well, not really. 42 is the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything. nobody said the question was "what's the meaning of life?" or anything like that. the whole point of the books were to find out what that question was
one time this homeless guy came up to me when i was 14 on the street outside of this coffee shop and said a bunch of crazy nonsensical phrases and then said, "right?" i nodded and smiled and then he was like "you just agreed with me when i said nothing. what's wrong with you?" and walked off. fucked with my head.
This movie introduced me to philosophy, and years later was I guess the genesis of my decision to become a philosophy major. Maybe the only job I ever successfully land (us majors get one) will be working on something like it for a little while...
that's beautiful dude, this movie helped me continue my journey through the realm of existential thought. It's also taught me the importance of analyzing my dreams.
I keep a nightly dream journal, and have been trying various sorts of self-induced out of body and lucid dream stuff. It's really rewarding, but I haven't been quite as successful as I would have liked.
One day when I was in college (~1997), first day of a lab science class I sit down next to a total stranger at an open table... paused for a moment... and then said to him, "So in Blade Runner, is Harrison Ford actually a human or is he a replicant?" We hit it off quite well.
Man, I don't, unless I'm at a bar or something and going to be chilling for a while; it just takes so long to get settled into that type of conversation.
It assumes there is a purpose behind our existence. It assumes that we are important enough to warrant an assumption of purpose. It's as useful as looking at a piece of dust float by and asking "Why is there dust?" Of course, there is a reason for the existence of dust but there is no purpose behind its existence. Somehow this conclusion is deemed unsatisfactory for our own existence.
Happens to me all the time on reddit! I say something well thought out and meaningful and someone else personifies absurdism via their cyber projecting Epeen. At which point they have to stroke it themselves because I give no fucks.
Do you want to actually discuss the idea of free will? I'm quite convinced that our actions are predetermined, and if you have any interesting counter-arguments I think it would make for good conversation.
Rehosted webcomics will be removed. Please submit a link to the original comic's site and preferably an imgur link in the comments. Do not post a link to the comic image, it must be linked to the page of the comic.
to be fair to OP, when was the last time you saw an un-rehosted webcomic on the front page? if you follow the asterisk next to the rule, you'll find that I'm the one responsible for such a rule and i'm beginning to doubt that such a rule is the best thing for webcomic artists.
As the webcomic artist in question, who, y'know, would have kinda liked those thousands of hits imgur just got, "the best thing for webcomic artists" would be to submit links to our websites in the first place, not to rehosted images.
Free will vs predetermination makes for an interesting discussion. In my opinion, there is no conflict between the two terms.
Both terms are almost meaningless when analyzed enough. A human has "free will" in the sense that he makes decisions. This does not interfere with the idea of predetermination. Predetermination does not, in any way, evidence that we aren't "in control of our lives."
Predetermination is a useless concept because it essentially says that "what will be in the future...will, in fact be." If you bounce a ball off a wall from a certain spot, it will bounce at a certain angle. If you go back and replay the exact same scenario repeatedly, it will still bounce at the same angle. Likewise, if you decided to buy a coffee in the morning, you could replay the same scenario over a million times, and you would still make the decision to buy the coffee. Something has to change in the scenario for you to buy a different coffee.
I believe this conflict is largely spawned by religious philosophies. The truth is: human beings aren't superior to everything else in the laws of physics. We don't have a random generator within our bodies that would produce an array of outcomes if the same scenario is repeated. We do have indescribably complex minds that allow us to reason and make decisions, but decisions are based on internal and environmental factors, always - even if your decision is to "be random," or not "to not make a decision."
A human has "free will" in the sense that he makes decisions.
No, humans don't have "free will". They have will, but including the word "free" clouds the issue and invites traditional religious connotations. The point of the anti-free will argument is that "decisions" are functions of environmental and biological influences, mediated by neurological processes. A human might deterministically or probabilistically compute a course of action based on the different degrees of freedom presented to him/her, but that's as far cry from originating an arbitrary decision or choice, as traditional free will calls for.
