Would a "vast minority" be something like a postive number that is "largely small"?


PairTheBoard

I don't need to imagine this, it's exactly what many European countries do. I thought that everyone knew that the united states has a primitive form of jails / punishment / etc.

Free will doesn't make sense, but determinism is too bleek to accept.

I think maybe a more honest thing to say is that free will makes sense intuitively, but we haven't found anything to support it that is measurable.

For me it boils down a sort of deist thing. Even if I might believe in it (I don't really know if I do, because I don't know what it is), but I don't let said belief/disbelief/hazy concept influence decisions.

Nor do we have really a concept of what it would actually be that we can put into predictable models, and in a fit of irony free will being a predictable model would probably disqualify itself, so it will always be a gap argument.

This I absolutely agree with. I am only amazed that so many people think gap arguments are ever valid.

My take on the thing is that free will is a deeply intuitive construct, that however happens to be in serious conflict with reality, maybe even fallacious in itself (the idea of consciousness is another intuition that has a very similar status in my eyes).

I have no problem imagining why human mind would contain such an illusionary or fallacious intuition. It's tough to convey this... but... if you try to analyse what a mind is (a head-asploding activity), there is a principal chasm between 1) the mind creating models of itself and 2) the mind creating models of everything else. Brain-bursting concepts like free will, consciousness, truth, meaning, logic all stem from that great fundamental schizm. These are all concepts that stem from you being you. When a mind tries to analyse the workings of itself... yeah, can't see anything good coming out of that. The capability of analysis has developed only because of their influence on reality which has increased the organism's fitness. If this capability of analysis now starts to analyse itself, things just don't add up. Can a model contain a model of itself? Can a book contain a definitive description of itself? No. It's an endless loop of whys and whatifs.

Some of the comments on rejection of free will and consciousness leading to insanity are actually spot on imo. When I try to think about this... it's just ****ing crazy lol. Thankfully I have meat, fruit, warm water, penis, and the internet, so I don't need everything to add up to be a happy little piggy.

Oh, BTW determinism is kinda lol because of quantum mechanics. Of course, that changes nothing about the question of free will.

Neither does determinism, meaning it has not been made to make sense through actual empirical explanations that completely account for what they pretend to explain without recourse to "let's just handwave in this here and that there because they sound so sciency."

Do NOT underestimate the power of handwaving...

I <3 Moore for waving his hands.

On the other hand, determinism is not an epistemological claim, just a pseudo-scientific one.

Zenon of Citum was a pretty important greek stoicist, stoicism of course being the idea that everything is predetermined by fate.
This one time, he happened to notice a slave stealing and was going to punish him for it.
“It was fate that I would steal,” the slave objected.
Zenon replied, “It is fate that you will get beaten for it.”

Is there a scientific way of testing determinism? If there isn't, determinism is unimportant - it can't predict anything.

If there is a scientific test, presumably it's along the lines of building an algorithm which, given adequate input variable, can predict people's actions.
Obviously, the algorithm and data requirements are a way off.

So I choose to believe in free will- determinism is not yet scientifically testable.

don't confuse fatalism with determinism. There is a large difference.

since determinism is not scientifically testable, i choose to believe in X.

Where X can be anything? your logic escapes me.

pseudo-scientific? Dunno what sense of the word you mean. Pseudo = false or pseudo = sort of. If the former, pls explain...if the latter, isn't that better than free will, which has no scientific basis whatsoever?

I see plenty of good coming from a more complete understanding of our own minds. The insanity of which you speak is only the result of poorly thought out philosophy. Like those who turn to religion, the internet (pr0n let's be honest :P), etc. you are merely dulling life's beautiful picture with comfort mechanisms.

Very early in the thread I said that neither libertarian free will nor determinism is a scientific thesis: no observation could falsify either position.

Pseudo meaning in drag as. There are certain superficial points of science-like appearance to determinism, but there are also critical elements of substantive discrepancy.

The sufficiency of this or that set of empirical phenomena to the exclusion of free will is what has no scientific basis as far as I can tell. Free will on the other hand is at least supported by direct experience.

...that's not the criteria for 'scientific'

Why do you make the assumption that human thinking, a sort of biological tool that developed as a beneficial feature, cannot be massively in conflict with reality, or even itself?

Humans are known to bend the truth to suit their wishes.

wat?

Exactly what is comforting about insanity? It's YOU who is trying to make it PRETTIER with comfort mechanisms, if anything.

Wow, just read through most of this thread, lots of interesting stuff in it... i actually did not know of determinism and had never heard of it in any way and made up the idea of it in my mind and was basically sure, that im not the first one with these thoughts so i told a friend whose major is philosophy about it and she explained it to me. i went on to google/wiki it etc. and was then very glad to find this thread

I consider myself a pure atheist/naturalist (and now i like hard determinism, i think) and I think you can compare your life in a deterministic world with my view as just living through a great movie that is influenced by your actions (causal, not in the sence of "choosing"). this naturally motivates me to still try to accomplish something in life / not kill myself although its all meaningless.

Does this make any sense? I have no real grasp of philosophy tbh, i just like to discuss it with friends (mostly when im drunk). I do disagree on the statement earlier itt that one cannot discuss philosophy if he hasnt studied it thoroughly, it wont be as convincing, but might still have valid stuff in it.

I'm pretty sure no one said that you can't argue philosophy w/o studying it...but you have to realize that you're at a considerable disadvantage (in all likelihood) to someone that has, though.

This was what i was referring too. Maybe I just misunderstood it?! English is not my native language...

I agree that there's obviously a big disadvantage then.

The major disadvantage having a severe lack o arrogance, and trollability :P
I'd still like to see ur paper sir! It can't be more boring than the crap i'm readin now.

The disadvantage lies in vulnerability to ad hominem attacks. Whenever you force someone into a corner, they'll say you don't know enough about philosophy to understand (and you cannot dispute that with confidence).

This is likely the case. It's more so the case in politics where appealing to emotion is the main card to play. lol..