existentialism

[kilgore.]

absurdism.

[Sleazy]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

without free will, I'm pretty certain 'the charleston' wouldn't exist

i mean, look at it!

[close]

i was going to post something about how art would argue for free will but nothing that could do it as well as you just did

[close]

Expression can be deterministic too.

Well could be argued to be, the debate on determinism is still active as far as I know. I personally side on probability playing a role in nature and therefore the environment couldn't be counted on to be consistent and even if we assumed that humans would always choose the same (which I wouldn't) then because the environment is subject to probability, it influnce on us wouldn't be consistent on repeated trials.

So if you're skating and you try a trick and things don't work out as planned but that random event causes you to see another trick that you could do, then that path of creativity was one part you and one part environmental.

But I'd still argue that we choose regardless. The fact that we would choose the same choice over and over, only validates that we are the ones deciding.

[Sleazy]

isn't a big part of existentialism about the meaning of life also? i always thought that part was more interesting and practicle.

[Bugs]

The possibilities are endless. We could be living in a multiverse, we could be living in a holographic universe, you never know. The point of our existence, who knows, maybe an ET experiment, there is no way to prove why we exist.

[VeganShawn]

crunk juice ftw

sage you are a sad human being

[Ruberov]

I flipped a coin and it landed primo. Interesting states of being come from challenging deterministic views, regardless of your degree of belief in them. It is impossible to separate the brain from consciousness, or the body from the mind. We modify/create them in symbiosis as we grow up and do and think about things. A lot of this goes on when we are too young to worry about analysing it.

The randomness of quantum mechanics is pretty compelling. We are a mass of minute vibrations. The sad thing as that some folk grow up conditioned for drearyness.

[Ronald Wilson Reagan]

i hate the whole inconclusive free will/determinism debate. it's never going to go anywhere.
let's just agree that there is 'higher power' or reason for existence other than reproduction and continuity.
my favourite quote from Waking Life:
"Existentialism is often discussed as if it's a philosophy of despair. But I think the truth is just the opposite. Sartre once interviewed said he never really felt a day of despair in his life. But one thing that comes out from reading these guys is not a sense of anguish about life so much as a real kind of exuberance of feeling on top of it. It's like your life is yours to create."

Yeah, its about true freedom. We are responsible for ourselves, and all the good and bad that comes with it. The existentialist believes he has control over his life, which can be frightening, but also relieiving.

And with probabalism, sure, maybe there is a limit to what we can choose, in the red light metaphor, I'll choose to stay or go, but because I was already going somewhere, it is not likely I will turn around. Still, there is variance, and with that means true ability to make decisions and control our life.

[Sleazy]

The possibilities are endless. We could be living in a multiverse, we could be living in a holographic universe, you never know. The point of our existence, who knows, maybe an ET experiment, there is no way to prove why we exist.

even if there is a grand point to life, it might now matter to you. for me, existentialism was about finding the point for me. i used to be hedonistic and shallow but these days the point is enjoy life, living on through my kids and self actualization through things like work, acedimics and skating.

[rob2]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Human beings = their heredity's interaction with their environment - neither of which they have any power to choose/control --> there is no free will.

I have never heard a compelling argument for the existence of free will in my life, and I majored in philosophy and asked every professor I had to give me one good argument for it.  None of them could.  Most just said, "you're too smart to believe that" or "there's an immaterial soul" or something regular like that.

  

[close]

But brothers can grow up in the same environment and end up doing completely different things. I know that heredetary traits and environments effect people, but I like to think of them as influences upon free will. You may be influenced to do one thing or another based on your genetics or upbringing, but are you necessarily a slave to those things? I like to think not. I feel as if many things influence us to choose one thing or another, but that we are not necessarily slaves to this. Like, if you grow up in a town where there a ton of beaches with great waves, and everybody surfs, that doesn't mean you have to be a surfer, but its a lot more likely than if you grew up in the desert.