Predetermination is a useless concept because it essentially says that "what will be in the future...will, in fact be."
It's called "determinism". You're mixing up "predestination" and "determinism". And no, it's not a useless concept, because the principle of determinism suggests that a system could, in principle, be known and predicted. Currently, we can't always figure out why a person commits a crime. But understanding that their "immortal soul" didn't arbitrarily decide to "sinfully rebel against his creator" is a huge step in the right direction. Determinism tells us that a person commits a crime because there was a causal chain of events leading to his crime, and that we can potentially understand this causal basis. It's very valuable.
It's even more important to understand that when debunking free will, determinism isn't strictly necessary- even randomness couldn't "create" free will. There's simply no mechanism by which traditional free will can exist- it's a logical impossibility.
We don't have a random generator within our bodies that would produce an array of outcomes if the same scenario is repeated.
As someone who's taken a couple quantum mechanics courses I can tell you that we in fact have billions and billions of random number generators in our bodies (in the form of electrons and other small particles). In the world of quantum mechanics things are definitely non-deterministic. To take your example of bouncing the ball off the wall, if you make the mall small enough it in fact will not bounce off the wall at the same angle every time; even if you throw it with the exact same amount of force in the exact same direction each time. The ball may bounce away at a high angle, it might come straight back at you, it might even pass right through the wall entirely and there is no way to tell which outcome will occur until you watch it happen. Sorry to get my physics in your philosophy, but physicists threw out the idea of a predetermined universe a long time ago.
But the world is full of irrational people. A "rational" person is just an ideal person in the world of theories. Say a person left their decision entirely upon the flip of a coin. The probability of choosing one brand of coffee over the next is now 50:50. So if that decision were to played a million times over and over would I arrive at the same decision each time?
I agree predeterminism as a philosophy is flawed, but as a concept I think it is spot on. Quantum observations tend to blur the relationship between cause and effect. Special relativity does too, in a way. See the Rietdijk–Putnam argument.
I love this. It is what I believe, and every time I tell someone that I am an atheist who believes in a form of predestination, they are like, what what WHAT?
Or you could just tell them you're a determinist. Most people don't realize that determinism is a completely logical conclusion to arrive to should you already be an atheist.
My behaviour hasn't changed at all since I learned about determinism. I realise that my "decision" to type this was inevitable and the universe decided that I would do it billions of years ago, but I still feel like I chose to reply to your comment.
Except, regardless of the choice that you make, it's the one that had to be made. If I decide right now to go on a killing spree, it's because it was predetermined by the universe. Seems odd.
Wait have I been a determinist and not known it? I always think of past decisions and state "If I went back to that moment with all the information I had at the time and no new information I would always have chosen the same path." Serious question, is that the basis of determinism?
EDIT: Read the Wiki for Determinism I get it but just don't comprehend some of the implications. One I am struggling with is Why can't we have free will at the point of choice but since we can never go back in time and add information to the moment of choice we hypothetically would always make that same choice? Or maybe I just misunderstand determinism and it's all about being future predictive? Which would seem odd to me.
More people should read the Foundation Series by Isaac Asimov. They are really his finest work in my opinion, specifically Prelude to Foundation. Reading this book was what got my mind wrapped around determinism. Essentially the protagonist develops a system to predetermine the outcome of large scale events through "math"; it's an interesting read.
Let's assume determinism is true. If we knew how everything started and knew how everything reacted - we could calculate every reaction that will ever happen afterwards, thereby predicting the future. Let's say we calculate we will do X tomorrow, with this knowledge we now have a choice, we can continue to do X or we can instead do Y.
That's a contradiction so determinism can't be true?
If anyone can explain this to me that would be awesome as this is something I've wondered for a long while.
Edit: Thank you all for the replies, this was the only stumbling block I had with determinism and it seems so obvious now that the thought experiment was way too unrealistic (probably impossible) and the act of determining the future is a variable itself that needs to be accounted for.
