So tell me lit, do you have to believe in free will to be an existentialist? Also why do you believe in existentialism if all the evidence is saying we dont have free will?
>>>Phil. 101
Kant already answered this question 200 years ago...
>>7912386
>if all the evidence is saying we dont have free will?
Confirmed for having no knowledge on the current state of philosophy.
Free will is an incoherent magical term which has never been defined.
Existentialism is an absurd self-cannibalizing religious perversion typical of the late West.
>>7912386
Existentialism is less of a philosophical position as Sartre envisioned it and more a loose collection of themes and ideas senpai.
>>7912961
Oh yes, thank you almighty liberator of minds for explaining to us why the very valid position of compatibilism is soooo stupid that all the respected philosophers today.
Sure I grant you that determinism is a valid philosophical view point. But it is the minority view point among contemporary philosophers who engage with the topic. To say that all the evidence (of which you gave none while chiding me for also not providing an argument) points towards determinism is to either state that you A) are a super genius that is so smart that you have single highhandedly solved, or nearly solved an issue that has been in philosophy for over a thousand years, B) philosophy and/or philosophers are stupid and the answer is really simple, they are just too incompetent to find it, or C) that you actually have no idea what you are talking about because you don't know much about contemporary philosophy regarding freedom of will.
>>7912997
Implying responding to shitposting with shitposting is being hooked.
>>7912393
Kant says nothing of substance ultimately on compatibilism/incompatibilism
>>7912386
If you take Sartre to be the authority on the matter then being an existentialist means believing that because you feel free it doesn't matter whether or not you actually are.
>>7912393
What did he say? I finished my first read-through of Nietzsche and I'm considering either Kant, Heidegger, or Hegel next.
>>7913382
Lots of Hegel's writings are a response to Kant and others typically called "Kantian" such as Fichte, so you're better off not reading Hegel until you've read Kant. That goes for basically all of continental philosophy since the modern era I'd say. Though Kant's project has very little to do with free will. Basically he allows for it, but under his system the answer to whether or not we have free will is completely inaccessible to us, since we can't have knowledge of anything outside of 'possible human experience', and using the basic principles of our understanding to talk about metaphysical problems like free will or the existence of god is a fruitless project.
I contend the society is inimical to nature; that mankind, in order to selfishly preserve itself, submits to civility out of fear of societal castigation, and ostracization.
A drunken sentence by yours truly, thoughts?
>>7913435
euphoric
>>7912961
look who's talking
>>7913438
I'm happy to hear that =]
>>7913382
I don't know if this answers your entire question but check out critique of pure reason chapter 79 which argues that there is not only pure causality but also a spontaneous element.
>>7912386
I would love to see a definition of "free will" if you have one, otherwise you're talking about absolutly nothing at all. Might as well be saying "define rnhfjdushah." Lick my scrotum fukboi
>>7913645
the ability to have done other than as you did, mister pendantic
>>7913657
>>7913657
So, the ability to choose one decision over another, or rather - the question is, if one were to make a decision and then rewind time resetting himself to the exact same situation, would one deterministically make the same decision?
The butterfly effect shows that the most minute cause can avalanche into a large effect. So the cause of a single electron has an effect on the entire universe. If the universe is deterministic then the same exact situation would create the same exact effect, if there is a random factor in the universe then there is a probability of a number of effects from a cause. Judging by my limited knowledge of quantum mechanics, I guess that there is a random factor in the universe, that it's not deterministic, and thus (if I were to make a decision, and then reverse time back to that same situation) I wouldn't be bound to make the same exact decision.
So yes, we probably have free will. But I just had a thought.. What is it that is doing the "choosing" or "willing?" Is choice an effect from an external cause? Or from an internal cause? If internal then where? I have no idea senpi.
But according to your definition "the ability to be done other than wat was did" - the answer is yes.
>>7913419
Unrelated but how am I supposed to interpret the spirit chapters in the phenomology? Is Hegel saying that history is a cake made of people and that we should 'dig in?' Or that the world spirit is actually alive and we are its actors and memories?
>>7912386
Take the third pill.
>>7914098
You're not supposed to 'interpret' anything, Hegel is not a poet, his philosophy is crystal clear throughout the book.
>>7914120
Okay, but what is he really saying here? I started reading his shitty book and now I have to follow it through to the end or risk alienating all my friends and family. My future is on the line.