[close]

By "heredity," I meant the "nature" part of the equation.  In other words, everything you're born with when you're thrown into the world - not just your genes, but the whole machine/body you're given.  That machine is thrown into the world (nature) and you use it to make "choices," but you never had any choice or control over what machine you were given and you never had any choice or control over what environment you were thrown into.  The machine and the environment just happened to you, and you use your machine and what it learns for the rest of your life.  For example, I just read this thread.  The symbols on the page caused chemical reactions in my brain (or however it works...) and I used my machine and all it has experienced and learned to respond.  I was given a stimulus and my machine reacted in a specific way to that stimulus.  The reaction is this post.  If I had had a different machine, then it would have reacted differently to the stimulus (see: the guy a few posts up talking about palm reading).  If I had had a different stimulus, then I would have reacted in a different way (see: any other thread I've ever posted in).  But given this specific stimulus I received, there was only one way my machine could react at this time.  It could not have reacted in a different way unless it had been a different machine or there had been a different stimulus.  The point is that I don't believe anyone can ever make a free choice.  I don't see any way that a person can do other than what they do.  All anyone can do is use the machine they were given and respond to a given stimulus.      


  

[close]

There are a lot of factors we don't control in this life, no doubt. Where the free will comes in is what we do with what we are dealt. And I understand that you can't deny the fact that chemical reactions in our brain effect the way we respond to stimuli in our environment. But, in the end, you still give yourself options, and choose one, and are fully responsible for the option.
Also a lot of the stimulus responses are based on observations and decisions based on them. When I stop at a red light, its not because a strong chemical reaction is forcing me to, its because I see the light, understand that it means that I do not have the right of way, and know that I would get hit if I walked onto the street. If I wanted to, I could ignore that, there is nothing forcing me to stop- its not like a dog drooling at the sound of a bell. And maybe a lot of factors go into that decision, my fear of being written a ticket, my fear of being hit by a car, my value of life and health, but I add it up in my head, and think it through.
I feel like even though chemical reactions cause our brain to function, that in many ways it reciprocates itself. As vulgar of an example as this is, a good example is masterbation. We want to become stimulated, so we create stimuli for ourselves, either imagined, or in the form of pornography, we also fondle ourselves, the reason is because we can't just automatically create an orgasm in our head, but we can stimulate our brain to act a certain way, and have conscious control of how we stimulate it.
I may be off task. I'm suuuuuuper stoned right now. Sorry.

[close]

I basically agree with crunk juice with this one but see it slightly differently.

Take a moment in time when you do something e.g buy a box of cereal/ brush your teeth/ think about your girlfriend.  Now imagine you travel back in time to the instant before you performed that action - every atom in the universe is in the same position, your neural networks are firing in exactly the same way, your personality and all those around you are identical.  I believe that you would invariably perform the same action as on the first occasion. If that is the case then I see everything running as a machine and there being no free will.

The arguments against this I see coming from a quantum theory viewpoint - with the uncertainty of where every atom/electron etc is positioned etc. However I don't see those arguments as  a upport of free will but just as support of an inherent randomness.

When people talk about free will they always say "I decide what I want to do" - yes that's true but I believe that that decision making process is inevitable: you can decide whether or not to step in front of the car but I think the final decision you make is the only one you would/could of made.

[close]

Your assuming the universe is deterministic, when physics is actually asserts that it's probabalistic, and your deducing that the fact that we can make the same choice over and over again means we don't have free will when I'd make the opposite assertion. If I don't like liver but I love bacon and I'm given the choice to have liver or bacon, the fact that every time we run the test I'm able to correctly choose my preference adds more weight to my ability to choose than if it was random. For what you are saying to disprove free will, then all things being equal, you'd expect some variance in the results because otherwise, it's my will that is controlling the outcome with 100% of the time.

Also, care to explain how your model works if I decide to flip a coin? Heads I go, tails I stay. You could reset this one, atomically, all day long and you'd get different results. I understand that this is tesing the randomness of ability to flip a coin and get the same result, but throughout our life we encounter endless situations of probable outcomes that contribute to our descion making. So if you flipped everything atomically back to when you were born, I'd argue that history wouldn't be exactly the same from then till now if we repeated because of the combination of our ability to choose and probability. I guess I'm basically an indeterminist. The second time through, the same guy who won big in the casino could have lost big, ect...

The way the flipping coin bit works is the fact that given literally exactly the same circumstances the coin will always land the same way - it will be flipped with exactly the same power, there will be exactly the same amount of air turbulence etc

The whole probabilistic/quatum theory bit is what I was meaning when talking about how if actions aren't determined then they're kind of random rather than free will determined

[rob2]

I think most of the disagreements that people have with this type of thing more comes down to people meaning slightly different things by the words they're using rather than necessarily having a different opinion.

