I find it so strange that if the world is indeed deterministic why on earth would it spend so much time debating deterministically about its own free will. What would compel a process to have meta reflection? The fact that we engage in discussion and consider other points of views on this subject at all just seems strange regardless if determinism is true or not -- and to be honest I don't know the answer but this point has always been odd.

It doesn't differ really. We are puppets. Is that so bad?

in that case, you might like some of the other articles on that blog, since I also have an ML background and it has very interesting philosophical implications that pop up here and there.

Kant has some flaws within his ideals, for example if there was a bank robbery and a security guard is hidden and you do know his position you are obligated to answer upon being asked to snitch.

I think a better way of life would atleast be to find its purpose, for if we do not have one then our existence is merely shallow and meaningless. And as such, and until one does and is convinced of objectivity (via by reason, comparaison, doubt and deductions) one must treat his fellow human the same way as he would treat himself, to respect boundaries and in that way it would be extremely peaceful.

Ok, like, I didn't know allegedly serious people were making these arguments, so uhh, just to bullet point it out:

1. What was "incoherent" about "Free Will" exactly?

2. Are particles like little tiny people, or rather, where was the justification for applying quantum dynamic statements to conscious living things? (This might be what u/Aka-Pulc0 meant by it being a stretch that we are "part of the world"?)

3. This reminds me of Xeno, and how movement is impossible, its just a false on its face anti-truism paradox fueled exclusively by "look that coin was heads it was always going to be heads good luck proving this wrong idiot you don't have free will, now let's bang like we were always going to", no?

4.Compatibilism sounds swanky, anyone in particular to check out?

That sounds like the concept of a quantum computer made analogous to our human brain! Sorta cool! And Ive always liked to consider that different regions of space move independently from others, it's hard to perceive because it is in nature nothing, and I do try to acknowledge along a certain line what's outside of our biological perception, and I wonder if perhaps the universe on a larger scale tends to expand, then eventually contracts back over time to a singularity point/blackhole with allll da mass in the cosmos and den explodes again! Is it just me or is there a very identifiable balance made analogous over so many different scales? I don't think there's much actual consideration for me as to the world being solely deterministic, really because of the size of the universe it doesn't make sense that of all the things to happen, that they'd all happen the same. I've spent a LOT of time grasping scale of size, not only in distance but in time. It's all too true that when considering that "big bang" event, we are being silly to assume that there was a definitive "before", or that we're even in an "after" rather one of many, and at a higher scale too, there's not likely "boundaries" to space at reaches or an edge I don't think. I think the kind of cycle we exist in exists in space, just people should expand what they define space as.

[deleted]

[deleted]

As someone trained in machine learning and compelled for years to really dive into the subject to try to figure out how it could even work at all, I find compatibilism to be the most reasonable position to agree with. While I still find myself having deterministic leanings, the opposition on that side usually seems much more motivated by other factors, enough that the interesting conversations must be taken elsewhere.

To be altruistic is to be intentional, no matter what altruistic action your doing you still have motivation. So selfishness is purely an opinion of other people as everyone is motivated internally and everyone carry’s out actions because they chose to. Selfish- lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure.

See that’s a good point, but I feel like that’s more a way to justify being self centered at times. Because to me your actions aren’t altruistic just because the intention is there. You’re delaying an altruistic action until you are able to cash in on it. There’s also the chance you never fulfill that intention. I may also just be misunderstanding things because I only have a basic understanding of philosophy.

I agree with you in the sense that you cannot help and make a difference in other people without first making a difference in yourself, but why would you be creating change in yourself in the first place if not only to improve the lives of those around you. Are you not being altruistic towards the people you spend time with or interact daily with if you are trying to better yourself? Wouldn't the idea of being individual only exist because groups exist.

Aye, perhaps the wrong word, but I do believe you understand what I was proposing. How does this differ from a puppet in a play? The marionette controls the puppet, the puppet cannot do otherwise, but surely it's the puppet's story to tell, is it not?

Well, I did them, but did I have a choice? Again, if all actions are necessary, then I could have done no other than what I have done. What choice in the matter did I have? If not my own choice, was it my own action?

This is not to say that all actions are not caused. I think one could argue that indeed all actions are caused. But caused actions do not mean predetermined. Caused actions are not necessary, are they? But again, if all events are necessary, and all events are actions, and all actions are caused...

Is there an anti art community that I could join?

Yeah, but any moral value or shall we say "value judgment" placed on determinism (i.e. "By golly, no free will is bad---it shouldn't exist!") is not a sensible and valid stance, as belief that no free will is "wrong" is just a measure of how much someone doesn't like there not being free will. Hard determinism, if it exists is neither a bad nor good thing:, it's just how things are.

[deleted]

Yes please.

Yes please.

Compatiblism always just smacks me of "but that (determinism) makes me uncomfortable so I'm going to contort my mind into a pretzel so I feel better again.

Contemporary framings of the liar paradox do not actually pose a problem. The sentence "This sentence is false." does not refer to anything, because the only thing it can be considered to refer to is its own falsehood and it cannot refer to its own falsehood because that would be begging the question. Thus, it is just a void and nonsensical string of words.

Why would the fact that they are pre-determined not make them your own though?

indeed, and this is mentioned in the article at the end. The compatibilists would argue that free will merely means freedom from compulsion. I used to hold this compatibilist view too. But upon further inspection, this view seems pretty hollow, and meaningless.

"how all actions or events are determined by prior actions or events"

The problem is that there are an infinite number of prior events determining any event, (even in the seconds just before an event) and most of these are chaotic atomic/molecular scale events. You can't seperate events based on scale, they are all events and they all affect the future.

Then you have the problem of the big bang. In a determinist universe everything expands in a uniform manner, there is no time and no complexity. It is only by introducing quantum uncertainty that we get a universe at all.

I’ve heard that at least with religious determinism, one cannot deviate from gods plan thus you have no true free will