>>7914125
If you are lost, you have to go back to the Preface or Introduction and read it again. And no, the Spirit is not a 'thing' outside individuals that they have to 'dig in', Spirit is their substance (like the weight is the substance of a body), they don't exist at all without it.
>>7914130
>they don't exist at all without it.
i.e. the relation with an object is already implicit in the concept of subject (like the double and half, one concept immediately creates its own 'other'), and vice-versa.
>>7914136
Really, you cannot expect comprehend Hegel without this dialectic, which goes back to Plato (Parmenides, Sophist, Phaedrus &c.)
>>7912989
you write like a fag and your shits all retarded
>>7912989
>the very valid position of compatibilism
>contemporary philosophers who engage with the topic
Can somebody point me in the direction of something that will convince ne free will exists? Id really like to believe in it, much like god(s), but it seems silly to me
Im pretty sure psychology/neuroscience point to the idea that your past, genes and your physical brain determine your choices. You "choose" things but you cant choose to want things. I believe behavioral change comes from longheld disgust that would eventually pull you out or meeting the right person (being in the right place, reading the right book, ect.) At the right time.
>>7912386
If
belief in free will = belief in the ability to make decisions and act on them
and
existentialist = someone who is concerned with their own existence and how to max out its potential (which is fucking everybody under the sun)
then yes, you have to believe in it, if you at least want your efforts to mean anything at all.
There is no evidence that states that we do not have this ability at all. Rather, free will is RELATIVE — it's not something you either just do or don't have.
>From the narrow, restricted viewpoint of the present, you always have infinite choices (= free will), because choice is a mental process we use to imagine and decide upon possible courses of action, and hence can make as many of them as we want — whereas at the level of the universe you only have a single one: the one you'll end up making (= determinism), because the concept universe includes the concept time. Thus does the Overman solve, in a single sentence, problems that have frustrated mankind's greatest thinkers for millennia.
>The relationship between necessity and desire mirrors that between determinism and free will. The best move (and indeed every move) is necessary when regarded at the level of the universe, but from the perspective of the individual who'll perform it (and from those of all his allies and adversaries who are going to feel its effects) it's not necessary at all, but merely what he has chosen and wants to do.
>HBD advocates say "there is no free will because your brain controls you". But my brain IS me. Like saying "there is no free will because you control you". I.e. there IS free will. Retards confused by wordplay.
cont.
>>7915052
>What lies at the bottom of the HBD advocates' denial of free will? "You have no free will, not because you have no will, but because I control it — because I control you" — this is the reality of what's happening, even if the HBD retards seem incapable of grasping it. The more they discover how to affect human behavior by pushing buttons in the brain, the less they are inclined to accept the freedom of the Other's will. And indeed, when we have at last discovered all brain functions and hooked the brain up to a machine, and are pumping chemicals into it non-stop and jolting it through electrical convulsions in order to manipulate it into doing exactly what we want, then yes, to US, the OTHER's will will be effectively zero, since WE determine exactly what he does — BUT ONLY BECAUSE WE'VE HOOKED HIM UP TO OUR GODDAMN ASPHYXIATINGLY OVERPOWERING MACHINE (to which the brain's possessor would have presumably struggled to avoid being hooked up to, if he had had any sense in him, thereby expressing in the strongest terms his unwillingness to be completely controlled by you and your fuckin' cutting-edge sci-fi ubermachine). Newsflash: The more you control the Other, the less free he will seem. Their mistake lies in thinking of freedom as an absolute value, as if everyone could be "free" at the same time. But it is relative: the more free one person is, the less free those around him must be. They make the test subject do something, and then give him a dopamine hit to make him feel good about what he just did, and then they say he is "unfree". WELL DUH, AFTER YOU INJECTED ALL THESE CHEMICALS INTO HIS FUCKING BRAIN OF COURSE HE IS. There is no arguing with these asshats. They really are that stupid. Stupid and smug, like all half- and quarter-educated people.
And there you have it.
http://orgyofthewill.net/
>>7914371
>physical brain determine your choices.
Not really. Your habits determine your choices. Physical brain alone determines shit: it just doesn't function. Read about the mereological fallacy.