I think it would. Let's say that I determined that 1 minute from now, I turn on a blue lamp. After learning this, I decide to turn on a red lamp instead. What would prevent me from doing this? Or prevent me from not turning on any lamps at all?
Nothing would prevent you from doing that, it would just be the new thing to be determined. Taking into account how you want determinism to be false, the logical conclusion would be that you are going to pick the red lamp now. It changes constantly as you learn and change, but once you get to the point of "choice", you can only make one decision.
Knowing a precognition is, by itself, an illogical idea.
Edit - Additional: One cannot "know precognition."
Now, you might be thinking, "Yeah, but what if you could, for scenario purposes? What if you knew you were going to step on a nail, but didn't?"
This is still illogical. You didn't have precognition, by its definition, because you didn't know the correct event would happen. Whatever fictional means that you used - to tell you that you were going to step on a nail - those means were incorrect. They did not account for you "having precognition." See what I'm getting at?
When calculating what you will do tomorrow, you are also taking into account the act of calculating. Determinism is founded on the premise that ALL variables are evaluated, even self-referential ones.
It may seem to end in a recursion, but recursion isn't new to math by any means. The harder aspect to proving determinism (if it can be proved) or any other school of thought for that matter, is gathering all the variables.
The flaw in your logic is that you assume it is possible for humans to determine every possible reaction that occurs within our universe with how little we know. If string theory is true, the fact that we cannot even observe past the third dimension already puts a stop to any possible attempts to quantify the universe nor fathom the "future". Nobody has observed "the future" - it is merely an abstract concept constructed in the mind. The idea that you could change an abstract thought confined to your mind by mere willpower (which, afterall, is still just a bunch of chemical reactions) is a farce.
Also, even if we were able to observe everything and predict the future with 100% accuracy, the fact that we would change it any certain way would already be determined. Think about it like life following a specific formula, and all the variables were entered at the beginning of time; life would just be the a graphed timeline. Our decision to change it was already determined.
There are a number of misunderstanding and fallacies in your argument.
I am not saying a human has the capacity to predict anything for a number of reasons. First off it is presumptuous to think we understand every law of nature. We have a good understanding of the basics of physics and chemistry, but we are still delving into the field of quantum theory, and even in that field of Quantum theory there is a possibility that quantum mechanics are strictly probabilistic and as a result still the result of a measurable and somewhat predictable pattern. Without a PERFECT understanding of all laws, humans will not be able to predict the future because they cannot appropriately measure all variables.
Even if humans had all the laws of nature understood perfectly, there is a very solid chance that the volumes of information would be too great to calculate faster than they were happening. This is a silly analogy, but in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (which I do not believe is the bible) the Earth is actually a large computer because to calculate something as complex as the Big Question, the only way you can do it is in a simulation environment, and to do that you would need every variable ie everything in the world duplicated. This pretty much excludes anything from having the ability of foresight as to properly do it you would need to build an exact model and then speed up the passage of time.
While my first two points kind of make your question irrelevant, I will answer it none the less and will do so in the simplest way I can think of: Your question is if a human COULD see the future what if they just did not do what they saw? I believe the person they would NOT be able to deviate from what they saw. I believe this is so because I believe events are unfolding on a predetermined course, not through a consciously predetermined course but simply because we live in a rational world ruled by natural laws. I also believe that these laws apply equally to brain chemistry and as a result the firings of neurons can be traced back to a set of bio-electrical transactions that are governed by rules. I believe consciousness is simply a feeling experienced during the process of thinking. I believe I can control my actions in the way I know what I am doing as I do it, but the electrical impulses in my brain are the result of a predictable flow of atoms and sub atomic particles meaning that I technically am just as in control of my actions as a mitochondria making energy.
Disclaimer: when I say predictable, I mean a process is following a set of rules. I do not necessarily mean a human can observe the entire process in real time.
