The question of "who someone is" - is always the unfortunately less-informative question to answer. Which is why some cynics and laconics favour it as a trick ad hominem question. Im a beer, or something.
Free will
- Thread starter neocon
- Start date
The question of "who someone is" - is always the unfortunately less-informative question to answer. Which is why some cynics and laconics favour it as a trick ad hominem question. Im a beer, or something.
I don't know why I love it but I do. RxR for Prime Minister.
Boris has my vote.
This for me. I think it's highly likely we are just a watch.
Soldato
You missed out Orwellian and Machivellian
Man of Honour
I love the disparity between the takes on this question. As if some people really think it's about whether or not one gets to do whatever one wants/work/buy stuff, vs a fundamental philosophical condition about consciousness and causality.
The way I see it is, a program that knows it's a program will still only produce output that stems from its input (programming, perhaps a "random" initialisation vector, and its environment, and therefore is fundamentally predictable and repeatable, no matter how complex those variables are, they're still on rails. Why are humans different? I'm not saying it matters, though. In this scenario, we are the program, so in our day to day lives we experience the world as input, process it based on things we can't possibly comprehend on an individual level (variables stated previously), and therefore the output seems like it's caused by us, when it's actually the man behind the curtain. This doesn't really make any difference, because we're not going to stop seeing the world the way we see it. It's an interesting thought experiment, no matter what conclusion one comes to.
The way I see it is, a program that knows it's a program will still only produce output that stems from its input (programming, perhaps a "random" initialisation vector, and its environment, and therefore is fundamentally predictable and repeatable, no matter how complex those variables are, they're still on rails. Why are humans different? I'm not saying it matters, though. In this scenario, we are the program, so in our day to day lives we experience the world as input, process it based on things we can't possibly comprehend on an individual level (variables stated previously), and therefore the output seems like it's caused by us, when it's actually the man behind the curtain. This doesn't really make any difference, because we're not going to stop seeing the world the way we see it. It's an interesting thought experiment, no matter what conclusion one comes to.
Soldato
Probably more than you. It is owned but requires you to feed it and house it in return or it will go elsewhere, probably does. All it's time is its own to sleep, prowl, fight, stalk etc.
Man of Honour
The most obvious example is responsibility. If free will doesn't exist, nobody is responsible for anything they do.
Man of Honour
I understand where you're coming from but if you really think about it, they are still responsible, as at least part of the variables that come together to cause criminal activity/behaviour come from the individual in terms of their genetics and their entire life's worth of environmental stimuli. An individual who has - for whatever reason - a propensity for murdering people should still be locked up, as the result of that individual being in that place at that time, with their specific sum of their environment and genetics, meant that they committed an act deemed unacceptable, thus demonstrating that they are a danger to society.
Soldato
I would say No because, for me at least, the very idea of "Free" Will is that you are "Free" to do anything you want, which we all know just isn't possible. Even if what you want to do isn't illegal in anyway there's societal norms which will still cause problems i.e. playing loud music at 10PM isn't "illegal" but is frowned upon etc and the second you modify your own behaviour to fit then you are no longer "free" to do whatever you want.
Even if we had a total anarchical state with no Government, no rules etc there would always be other people who would prevent you doing what you want (maybe through a threat of violence) which, again, would then prevent you having "Free" Will.
However thats just based on my particular idea of what I think "Free" Will is, other folks versions maybe significantly different and if I was to tell them "no, only my version is right" I would be removing their "Free" Will to believe what they want
Even if we had a total anarchical state with no Government, no rules etc there would always be other people who would prevent you doing what you want (maybe through a threat of violence) which, again, would then prevent you having "Free" Will.
However thats just based on my particular idea of what I think "Free" Will is, other folks versions maybe significantly different and if I was to tell them "no, only my version is right" I would be removing their "Free" Will to believe what they want
Soldato
My wife says I don't.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 35,707
All wife’s would agree.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 35,707
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Aug 2012
- Posts
- 2,643
How do you know you can choose?
Soldato
*wives
Maybe he enjoys it
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 35,707