Supposing that brains *do* "determine" your choices, suppose you consume a particular cereal, C1, for the last 5 years and that you've always had money on you, despite what. Say you're out of that cereal. Say you go to the nearby store for a pack. Say it costs 2$. But soon it dawns on you that you don't have the money for it: you only have 1.5$. Then, over your shoulder, you notice a different cereal, C2, you haven't ate before but which costs just below 1.5$. But you've eaten C1 for 5 years and don't want to switch to a different one but at the same time you want *a* cereal and you want it NOW. What do you do? You buy C2. Moral of the story: your genes do not always determine your choices: your environment (certain states of affairs may impact your decisions and choices) has a say in this, too.
What is a good counterargument to determinism being trivial? I don't really understand the other side of the debate. It seems people are miffed about losing "transcendental agency", but when did they ever make use of that in their lives? It is an imaginary disappropriation the way I see it.
You guys got any essays or something to get me started? No books or authors pls.
>>7915110
Thanks for giving me something to look into. Ill check out that fallacy. Thing is i said your PAST and your brain. What happened to you in the past effects which habits you pick up and how much money you have in your pocket(how much you put in there ir maybe you dropped some) and which store you go to(maybe you live in a house right around the corner). Some people never buy the same thing twice, every time they go in the cereal aisle they want something new, some know what they like and they stick with it. Either way which cereal they enjoy is a matter of things beyond their control, whether they are drawn to comfortability or novelty is beyond their control.
Maybe ill look up that fallacy and have to appologize for my lack of understanding, i really shouod have looked it first either way
>>7915141
bump
Free will exists, and not the fake compatibilist kind either.
>>7913716
What is it that's moving particles around? It's just some force. Internal and external are artificial distinctions that just confuse the matter
>>7915110
The brain is still making the choice, you embarrassing moron.
>>7915972
How does it miss the point? It hits the nail right on the head, answer's OP's question and sums up the whole discussion of free will and if we have it or not.
>>7915993
It just assumes that eternalism is true and uses some retarded definition of free will
>>7915962
Utter nonsense.
>compatibilism
>so we don't have free will but let's set up our legal system like we do anyway lol
i wish compatibalists had free will so i could reasonably hate them for being so fucking stupid
>>7916001
>belief in free will = belief in the ability to make decisions and act on them
How is that retarded?
>>7916012
Well, firstly, you aren't defining ability, decisions and action. It's quite clear that the person who wrote that is a physicalist, though, given that he said "But my brain IS me," so we know what he's talking about: deterministic chemical processes. This is not free will.
>>7915060
You have confused a lot of distinct issues into a muddled mess.
>>7916012
That would mean a deterministic computer (a pocket calculator, say) has free will.
Determinism is the ultimate NEET choice.
>sorry mumsies, this is just the way it goes! if I had any autonomy I might get a job, alas, there can be no uncaused action, a mind is a natural system like any other
>>7916026
>Well, firstly, you aren't defining ability, decisions and action
I figured we were all adults here and these concepts were pretty basic at this point.
Ability = capacity for and capability of
Decision / deciding = perceiving multiple options and choosing one, the final choice is the decision
Action = your participation in something, which has effects
The point of him bringing up that the brain is who you are is because, as I see it, everyone who makes the argument that the chemicals in your body somehow own you, for some reason, think that those chemicals are separate from your body. But they aren't, they are a part of you, they ARE you. The idea here is still fundamentally like the notion of the soul in Christianity, in that people are defining who they "are" not by their body and all its parts which make it, but by some distinct, separate thing, which is false and which is why these nonsensical thoughts arise like "your brain controls you." It is an error of judgment on who YOU are.
>>7916041
But it doesn't have the ability to make decisions. A calculator needs someone to press buttons on it for it to do anything. Even a more advanced program that loops does not have this ability.
>>7916011
calm down, professor pereboom.
>>7915991
But you're not really getting it, bub. How is it that you are this confused? Take these examples, tailored specially for the mentally challenged (count yourself in):
The horsepower of a car's engine is not a part of the engine
The ability to fly is not a part of an air-plane.
The ability to see is not a part of the eye that interacts with other parts of the physical eye.
Now take your rotten brain out of your skull and watch it "make choices" (hint: you'd be dead and the soggy grey matter you claim to identify with will not make any such thing).