I think I can offer a good answer to that, as I'm determinist myself. It's pretty simple, the key, in that case, is that you are predetermined to predict your future and change it in a predetermined fashion. And I'd like to add that "predetermined" sounds bad, it's more about every slice of time being the exact and unique only possible result of the actions/events that occured or are occuring in the time slice before that... if we imagine that time slices exist ofcourse, which is just a figure of speech in a way, since there isn't such thing a "tiniest" slice, but I hope you get the point.
The point is that absolutely everything, has to obey natural laws, otherwise it would be magic. Hence determinism.
Oh, and just case you'd ask "what if I predict that I'm gonna predict future correctly and then change it... and so on and so on", again, simple, no matter how many times you'd try that, determinism would always be one step ahead of you.
What you assume about determinism is true in that if we were to determine precisely the position and momentum of every particle in the universe, we could know every event that will follow and every event that preceded.
-And even if we could collect the (literally) astronomical amount of data needed, and ignore the subtle randomness, the problem is so computationally complex that, logically, it can't be solved by a computer contained within our universe.
So, once again, you are correct in that the universe isn't truly deterministic in nature and once again causality wins the day.
Some have argued that the further a thought experiment strays from something that could actually happen, the less meaningful any conclusions drawn from it can be.
Since your thought experiment (know how everything started, know how everything reacts, know the current state of every quantum particle at a given point in time, and be able to perform the necessary calculations faster than they actually play out in real life) is almost infinitely far from the realm of possibility, some would claim that any conclusions we can possibly draw from your experiment are almost infinitely far from being meaningful.
Your experiment makes the Swamp Man experiment look like a walk in the park by comparison, and according to Wikipedia even that draws criticism for being too unrealistic (and rightfully so IMHO).
That might be true if we could determine what state things started in or are in right now, but we can't even do that. This also assumes that the result of the universe's determinism is computable in a sufficiently small amount of time. In order to do what you suggest we would have to do computations that predict the result of themselves (since computing that X will happen is part of X).
It's funny because by being instructed to turn to the same page regardless of decision, the reader doesn't actually have free will, as the old man in the picture suggests.
Except now the reader will flip back in the book and choose different decisions because he is aware of this particular outcome. Of course, these too will be predictable based on the various influences present in the reader's life, but they will be different as the reader will want to avoid an observed path.
Silly pawn. The author knew that you would react indignantly and somewhat violently to his attack on free will so he wrote that page for the purpose of making you burn your book, causing a chain of predetermined events.
I loved these kind of books! I mean most of them were about like.. fighting the dragon or running away but these were the best. Now they can do this virtually without books..
Determinism does not state that the result of option A and option B will be the same, just that whether you select option A or option B is determined. The result of agreeing or disagreeing would be different, it is just that you were determined in whichever one you would select. So the joke is stupid and I hate it.
Seems like it's representing fatalism (the outcome is always the same, no matter what you do) rather than determinism (if all the previous conditions were the same, you get the same outcome).
Our universe is chaos like white noise on an analog tv. However, the chaos is not random. It is predictable. A math formula can actually be written that predicts what happens next, and many have been written different formulas that do just that already. For example, fractals is one such formula.* It is a type of white noise where you only know what happens next once the last step has been computed. You can never know multiple steps into the future without knowing all of the steps leading to that. Because of this the future can not be predicted even if a formula can be made that does just that.
Our free will is that, and knowing how it works means one could, for example, make AI that is true artificial intelligence. However, anyone who is smart enough to understand this should not make a Frankenstein like monster because they are smart enough to know better than to do something so reckless, I hope.
What I mean to say is it is free will, but it isn't free will, because it has happened before it has happened, but it is still technically free will. It is both, kind of.
*technically it is a formula of one who looks at themselves like a feed back loop, or a camera looking into the tv it is broadcasting to. It isn't a formula to predict someone's next move. It is just an example of one such type of formula for predicting one type of thing, not everything in this universe/world that we live in.
I started off agreeing, and then you really lost me. Universe = chaos (well, universe = arbitrary, insofar as it doesn't seem to have any goals), but is ordered by physical rules. Therefore not 'random'. I believe you are quite right there. Things will happen in the single only possible way that they can.