[Bugs]

I think most of the disagreements that people have with this type of thing more comes down to people meaning slightly different things by the words they're using rather than necessarily having a different opinion.

Thats most arguments between people who have stuff in common, happens all the time.

[scootboard]

The possibilities are endless. We could be living in a multiverse, we could be living in a holographic universe, you never know. The point of our existence, who knows, maybe an ET experiment, there is no way to prove why we exist.

as the stupidest person on this messageboard, do you have any clue what youre talking about?

[Ronald Wilson Reagan]

Expand Quote

The possibilities are endless. We could be living in a multiverse, we could be living in a holographic universe, you never know. The point of our existence, who knows, maybe an ET experiment, there is no way to prove why we exist.

[close]

as the stupidest person on this messageboard,I want to know, do you have any clue what youre talking about?

fixed

[scootboard]

i kind of smiled. but seriously, you guys and this conversation need to stop ruining my parties.

[crunk juice]

Rob2, I agree with everything you've said.  When I said, the machine "could not have reacted differently unless it was a different machine or there was a different stimulus", I meant exactly what you've said.  If time could be rewound to the point right before this thread began, such that everything in the universe was exactly how it had been before this thread started, and then someone pressed play, I think everything would inevitably be repeated exactly how it had been before.  No matter how many times time was rewound, I think it would be impossible for anything to ever change.  Just like the coin toss example, if all the variables were the same (wind resistance, trajectory, thrust from the thumb, etc.), then the coin would flip the same way every time.  I don’t know...it seems obvious. 

If you push a piano off the empire state building, it’s going to crash to the earth every time.  Sleazy and others seem to be saying that even if all the conditions are exactly the same, one of those times the piano might float or something.  I just don’t get it.  What reason would you possibly have to believe that with all of the circumstances exactly the same, the piano might float, the coin might land differently, or Gipper might run the red light?   

I barely know anything about physics, but even if things could happen differently and there is some randomness, what does that possibly get you?  Certainly not free choice.  A partially random machine ≠ a free machine.

[Ronald Wilson Reagan]

But isn't there room for some level of free choice in that partial randomness? Also, the piano will always fall to the ground, but it won't explode the same way every time. I'm pretty sure the concept of entropy in physics would say that the way the piano will expand is unpredictable. I feel like the decisions we make in our heads are like the splinters of the piano spreading after it falls. The piano hitting the ground will explode, it will smash, because the circumstances cause this, but how the piano reacts is not 100% determined. Within our own head we may have chemicals that cause us to think with a certain perspective, and our environment also effects it, but I don't believe that the decision we will make is 100% determined. We may work within a range, but there is a certain amount of free will within that range.

[rob2]

But isn't there room for some level of free choice in that partial randomness? Also, the piano will always fall to the ground, but it won't explode the same way every time. I'm pretty sure the concept of entropy in physics would say that the way the piano will expand is unpredictable. I feel like the decisions we make in our heads are like the splinters of the piano spreading after it falls. The piano hitting the ground will explode, it will smash, because the circumstances cause this, but how the piano reacts is not 100% determined. Within our own head we may have chemicals that cause us to think with a certain perspective, and our environment also effects it, but I don't believe that the decision we will make is 100% determined. We may work within a range, but there is a certain amount of free will within that range.

The way the piano smashes will be identical each time if all the conditions are identical.

The only way things may not occur exactly the same is at a quantum level - and even there it may be determined its not really been settled.

I don't really understand what people mean by free will - your thoughts are either going to be determined by your genetics/life history/events of that day/what you had for breakfast etc. or they're random; I don't see any other option.

However I know I must be missing something as its not a cut and dry debate, and very intelligent people agree with both sides of the argument

[Sleazy]

i disagree with that because all things can't be equal because a human is involved. if i did a kickflip and made it and the clock got rewound and everything was exactly the same, i'd still have to try a kickflip again and might fuck it up. actually, probability would be stacked against me on this.

i don't think that random chance goes away on repeated try's especially when a human is involved.

now if you had a machine flipping the coins, that's different.

and i'd guess, regardless of how you feel about the mind body debate, that our minds always work on probability to a certain extent. if your lost and or like "fuck it, i'll try this way..." or you're trying to call the flip of a coin, surely there is some randomness at play.