Are you identical to your brain? If you nodded, it follows that you *agree* that you weight about 3 pounds and are 167 mm of height (both are average numbers of your average brain). But that's absurd (seeing that you're mentally challenged, can you see *why* it is absurd, or do you want me to spell it our for you, explicitly?)
I guess the "i fucking love science" masses will believe just about any pseudo-scientific neuro-babble they hear on Youtube.
>>7916054
OK, then how much of your brain /are/ you? The whole thing, or just the pineal gland? Or are you your body in its entirety? But why stop there? Are you not also your clothes, your home, the landmass on which you live, the entire planet, the universe itself? If we are talking about selfhood in physical terms, it's not particularly clear where one ends
>>7915989
Yeah I gave little thought to that tangent when I typed it, but a little more afterwards.
If reality is deterministic then decision making would come from an outer force, this would be because all effects would ultimately be linked to some sort of first cause. This gives a very different picture of reality than one permeated by some element of randomness at a sub atomic level -- one cause at the beginning of the universe linked to that decision vs infinite causes permeating the very core of reality. The latter gives a more interesting picture.
Oh and in a determinists universe the cause of the decision would be external while in a universe with an element of randomness the cause of the decision would be internal.
>>7916061
You are begging the question. The calculator "has the ability" to do whatever it is programmed to do - just like human beings under determinism.
>>7916098
He isn't begging anything.
You are misconstruing what "ability" means. Certain organic objects (animals, homo sapiens among them) possess mental capacities that they are able to EXERCISE. Can a calculator compute 2 + 2 = 4 without anyone pressing the "2", "+", "2", and "=" buttons?
>>7916090
All things are indeed one.
Of course, for the sake of making progress in our analysis, it doesn't help much to identify everything as just one thing. So we stop at "you" being the relation between all the parts which make up your body, and the body's position in the universe.
>>7916116
Sure it can. It is no different from any other piece of matter - organic or not. If it is configured to compute 2+2 without input, it will do so.
>>7916127
HUehuehueheuhuhUue why are people this retarded
The only thing that distinguishes the future from the past is our greater degree of subjective ignorance about the former.
Ontologically, the future is as fixed and unchangeable as the past.
Free-will is a stubborn illusion of perspective that afflicts time-bound creatures like ourselves.
>>7916132
Sorry that your superstitious horseshit is not catching on.
>>7916098
>just like human beings under determinism.
This is a major stretch, because determinism is just a concept which states that the present is an effect dictated by past causes, not a primordial force with its own will.
Determinism doesn't "push our buttons" and make us do things — this is a bastardization of the idea. What it is at most is a groundwork for what could happen next. I say "could," because the future didn't happen yet. Don't just think because the past and present are causally tied that suddenly the future already magically happened. In terms of physical space and time, the future, by definition, has not happened yet.
The ability to make decisions and act on them also relies on the abilities of everything around you. The ability itself is relative. Hence the concept that free will is relative, here >>7915052 and here >>7915060
>>7913382
Definitely Kant first. Critique of Pure Reason was a game changer (both historically and personally). I can't imagine having gotten much out of Hegel without it.
>>7913419
This is true for what Kant himself says, but hardly true for the implications of his thinking. Hegel's entire system seems built on the antimonies of reason, particularly Kant's answer to the free-will question (contradiction between experience of free will and apparent laws of cause-and-effect). It's inherent in Spirit coming to recognize all of the previously "incomplete" incarnations of itself as integral to itself. Self as will, subject nonetheless to cause-and-effect, is how one can simultaneously be inauthentic to oneself and never be so. Everything you do, even the "inauthentic things" you do, are the authentic you.
How's that for inarticulate...
>>7916136
One time I wrote this (only a bit less edgy) on a metaphysics paper and my prof marked "controversial, but you are correct" in the comments.
>>7916147
>In terms of physical space and time, the future, by definition, has not happened yet.
False. What you describe is called "presentism", and it has been ruled out conclusively by modern physics - viz., Special Relativity.
See Putnam's "Time and Physical Geometry":
http://www.jeffsnapper.org/assets/putnam1967t-pg.pdf
The notion of an "objective present" is an illusion of perspective. The idea of "the now" is as subjective as "the here".
>>7916140
If anything here is superstitious it is your ability to misinterpret views of others. That, plus your laughable, >>>/x/-tier belief that calculators possess capacities akin to humans.