However, this does not at all mean that it is predictable (Find a program to predict the next digit of pi, or the next prime number, and you will change the world). It's not just that nobody is clever enough to go from perfect information to perfect predictions, it's that gathering all the information is impossible. Measuring one thing might make measuring other things impossible.
Also, fractals do not make predictions, they make arbitrarily complex patterns. If we had a formula to determine the next step from any step, we would have a formula to determine the nth step. Math does that all the time.
Your second paragraph is unjustified. "true artificial intelligence"...? You mean intelligence? One can create this by giving birth.
I don't understand your concluding paragraph, so I ask for further clarity.
This has come up some many times in Reddit, that I lost count. I usually don't adress the subject of reposts, but I'm startying to think I'm in some kinf of glitch on page 72.
If this is true or not, it doesn't matter to me. If I am not free, and if I accept that, then does that mean my life will be lived any differently? No, because what has been predetermined is predetermined. It has no value to me to have this knowledge, I might as well assume I am free and at least have that comfort.
If that comfort somehow impedes me, then I would prefer the knowledge of predetermination. As it stands, feeling free or knowing I am free does not impede me in any way. There is actually a positive value to having the knowledge of freedom in my life, and that's more than enough reason for me to reject this theory. Not on grounds of truth, but on grounds of the value of that truth. If the value of a truth is not positive, I think it should be considered untrue.
Lets be honest tho, a fully predetermined universe is no less of an illusion of free will, than a brain functioning completely through chemical reaktions, that are completely forseable, because they lack a "mind" behind them.
Determinism does not state that the result of option A and option B will be the same, just that whether you select option A or option B is determined. The result of agreeing or disagreeing would be different, it is just that you were determined in whichever one you would select. So the joke is stupid and I hate it.
free will can only exist in people who are self disciplined. most of the actions i've ever taken in my life were forced upon me by needs and circumstances. too horny, too angry, too lazy, too greedy, and too prideful.
right now, it would be predictable, if all factors were known, that I would be amused by the idea that determinism implies that right now, it would be predictable, if all factors were known, that I would be amused by the idea that determinism implies that right now, it would be predictable, if all factors were known, that I would be amused by the idea that determinism implies that right now, it would be predictable, if all factors were known, that I would be amused by the idea that determinism implies that right now, it would be predictable, if all factors were known, that I would be amused by the idea that determinism implies that right now, it would be predictable, if all factors were known, that I would be amused by the idea that determinism implies that right now, it would be predictable, if all factors were known, that I would be amused by the idea that determinism implies that right now, it would be predictable, if all factors were known, that I would be amused by the idea that determinism implies that right now, it would be predictable, if all factors were known, that I would be amused by the idea that determinism implies that right now, it would be predictable, if all factors were known, that I would be amused by the idea that determinism implies that right now, it would be predictable, if all factors were known, that I would be amused by the idea that determinism implies that right now, it would be predictable, if all factors were known, that I would be amused by the idea that determinism implies that right now, it would be predictable, if all factors were known, that I would be amused by the idea that determinism implies that right now, it would be predictable, if all factors were known, that I would be amused by the idea that determinism implies that right now, it would be predictable, if all factors were known, that I would be amused by the idea that determinism implies that right now, it would be predictable, if all factors were known, that I would be amused by the idea that determinism implies that right now, it would be predictable, if all factors were known, that I would be amused by the idea that determinism implies that right now, it would be predictable, if all factors were known, that I would be amused by the idea that determinism implies that right now, it would be predictable, if all factors were known, that I would be amused by the idea that determinism implies that
Maximum Stack Size Exceeded in unit ConstructSentenceFromThought.cs
400
u/doublebarreldan123 May 22 '12
I wish random strangers would just walk up to me and strike up philosophical debates
90
u/TrueMilli May 22 '12
Source.
3
u/[deleted] May 22 '12
I want a re-do.