[rob2]

But I think if your mind and muscles and everything were exactly the same then I think you'd do exactly the same kickflip again.

I guess I don't think that the neurons in your brain will just fire at random - I see them as reacting in specific ways to specific stimuli.

If you do see stuff as occuring randomly though then I still don't see it as free will I just see it as randomness.

I guess what I think is that I don't believe people actually choose there own thoughts - I feel they come upon you due to external (e.g reading this message) stimuli and internal (e.g your previous thought/ previous view) stimuli/hard wiring.

[Canuck]

I always thought, that humans and free will was a lot like ants in an antfarm. There is freedom, but there is also limits set out by nature. Make some shit happen inside those limits, like growing weed and having hotdog parties with your boys.

[Sleazy]

But I think if your mind and muscles and everything were exactly the same then I think you'd do exactly the same kickflip again.

I guess I don't think that the neurons in your brain will just fire at random - I see them as reacting in specific ways to specific stimuli.

If you do see stuff as occuring randomly though then I still don't see it as free will I just see it as randomness.

I guess what I think is that I don't believe people actually choose there own thoughts - I feel they come upon you due to external (e.g reading this message) stimuli and internal (e.g your previous thought/ previous view) stimuli/hard wiring.

i think that nature and nuture are a big part of forming the nureal networks that help form how we think but i think that the brain and soul\concious allow us a lot of freedom to be able to draw conclusions, develope preferences, ect... and I think it's the grey area of the soul\concious that allows for this. my path through life definitely wasn't set at birth and it definitely wasn't a result of purely external stimulus. my morality for example is the result of years and years of introspection. it's different than my parents way of thinking and it's unique among the people that i've meet and interact with so it's not something that i picked up, it's something that i developed myself as a mostly mental exercise. sure, conversations i've had and things i've learned along the help things evolve but at the end of the day it was me that decided what were priorites for me in my and what weren't.

another example is my work. i program which is a purely mental thing to do. the designs i come up with, are my own. but the funny thing is that if i ever accedentially delete my code and have to start over again. i almost always come up with a different solution. considering that it's a purely mental exercise, that seems like pretty close to all things being equal but for some reason, the result is never the same. there is a variance there, a randomness in what designs i choose and how i link things together. i'm sure anyone who does anything that relates to some kind of design would agree that a redo almost always ends up being different.

to say that me having priorites and being able to be consistent in following those priorites means that i'm not the one deciding is rediculous.

i think the heart of this issue is semantics. some people look at the fact that we choose our own way through life to mean that we aren't actually choosing while others look at it for what it obviously is, us choosing.

[Ronald Wilson Reagan]

Expand Quote

But isn't there room for some level of free choice in that partial randomness? Also, the piano will always fall to the ground, but it won't explode the same way every time. I'm pretty sure the concept of entropy in physics would say that the way the piano will expand is unpredictable. I feel like the decisions we make in our heads are like the splinters of the piano spreading after it falls. The piano hitting the ground will explode, it will smash, because the circumstances cause this, but how the piano reacts is not 100% determined. Within our own head we may have chemicals that cause us to think with a certain perspective, and our environment also effects it, but I don't believe that the decision we will make is 100% determined. We may work within a range, but there is a certain amount of free will within that range.

[close]

The way the piano smashes will be identical each time if all the conditions are identical.

No, it won't.
 http://www.entropylaw.com/entropy2ndlaw.html
There is spontinaty in the world as a law of physics. if you drop 100 identical glasses from identical heights in identical conditions, it would smash in a different way everytime it hits the ground in an unpredictable fashion.

[Sleazy]

and i'd guess that the same idea applies to how the human brain works

[VeganShawn]

I'm really amazed at how some of you seem to not be able to grasp simple concepts like probability and variance

[Bugs]

and i'd guess that the same idea applies to how the human brain works

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8164060.stm

Scootboard, if you came up to me and said, "You're Bugs that idiot from The Slap forum who posts really stupid shit, ect. ect.." I would look at you and wonder what the hell is wrong with you!