Since you're probably clinically retarded, let me spell it out for you: calculators do not, by themselves, have the ability to exercise certain (any kind, really) computations, hence they do not possess abilities or capacities of such kind. Humans do. They can be configured however you like but the fact remains: they won't compute 2+2 any time soon, unless, of course, someone--a human--presses the "2", "+", "2", and "=" buttons, in that order.
>>7916155
Believe me, I tried for ages to make Presentism work (along with the other option, the "Growing Block" theory). Unfortunately, there is simply no alternative to Eternalism if you want to remain consistent with physics.
>>7916170
I would have to read that before commenting very deeply, but going by:
>The notion of an "objective present" is an illusion of perspective
That makes sense, and something that Nietzsche touched on, very loosely.
Except, equally in philosophy, the notion of "illusion," too, is an illusion of perspective.
>>7916174
I got to assume you're just trolling at this point, given how utterly preposterous your posts are... but here goes nothing.
Humans are not magical creatures that transcend the bounds of matter. They have been programmed through millions of years of natural selection to relate inputs to outputs like any other information-processing device. I don't know what kind of weird supernatural force you believe is out there, but it's not something rational people believe in anymore.
>>7916220
You stupid, stupid, STUPID fuck. Nowhere in my post did I even HINT AT that we are "magical" creatures that "transcend the bounds of matter" (we do, actually, via language, but that's a different can of worms)
Talking of superstitious bullshit, here's you: "they have been programmed". Really? "Programmed"? Are you using computer-science jargon and ascribe it to evolutionary processes? Let me borrow your argumentative tactic (attributing false things to the posts of others) and say: I don't know what kind of weird supernatural force you believe is out there (do you really believe a sky-wizard daddy programmer chilling on a cloud programming your every move?), but it's not something rational people believe in anymore.
In all seriousness though, if you can't address the undeniable fact that calculators do not, by themselves, compute stuff, and humans do--kill yourself.
>>7916220
Free will is one of those sticking points in human thought. Very intelligent people simply refuse to accept the reality that it doesn't exist, that it doesn't even mean anything.
I unironically like this thread.
>>7916260
Holy fuck.
"Programmed" isn't "computer-science jargon" - you illiterate fucking dumbshit.
Seriously, read a book other than the Bible someday.
>>7916269
Refuse something that hasn't been, and cannot be, disproved? Oh my side keks.
>>7916294
It is. Are you this fucking ignorant you retarded cum-gobbling faggot?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_program
Jesus christ just end your fucking life already. Or go salivate over strong AI somewhere else.
>>7916220
The mistake you're making is that you aren't really grasping what "free will is relative" means. It is a fluid quality. A calculator, compared to a human, does not have a will of its own — COMPARED TO A HUMAN. Of course, a calculator is still made up of particles, and on the tiniest level of existence possible, there is still the will. But compared to a human, a calculator's will is so negligible and helpless, that one could say it doesn't have one and not really be wrong.
And compared to a calculator, a human has a ridiculously freer will, capable of so much, with the capacity to make so many different kinds of choices.
FREE WILL IS RELATIVE. IT IS NOT BLACK AND WHITE "REAL" OR "ILLUSION". Please understand.
>>7916307
It doesn't need to be disproved m8, nobody has even described it yet. If I invent a word - lamberine - you don't need to disprove that the concept to which it refers, which I refuse to explain to you, doesn't exist.
>>7916314
Even though I myself don't believe in free will, the problem of free will has generated a shit load of literature and academic research compared to your whimsical creation "lamberine".
>>7916269
Indeed. It's one of those stark, bleak, yet incontrovertible truths that the average human mind naturally finds repellent. People will spew out all kinds of word-salad to avoid coming to terms with it.
>>7916323
I hate to don my fedora but the concept of the Trinity has produced rather a lot of literature and academic research as well.
Also I take issue with your describing lamberine as whimsical, clearly you haven't properly thought about the subtler aspects of lamberinosity.
>>7916326
>People will spew out all kinds of word-salad to avoid coming to terms with it.
The irony is that the same thing can be said about those that deny it.
Oh, the keks.
>>7916307
>salivate over strong AI somewhere
Changing the subject shows just how much you are floundering here. You are not fooling anyone.