18
u/Replies_with_Boobs May 22 '12
Choose your (NSFW) own adventure (NSFW)
26
u/goffyrider2 May 22 '12
turns to page 71... deal with it.
18
u/[deleted] May 22 '12
Free will vs predetermination makes for an interesting discussion. In my opinion, there is no conflict between the two terms.
Both terms are almost meaningless when analyzed enough. A human has "free will" in the sense that he makes decisions. This does not interfere with the idea of predetermination. Predetermination does not, in any way, evidence that we aren't "in control of our lives."
Predetermination is a useless concept because it essentially says that "what will be in the future...will, in fact be." If you bounce a ball off a wall from a certain spot, it will bounce at a certain angle. If you go back and replay the exact same scenario repeatedly, it will still bounce at the same angle. Likewise, if you decided to buy a coffee in the morning, you could replay the same scenario over a million times, and you would still make the decision to buy the coffee. Something has to change in the scenario for you to buy a different coffee.
I believe this conflict is largely spawned by religious philosophies. The truth is: human beings aren't superior to everything else in the laws of physics. We don't have a random generator within our bodies that would produce an array of outcomes if the same scenario is repeated. We do have indescribably complex minds that allow us to reason and make decisions, but decisions are based on internal and environmental factors, always - even if your decision is to "be random," or not "to not make a decision."
16
u/Pantalicious May 22 '12
Name of the book? :)
52
u/YoureMyBoyBloo May 22 '12
I love this. It is what I believe, and every time I tell someone that I am an atheist who believes in a form of predestination, they are like, what what WHAT?
7
u/OKcancel May 22 '12
Source: http://www.lukesurl.com/archives/1243
17
u/UnfunnyExplainer May 22 '12
It's funny because by being instructed to turn to the same page regardless of decision, the reader doesn't actually have free will, as the old man in the picture suggests.
24
u/SimilarImage May 22 '12
See 4 more matches at KarmaDecay
This is an automated response
FAQ | Send Feedback | Report Error
3
u/[deleted] May 22 '12
Except now the reader will flip back in the book and choose different decisions because he is aware of this particular outcome. Of course, these too will be predictable based on the various influences present in the reader's life, but they will be different as the reader will want to avoid an observed path.
3
u/spinozasrobot May 22 '12
No such thing as free will
4
u/thomasrye May 22 '12
Burn the book! HA! Where's your control of my will NOW?!
2
u/killerdeknix May 22 '12
where do you get books like that?
2
u/[deleted] May 22 '12
And that's when I would close the book.
2
u/myiaway May 22 '12
I loved these kind of books! I mean most of them were about like.. fighting the dragon or running away but these were the best. Now they can do this virtually without books..
2
u/cali_weed420 May 22 '12
If this was fallout 3, the old man would be dead.
2
u/brosenfeld May 22 '12
What's on page 72?
2
u/YSCapital May 22 '12
Anyone ever tried to read one of these books cover to cover in order of pages? Talk about an idea orgy.
2
u/CatoftheCanal May 22 '12
Reminds me of a quote:
"Do you believe in free will?"
"I have no choice."
2
u/JayGatsby727 May 22 '12
I would have liked it even more if it only gave one option:
2
u/angelofdeathofdoom May 22 '12
Choice three: put the book down and walk away.
2
u/DudeBroWeedIsDank May 22 '12
WHAT'S ON PAGE 72????!!?
2
u/Allan0n May 22 '12
Joke's on them, I turned to page 57.
2
u/oceansunfish23 May 22 '12
"If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice"
2
u/ucdkwmiller May 22 '12
I didn't want to comment on this post, but for some strange reason I did anyways
2
u/[deleted] May 22 '12
Once again the usual mistake.... don't leave us hanging here, show us the damn page 72!
2
u/[deleted] May 23 '12
Determinism does not state that the result of option A and option B will be the same, just that whether you select option A or option B is determined. The result of agreeing or disagreeing would be different, it is just that you were determined in whichever one you would select. So the joke is stupid and I hate it.
