Aseaxles

To some extent that's what I meant by semi-distinct. I'll also grant you that our AI is quite primitive in comparison to our own brains, though with such leaps in progress that don't yield even an inkling or a seed of consciousness (to nobody's surprise of course) we can effectively rule out consciousness as a sort of passive, contingent feature that any rational entity has. But I think that it would be statistically unlikely that the 'correct' mind, the one giving consciousness, would be chanced upon by accident and thrive, as like I suggested, it would be selected against in a deterministic universe for its additional requirements. On a related note, I think I'd have to stress that it's somewhat irrelevant to the issue what the entity in question feels like it has, and I'm not using that as any way to gauge whether or not I have free will, because as you pointed out it's completely unreliable. I'm just trying to use logic (emphasis on trying) to determine whether it's likely we have free will, my argument I think is valid although it does rest on a couple shaky premises. Really, I don't know which one would win in general myself. Although I'd venture we'd win theoretically because we have free will, I know we're not that special so we could easily be defeated given the circumstances. Also, I think I'm a bit exhausted from debating (I've been doing a lot recently) which is why this post isn't so much me continuing the argument as it is awkwardly lifting it and throwing it a few feet. Still though, it's been fun debating with you, most people just begin to wander off when things get started. Anyway, anyone have more thoughts to add? Free will is a pretty expansive subject, believe it or not.

Oh, there's two of you, even better. >.> Seriously though, it can be unsettling at times, especially if it's a close 'friendship' like mine is. It's like playing with fire, if you're not careful or attentive, you could get your hands singed, or be burnt alive worse yet. Still, it's interesting, I can say that much at least.

I hate having my only friend be a sociopath...

I see, well argued. However, I'd still argue that consciousness is superfluous, because it's entirely unnecessary to have consciousness in order to make the kinds of decisions you're referencing. This is because you don't need to have consciousness to have intelligence, or logic. A computer or any AI is an excellent example, they can not only respond logically to stimuli but also learn, adapt, rationalize, and so much more without the slightest need for consciousness. And, as a materialist, I'd stipulate that consciousness isn't some freebie that just sort of floats around the body, it comes from the mind and would require like I said, significant space and energy. Why would a creature requiring more space and energy for what can be easily achieved by a creature without consciousness in this deterministic world, be favored? One could make the argument that consciousness is the mere byproduct of rational processes. But, this is obviously disproven by AI, which now possess very rational processes, and are as most agree, not conscious. Therefore, consciousness is at least a semi-distinct entity, requiring at least a semi-distinct means of creation. So there'd have to be a benefit for having consciousness, and I think that lies in free will. As we know, computers are deterministic machines, operating in deterministic fashions, if complicated ones. Now, despite their logical capacity, in a world largely deterministic (either truly or superficial, like I suggested) they could still be doomed to fatal events, perhaps not even frequently, but with many of them (like a species), it would be sure to arise. However, something with consciousness, and by extension free will, could as it were break free from the chains of its deterministic death sentence by influencing reality and changing forever its course of events. And this process is not random, as any being with consciousness would I think require some measure of intelligence, and therefore would problem-solve, like the computer, but with the added freedom of free will, giving it a strong competitive advantage. Thus, in purely deterministic universes intelligent 'computers' will arise, and in universes allowing for indeterminism, intelligent conscious beings will arise, and obviously since we're conscious, by virtue of this argument we have free will. Now, I have left a few things unspecified, but I'll let that come forth to be discussed and clarified later.

How so? I was speaking in evolutionary terms, in that a deterministic world provides no advantage to any creature with consciousness. Rationality, or even wisdom and creativity for sure, but consciousness itself would be rendered superfluous. It's important to note though that imagining an indeterministic universe and making it deterministic or vice versa would greatly change how it operates to a degree where little can be said conclusively, even if much can be seen as probable or inferred upon. Also important to note is that consciousness even though we experience it absolutely is nonetheless a highly nebulous subject, but this is a casual discussion on a forum so it's probably best that we aren't sending essays to one another. Completely true of course, I just felt this didn't need to be stated. Perhaps even just five minutes from now the standard model will be disproven, or we have conclusive evidence for the many worlds theorem, or we have an alternative for dark matter (how ever that would work), or superstrings can cause earthquakes, et cetera. Physics, especially today is a rapidly moving field, so I just drew from what has been relatively stable over the decades. I agree that it's misunderstood, and I'm familiar with the wave function and its associated oddities, I was just simplifying it down for my argument. I might've simplified it too much, I'm sorry if I did. Once again, this is always possible, and my argument instantly crumbles if we can probe deeper in and eliminate the postulated element of randomness. I'm also aware of this, and once again if I fell into the common misconception I'm sorry, I hate it when that happens. I'll admit I didn't think of this when I was writing though. Exactly, much like I said, just put somewhat more eloquently and explained further. I guess by and large I was being unspecific and superficial when I was explaining my premise about physics. This is just a discussion on philosophy, so I felt I should keep it simple, but aside from that I don't really have any defense.