>>7916323
>Even though I myself don't believe in free will
Do you have autism? Not trying to insult you. I find it hard to think that someone doesn't believe in their own capacity to make decisions, on the level of the individual and not of the universe, when we exercise it almost every minute of the day. You would have to be stuck on thinking at the level of "the whole universe" which means you are almost having an out of body experience all day long, which sounds like a mental disorder.
>>7916331
Trinity is a religious concept though. Not all people that believe in free will are religious. Not a fair comparison.
>>7916309
Objectively, human beings and calculators have precisely the same "level" of free will - namely, none.
>>7916323
You can't know that until you establish that they are all talking about the same thing and not using homonyms.
>>7916342
Not that anon, but I don't believe in free will. My waking experience is like watching a movie. I watch myself do things, I experience the 'intentionality' of moving my arm or whatever just like everyone else, but I don't know where the impulses come from. When a desire occurs to me, it might as well have come from the aether for all I can tell consciously, and the way I act on the desire follows the same experience. I'm not a neuroscientist but the idea that brains are just pattern-recognizers/creators and executing the outputs is consistent with my conscious experience. Things simply seem to happen, I walk around, talk to people, feel things, think things, its just a movie I'm watching, but it's playing in all the senses.
>>7916170
Thank you providing more than just grandstanding. Been reading continental philosophy a lot lately and haven't engaged much with this side of things. I'd tend toward seeing physics as not really answering these questions, but I'd appreciate recommendations on where to start with Putnam (I generally hate these questions, but Putnam has a lot of books on a lot of subjects...)
>>7916360
Not him but get a degree in Math first; Putnam is that dense.
>>7916359
The medium is the message, brother.
>>7916360
For Putnam, the most cited books are:
Mind, Language and Reality (1975) - collection of classic early papers
Reason, Truth, and History (1981) - contains the famous brain-in-vat semantic externalism argument
But he was very prolific and published regularly up to his death this year.
>>7916364
Okay, well, barring that (my time in university is past), is it possible to get anywhere with him? Is there somewhere I should start in math that would help me work my way up to some understanding of Putnam? Are there other thinkers on the same track who write closer to layman's English?
I realize this comes across as deeply ignorant, but I'm in earnest. I once scoffed at Kant and Hegel and their ilk, but read the two of them and am working on more owing to a belief that you can't dismiss what you haven't read/really engaged with. I'm certain I'd be out of my depth in a discussion with anyone who actually studies those thinkers, but I certainly got more than I would have simply reading 4chan or a wiki...
>>7916389
thank you
>>7916390
You actually don't need any math unless you are tackling his work in logic, foundations of mathematics, or philosophy of physics. I've always found him quite accessible on core philosophy of language, mind, epistemology, etc.
There are no real specific prerequisites, but I would read him in conjunction with his colleagues W.V. Quine, David Lewis, Saul Kripke, Donald Davidson, et. al.
>>7916346
Objectivity is relative.
>>7915110
Basically what you are saying is that if we did not have free will our brains would just freeze up in this situation? that is just fucking retarded.
>>7916061
say someone invents a computer that can press it's own power button. then it has free will?
please fuck off
>>7916419
>>7916389
That was the impression I had had of Putnam and his cohorts (wasn't part of the "point" not write in abstruse English?), but I admittedly had a bit of difficulty with the article you recommended, so figured, maybe...
I also could have done that research myself, so I thank you for sparing me the time. I fully intend to get to that school of thinking soon.
>>7916451
Please read the thread, faggot.
>>7916390
You need to realize that Putnam, as all past and present philosophers, participate in an ongoing dialectic. More generally, philosophers build on, and react to, certain arguments or theories or thought-experiments by other, contemporary or those that came before them, philosophers.
It's just that Putnam was one of those philosophers that was interested in the more technical domains of philosophy. He started in philosophy of science (he was Reichenbach's student and got to discuss physics with Einstein himself), later on he became a mathematician teaching Mathematical Logic at Princeton, MIT, and Harvard, solving Hilbert's 10th problem (Hilbert's problems are kind of big deal) along the way. Then came his functionalism--a theory of mind, which was revolutionary even though he rejected his conclusions later on, and writings on philosophy of language (I believe he co-authored something with Kripke but I can't recall just what exactly). Then there's his collaboration with Quine in philosophy of mathematics, and a bunch of other stuff.