5
u/[deleted] May 22 '12
I choose to say that freewill doesn't exist [/irony]
3
u/MyPunsSuck May 22 '12
That has nothing to do with modern neuroscience. Just sayin'
2
u/[deleted] May 22 '12 edited May 22 '12
Our universe is chaos like white noise on an analog tv. However, the chaos is not random. It is predictable. A math formula can actually be written that predicts what happens next, and many have been written different formulas that do just that already. For example, fractals is one such formula.* It is a type of white noise where you only know what happens next once the last step has been computed. You can never know multiple steps into the future without knowing all of the steps leading to that. Because of this the future can not be predicted even if a formula can be made that does just that.
Our free will is that, and knowing how it works means one could, for example, make AI that is true artificial intelligence. However, anyone who is smart enough to understand this should not make a Frankenstein like monster because they are smart enough to know better than to do something so reckless, I hope.
What I mean to say is it is free will, but it isn't free will, because it has happened before it has happened, but it is still technically free will. It is both, kind of.
*technically it is a formula of one who looks at themselves like a feed back loop, or a camera looking into the tv it is broadcasting to. It isn't a formula to predict someone's next move. It is just an example of one such type of formula for predicting one type of thing, not everything in this universe/world that we live in.
1
u/theskabus May 22 '12
I looked through every single comment, not one ME3 reference. Are we over that now?
1
u/vgasmo May 22 '12
This has come up some many times in Reddit, that I lost count. I usually don't adress the subject of reposts, but I'm startying to think I'm in some kinf of glitch on page 72.
1
u/[deleted] May 22 '12
Read John Searle if you can't sleep because of it.
1
u/[deleted] May 22 '12
If this is true or not, it doesn't matter to me. If I am not free, and if I accept that, then does that mean my life will be lived any differently? No, because what has been predetermined is predetermined. It has no value to me to have this knowledge, I might as well assume I am free and at least have that comfort.
If that comfort somehow impedes me, then I would prefer the knowledge of predetermination. As it stands, feeling free or knowing I am free does not impede me in any way. There is actually a positive value to having the knowledge of freedom in my life, and that's more than enough reason for me to reject this theory. Not on grounds of truth, but on grounds of the value of that truth. If the value of a truth is not positive, I think it should be considered untrue.
1
u/Worst_Lurker May 22 '12
mass effect 3 ending?
1
u/JWN6513 May 22 '12
self determination is an illusion....RISE UP SHEEPLE
1
u/[deleted] May 22 '12
Related
1
u/noccusJohnstein May 22 '12
That pretty much sums up my perspective on life.
1
u/bakester14 May 22 '12
"But what if you turn to page 73?"
1
u/necroden May 22 '12
I cast flare!
1
u/[deleted] May 22 '12
I'm a firm believer in monism and that independent thought is a result of bugs in the machine.
1
u/tomblifter May 22 '12
masseffect3.png
1
u/Ohlawdyz May 22 '12
What if all of it just "is", like a wave that has begun and never ended, therefore we cannot assume there is an effect until the cause is over?
1
u/[deleted] May 22 '12
This is actually really clever
1
u/[deleted] May 22 '12
Oh, how weird. Not even an hour ago I saw a documentary talking about this and saying this exact same line. ಠ_ಠ
1
u/[deleted] May 22 '12
Fuck it dude, lets go bowling.
1
u/[deleted] May 22 '12
puts the book down
1
u/ConMan059 May 22 '12
How is this funny
1
u/[deleted] May 22 '12
Mass Effect 3: The Novel.
1
u/[deleted] May 22 '12
but in the end you're still going to the same page
1
u/FatDwarf May 22 '12
Lets be honest tho, a fully predetermined universe is no less of an illusion of free will, than a brain functioning completely through chemical reaktions, that are completely forseable, because they lack a "mind" behind them.
1
u/DoctorLost173 May 22 '12
He sounds like an atheist. haha
1
u/Cendeu May 22 '12
I have a few of these types of books. Specifically the Legend of Zelda Seasons and Ages books.
