Agh…just woke up horrible pain in my thumb. No idea what's hapoened, if I slept on it or smashed it on the bed in my sleep or what. It super hurts if I press on the joint. Gonna just try to go back to sleep and hope I haven't properly injured it I guess, don't know what else to do.
HippieVan wrote: Agh…just woke up horrible pain in my thumb. No idea what's hapoened, if I slept on it or smashed it on the bed in my sleep or what. It super hurts if I press on the joint. Gonna just try to go back to sleep and hope I haven't properly injured it I guess, don't know what else to do.
So I just had a dream where there was a long discussion about sinus headaches versus migraines. Now that was interesting. Naturally I woke up with a massive headache. Lately my dreams haven't been action as much as long discussions and confessions. And strange living arrangements. Big houses usually under renovation with lots of people living in them usually all clamoring for the bathroom. My subconscious has a bizarre set of priorities.
I did manage to remember enough of one dream to make it the back-story for two characters in an upcoming Belle's Best bit. I decided to throw in some semi-autobiographical stuff that I hope doesn't end up taking over the comic.
And waking up with strange aches? Just wait till you're older and have accumulated lots of injuries and you'll know the cause of every single one of the myriad of aches you wake up with.
Advertise with us
DDComics is community owned.
The following patrons help keep the lights on. You can support DDComics on Patreon.