The events described above might in fact have occurred in a different order; it's just a sketch.
If you want to "get" Putnam, you better know where he's coming from. This stuff isn't easy; it can get as difficult as devoting several years ploughing through thick bibliographies to understand a single problem
>>7916451
No, no one is claiming that. Actually, at that point in the thread, no one was actually talking about free will.
He was simply stating one of the differences between humans and non-humans, which summoned a bunch of retards that interpreted him as saying what you just attributed to him and all hell broke loose.
>>7916472
he didnt solve Hilbert's 10th problem, he proved it could not be solved.
resolved, but not solved
>>7916452
>admittedly had a bit of difficulty with the article you recommended, so figured, maybe...
Yeah, that particular one does require some background in Special Relativity.
He was really a quite wide-ranging philosopher in terms of the areas he made contributions to. Similar to Quine in that sense.
BTW, if you want to get started with Quine, all you need is the 2008 compilation "Quintessence" - it contains all his classic papers in one volume.
>>7916484
No.
By "solving" I in fact meant "solving that it could not be solved". Just as one can prove things that cannot be proved.
But to be really strict, he, with Davis and Robinson, _contributed_ to the problem, not proved it; the last word belonged to Matyasevich.
>>7916046
"you can live without autonomy and still have a job" said my mom
fml
>>7916626
you can as far as one knows, but you still may not. you would not blame a blind man for being born blind, same you should not blame me for being born with a trajectory that never finds me employment.
>>7916662
tell that to my mom
>>7916662
>you should not blame me for
And yet people will - they can't help it!
>>7916670
not necessarily. someone's opinion can still be swayed. determinism =/= rigidity of character
it is simply irrational to feel hostile to someone whose opinion differs from yours
>>7916676
>someone's opinion can still be swayed
just as your disposition towards work would say the people that judge you
>>7916676
That's like saying someone's life trajectory can be altered. It can't. It's already a done deal.
>>7916046
>implying doing nothing is fun
Maybe for shitlords.
>>7916729
>shitlords.
Haven't seen this one in a long time
>>7916729
you're fucking spooked kid
I live in a first world country and have the internet
i have the entire library of world art at my fingertips and can go for a safe walk in nature whenever i want. besides friends, I couldn't ask for anything more.
>>7916739
This thread has something for everyone.
>>7916749
Whatever you say, blob.
>>7916220
Eh. I think what you've described is the subconscious; and I could agree that the subconscious mind is basically deterministic, but the conscious mind is something else. Through it you can choose to take the calculator route to a stimuli, you can choose the opposite, you can leave the decision to the subconscious, or you can kill yourself right there.
If the will is not free, it's so complex that for it to come about in the short time that has elapsed since humans evolved their frontal lobes you're nearing leap of faith/intelligent design territory.
I think rage anon is trying to say that he believes humans can spontaneously generate thoughts, which calculators cannot do. No commento desu
>>7916924
I mean humans act a lot like chimpanzees. Almost everything we do is similar apart from our language and tool use.
What would you propose as a mechanism for free will? It has to have some kind of internal structure or qualities doesn't it
>>7916334
They are the eternal victims; looking for their excuse of why they "couldn't".
Really though, it doesn't matter whether you have free will or not. Conclusively proving the non existence of free will would destroy human civilization because it would be the equivalent of saying "you are not responsible for your own actions in any way". Belief in free will is necessary for human function.
Compatabilism has won.
Next thread.
>>7916945
>human civilization is based on the moral principle of holding people accountable
Top
fucking
lel
>>7914117
Eat both or refuse to choose.
>>7916713
>and you tell them it hasn't happened yet
and they tell you it hasnt happened to them either
>>7916662
When a slave who was being beaten for theft said, 'It was fated that I should steal', Zeno replied, 'Yes, and that you should be beaten.'
>do you have to believe in free will to be an existentialist?
no, you just have to find it hard to present your ideas in a linear, logical syllogism, or unnecessary/unfitting. and also realizing that the essence of existence is experience.Which cannot be completely translate into some sort of algorithm, but does just fine as a narrative or story.
> why do you believe in existentialism if all the evidence is saying we don't have free will?
becuase even without the will to choose what I can and can't do of my own agency I can still experience it.