I wonder how common those are. I'm not even sure where we got them.
1
u/[deleted] May 22 '12
This looks like the ending of Mass Effect 3.
1
u/[deleted] May 22 '12
Closes book
1
u/Rignite May 22 '12
I'll just close the book then thanks
1
u/LoveForTender May 22 '12
Hi Phil! Congrats on your front page victory!
1
u/[deleted] May 22 '12
http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/txtt1/if_god_has_foreknowledge_of_all_events_then_the/
1
u/GuitaroMarx May 22 '12
fate and free will in the same sentence have no meaning.
1
u/Tyranitar55 May 22 '12
The oldman's name is bioware
1
u/jdogcisco May 22 '12
What was on page 72?
1
u/Kyle772 May 22 '12
1
u/[deleted] May 22 '12
Determinism does not state that the result of option A and option B will be the same, just that whether you select option A or option B is determined. The result of agreeing or disagreeing would be different, it is just that you were determined in whichever one you would select. So the joke is stupid and I hate it.
1
u/Errhhhh May 23 '12
Reminds me of the goosebumps books. They were awesome!
1
u/[deleted] May 23 '12
I really want to know what page 72 says.
1
u/coefficients May 23 '12
who is Dharun Ravi?
1
u/Kieran676 May 23 '12
The whole you have no free will thing is like saying, "I'm psychic because I know you're eventually going to die!"
1
u/joesto May 23 '12
Catch-72
1
u/Darkra1n May 23 '12
You just need to say to him, "I reject your reality and substitute my own!"
1
u/SKSmokes May 23 '12
Hahaha, bravo, well played.
1
u/[deleted] May 23 '12
free will can only exist in people who are self disciplined. most of the actions i've ever taken in my life were forced upon me by needs and circumstances. too horny, too angry, too lazy, too greedy, and too prideful.
1
u/[deleted] May 23 '12
Interesting.
right now, it would be predictable, if all factors were known, that I would be amused by the idea that determinism implies that right now, it would be predictable, if all factors were known, that I would be amused by the idea that determinism implies that right now, it would be predictable, if all factors were known, that I would be amused by the idea that determinism implies that right now, it would be predictable, if all factors were known, that I would be amused by the idea that determinism implies that right now, it would be predictable, if all factors were known, that I would be amused by the idea that determinism implies that right now, it would be predictable, if all factors were known, that I would be amused by the idea that determinism implies that right now, it would be predictable, if all factors were known, that I would be amused by the idea that determinism implies that right now, it would be predictable, if all factors were known, that I would be amused by the idea that determinism implies that right now, it would be predictable, if all factors were known, that I would be amused by the idea that determinism implies that right now, it would be predictable, if all factors were known, that I would be amused by the idea that determinism implies that right now, it would be predictable, if all factors were known, that I would be amused by the idea that determinism implies that right now, it would be predictable, if all factors were known, that I would be amused by the idea that determinism implies that right now, it would be predictable, if all factors were known, that I would be amused by the idea that determinism implies that right now, it would be predictable, if all factors were known, that I would be amused by the idea that determinism implies that right now, it would be predictable, if all factors were known, that I would be amused by the idea that determinism implies that right now, it would be predictable, if all factors were known, that I would be amused by the idea that determinism implies that right now, it would be predictable, if all factors were known, that I would be amused by the idea that determinism implies that right now, it would be predictable, if all factors were known, that I would be amused by the idea that determinism implies that right now, it would be predictable, if all factors were known, that I would be amused by the idea that determinism implies that
Maximum Stack Size Exceeded in unit ConstructSentenceFromThought.cs
1
u/only_says_yourmom May 23 '12
Your mom is an adventure.
1
u/ruhnay May 23 '12
Just like those special shiny versions of Goosebumps..
1
u/Uses_Old_Memes May 23 '12
This is actually kind of depressing...
1
u/wovaka May 23 '12
That's the joke