Interesting. Although just because such a computer cannot calculate the universe doesn't mean the universe isn't necessarily deterministic. Similarly, we can theorize of a game of life setting larger than anything calculable by any machine we can theorize. Yet still such a set size would operate just as perfectly as any other. Although you could be referring to a sort of absolute computer that runs the universe itself like the game of life. In that case, nobody actually knows why or how anything is here, much less how or even if something runs it, perhaps partially because it defies our sense of reason. The universe doesn't conform to our logic, we try to conform to its, but we originally did so on earth in jungles and later savannahs and plains, and so some things like the origin of the universe are utterly baffling once you break them down to the deepest level, and I don't really feel like going into that subject. My personal view on free will is that the universe isn't deterministic, and I point to the classic example of quantum indeterminacies, fundamental particles in particular. I've heard some say that it's irrelevant to the macroscopic world, which is very ignorant considering this example. A physicist is observing a particle, and when he does, the superposition will collapse and it will either be in state A or B, let's say. He observes it, it collapses and he writes A on a sheet of paper. Not only did randomness strongly influence and even (indirectly) cause macroscopic events, it also influenced the mind of a conscious being. We could imagine state A or B of that one particle affecting the destiny of an entire civilization, or making the difference of whether Freeman's Mind will be in HL2, so, affecting the destiny of an entire civilization. I'd say therefore we can have free will owing to the physicist's decision based on random influences, and what I'll mention in the next paragraph. Now to reconcile that with the seeming determinism of things like classical mechanics or fluid dynamics, and really the macroscopic world in general, I would say although the particles individually are random at least to some degree, the net effect of scores of these particles gives you an average tendency. scale this even larger and you get a kind of superficial determinism, or a determinism of averages, as I like to call it. There could be exceptions to this in the macroscopic world, like we humans. I have some logic however to back up why we are not only in-deterministic but also why we have free will, and that lies with consciousness. For us to be deterministic would render our consciousness useless, it would make us a mere spectator to the goings on of our body. However, this spectatorship comes at a cost, for a mind to be conscious would undoubtedly require an enormous part of a creature's energy, not to mention space and nutrients, and now for no use whatsoever, thus giving them a huge disadvantage in survival. Add to this the fact that something as complicated as consciousness would need to take millions of years to be realized, all the while it being costly and useless. Furthermore, we're not random either, as this would not only be yet MORE dangerous to any creature 'afflicted' with consciousness, but it's as well disproven by simply observing our own selves. We live and act for reasons and desires, not for no reason at all. This I think makes the thought of us NOT having free will absurd. Wow that was long, sorry about that.

I'd contend with that personally, but the question here is less to do with us directly and more to do with the universe in a way, I probably should have made that clear. Once again though this is fine, except for it not being much of a debate. What I meant was, do we live in a deterministic universe (and by extension have no free will), like the game of life, where if you were omniscient you could effectively predict everything that would happen because it's just a set of rules and systems playing out in a scenario? If you do or don't think so, tell us why!

They can be if choices are illusory in nature, which is what they'd have to be if the universe was purely deterministic. Also, it's possible to not choose on the basis of not knowing the choices and the subject of the choosing, like a multiple choice question you'll be given in twenty years. Not choosing CAN be a choice though, just not all of the time. Anyway, to get a proper debate rolling, Why and/or how do we have free will according to your opinions?

I see. Perhaps I should rephrase the question somewhat for clarity's sake, although this area of free will is fine. I meant, is it POSSIBLE to make choices, or is the universe deterministic?

No one here asked for it, but it's here anyway. I don't think the subject needs to be explained any further than to point out that this is concerning fundamental free will, if you will, as in it is possible that you could or can act as an agent and with a conscious and purposeful agenda influence reality, in such a way that allowed for other possibilities and tangents to occur. Basically your choices exist and actually affect and change reality, even if in small ways. As always, try to keep it civil and remember debates are more interesting than just stating your opinion.