[rob2]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

But isn't there room for some level of free choice in that partial randomness? Also, the piano will always fall to the ground, but it won't explode the same way every time. I'm pretty sure the concept of entropy in physics would say that the way the piano will expand is unpredictable. I feel like the decisions we make in our heads are like the splinters of the piano spreading after it falls. The piano hitting the ground will explode, it will smash, because the circumstances cause this, but how the piano reacts is not 100% determined. Within our own head we may have chemicals that cause us to think with a certain perspective, and our environment also effects it, but I don't believe that the decision we will make is 100% determined. We may work within a range, but there is a certain amount of free will within that range.

[close]

The way the piano smashes will be identical each time if all the conditions are identical.

[close]

No, it won't.
 http://www.entropylaw.com/entropy2ndlaw.html
There is spontinaty in the world as a law of physics. if you drop 100 identical glasses from identical heights in identical conditions, it would smash in a different way everytime it hits the ground in an unpredictable fashion.

No - that doesn't mean it won't occur the same. The second law basically is just saying that things tend towards disorder  (I did a degree in chemistry so I do understand entropy a bit - not trying to make myself sound like i'm an expert but  didn't want you to think I just completely misunderstood what you meant), its not saying things happen randomly its just saying that systems tend to a more diordered state e.g. a smashed piano is more disordered than an intact one.

Edit: I think I need to clarify what I mean by identical aswell. I mean a completely unrealistic/hypothetical/imaginary identical where every atom in the universe is exactly the same/ where everyones thoughts are exactly the same.  NOT identical as in "the experiment was repeated under identical conditions" (where obviously the glass would smash differently each time).

[Ruberov]

There's a theory, well there is now, that probability comes into play in holding reality in more sustainable (entropic?) states as quantum fluctations and sub-atomic vibrations result in a hazy-edged range of possible outcomes. The second try is never the same as the first try, as it is not the first try, unless perhaps you have an advanced case of Alzheimer's. Free Will is a bit like god, in that whether you believe in it or not you've still got to make up your mind what to do with yourself.

[Ronald Wilson Reagan]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

But isn't there room for some level of free choice in that partial randomness? Also, the piano will always fall to the ground, but it won't explode the same way every time. I'm pretty sure the concept of entropy in physics would say that the way the piano will expand is unpredictable. I feel like the decisions we make in our heads are like the splinters of the piano spreading after it falls. The piano hitting the ground will explode, it will smash, because the circumstances cause this, but how the piano reacts is not 100% determined. Within our own head we may have chemicals that cause us to think with a certain perspective, and our environment also effects it, but I don't believe that the decision we will make is 100% determined. We may work within a range, but there is a certain amount of free will within that range.

[close]

The way the piano smashes will be identical each time if all the conditions are identical.

[close]

No, it won't.
 http://www.entropylaw.com/entropy2ndlaw.html
There is spontinaty in the world as a law of physics. if you drop 100 identical glasses from identical heights in identical conditions, it would smash in a different way everytime it hits the ground in an unpredictable fashion.

[close]

No - that doesn't mean it won't occur the same. The second law basically is just saying that things tend towards disorder  (I did a degree in chemistry so I do understand entropy a bit - not trying to make myself sound like i'm an expert but  didn't want you to think I just completely misunderstood what you meant), its not saying things happen randomly its just saying that systems tend to a more diordered state e.g. a smashed piano is more disordered than an intact one.

Edit: I think I need to clarify what I mean by identical aswell. I mean a completely unrealistic/hypothetical/imaginary identical where every atom in the universe is exactly the same/ where everyones thoughts are exactly the same.  NOT identical as in "the experiment was repeated under identical conditions" (where obviously the glass would smash differently each time).

I know what you are saying, and I don't know what the truth is, as obviously, it is impossible to rewind time and try again, and like all philisophical debates, I think this is where it comes full circle. But I feel like although it doesn't say anything about whether things will occur the same way, I still feel like the concept of "disorder" implies the idea of unpredictable results. Is that an incorrect assumption?

[Ruberov]

Disorder and unpredictability are not the same. Imagine a chess board mid-game - one state of many possible outcomes and predictable to some extent, but far less apparently ordered than at the start.

[Ronald Wilson Reagan]

Disorder and unpredictability are not the same. Imagine a chess board mid-game - one state of many possible outcomes and predictable to some extent, but far less apparently ordered than at the start.

But predictable to some extent I can deal with, as long as it isn't 100% predictable, it still leaves room for free will.