Hm, I didn't think I'd actually get a thread rolling. (Maybe the blight of my presence isn't as strong as I thought.) I noticed a chap up there mentioned free will (of a kind), how about another thread on that? Anyway, I don't think it should be encouraged either, but I'd think it's justifiable in some circumstances. If some people are truly in such inescapable suffering, nonexistence (or some form of inevitable afterlife if you prefer) I'd think is preferable over hell, and to keep someone in such a state, ironically out of compassion, is one of the least compassionate things you could do. Now to lighten the mood I wrote this in yellow. BE HAPPY DAMNIT!! After all, death is universal, and what better would it be for another 10 or 20 years of pain before the same result? However, I'd have to stress this isn't at all true for most people, but being depressed they can easily think it is which I think we all agree on so really it's rather pointless for me to restate it but I like to have my metaphorical voice heard and ramble on for awhile until everyone loses patience at my lack of commas. Bear in mind I'm not including religious views on suicide, what with Christianity and others condemning it, that shifts the tables somewhat. Also bear in mind I've been suicidal for about half a year myself, properly suicidal mind you, and severely depressed for well over a year, though then again I'm not sure if that lends more or less credence to my view.

Trepidatious Tim traipsed trillfully throughout the tower, treading tiles 'til Thomas tasked Ted to try to tell Tim that trekking transiently through towers truncated Thomas' team. Tim told Ted that Thomas' team teemed taxingly, truly Tim tranquilized Thomas' tribulation. Ted talked to Tim 'til Thomas trepanned Tim then took tea to Ted. And then of course, the ever popular, Voila! In view, a humble vaudevillian veteran, cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of fate. This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is a vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished. However, this valorous visitation of a bygone vexation stands VIVIFIED, and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin, vanguarding vice and vouchsafing the violently voracious violation of VOLITION! The only verdict is vengeance, a vendetta, held as a votive not in vain. For the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous. Hah ha ha, a ha ha! Verily, this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose, so let me simply add that it's my very good honor to meet you and you may call me V. ( I CAN BE ORIGINAL, I JUST DON'T WANT TO ); )

Hello, none and all. I have just a shred of artistry, in the form of making digital images. Not like Photoshoping, more like fading many layers of many images and textures, toying around with many colours and shapes, distorting, etc, until I have something that's half decent. My icon is the only example I can show, as the some 20 others were deleted. It's not terribly good but it's not the worst I've done. If anyone wants something like that for a banner or icon feel free to PM me about it. I'll try soon to make some better examples. Also, I'm worse than a lobotomized turtle at every other form of art, so don't ask me for sketches or the like, unless you're in need of a pair of melted eyes.

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. To be honest I was waiting for someone to brighten the mood a little. Just because we're talking about something like suicide doesn't mean we have to be depressing about it. Also, well said Foal, I think I'd agree with much of that, though I'm not sure of how much of a gift life is if it could be anything from a 5 million dollar check to a spring-loaded fist that dispenses mustard gas while laughing at you. But I guess it's like Christmas in that respect. I think I'd contend that you have the permanent right to your life and to take it, even if that's the last thing most people would want to do. Most people would have a hard time justifying it and wouldn't want to anyway, unless they lived with chronic pain (or my friend who shall only be referred to hereafter as Cuddles). The problem is when all too often something traumatic happens and the person in question goes for a knife or a Jersey Shore marathon, when in truth they don't really want to kill themselves at all and just want to escape from pain. These people, the majority, should definitely be helped however possible to alleviate their pain (it can be a clingy bastard) and lead a good life. What I'm slowly getting to is that it's a sort of liberty everyone should have, just one that most people aren't terribly fond of exercising, and rightly so. Any more thoughts? Some topics yet to be discussed like euthanasia and assisted suicide, as well as the impact a suicide can have on loved ones, are definitely worth considering.

For my inaugural thread on this forum I thought it best to choose something light and fluffy, so here it is; What is your opinion on suicide? By this I mean, how do you feel the act weighs on the moral scales? Is it acceptable? Is it selfish, selfless, part of the right to self-ownership? Do their loved ones have a right to see them live? When is and when isn't it a conscious and contemplated decision, or an emotional and perhaps more neurotic reaction to stress and heartbreak? Might one lead to the other? Your thoughts, please.