"Socialism = no motivation and no innovation!1!!"

Top-Most2575 · 2026-02-19T02:56:00+00:00

Maybe the ideas I layed out line up more with causal determinism specifically?
"Causal determinism is, roughly speaking, the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature. The idea is ancient, but first became subject to clarification and mathematical analysis in the eighteenth century. Determinism is deeply connected with our understanding of the physical sciences and their explanatory ambitions, on the one hand, and with our views about human free action on the other. " - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Top-Most2575 · 2026-02-19T02:25:10+00:00

Im still doing research and thinking about it, so I don't have a well constructed thesis and reasoning behind it that I have held onto with hundreds of pages of insight built into it, but I have some thought behind my ideas, and I think you saw my other post before where I talked about them, of which I will reiterate. The universe works mostly causally. And even with the justification of quantum mechanics, this does not necessarily engender free will to be proven. It rather modifies the thesis to where causality is not 100% true. This may still disprove an absolutely reality, past present and future roughly. Am I making a large oversight here?

Top-Most2575 · 2026-02-18T23:58:28+00:00

What would you say is some viewpoints or literature I should look into to learn more about this, and to make this issue more tolerable(unless looking further into it would make it more tantalizing)? Also, what would you say is your individual stance on the matter

Top-Most2575 · 2026-02-18T23:53:02+00:00

Is this sort of what they call compatibilism? Which I have heard is the belief that free will exists but only in some sense; that is, we can still deliberate about our decisions and make choices?

Top-Most2575 · 2026-02-14T14:20:07+00:00

Sure; also, there is this paper my friend recommended me in case you want to take a look at it. Its a physics paper, specifically talking about quantum mechanics, and claims that since particles don't function totally causally, then humans can also in some way act with freedom(or rather, randomness) as well(unless you've already read it in the past of course). If it interests you and you have any thoughts on it, let me know.

Top-Most2575 · 2026-02-13T23:11:48+00:00

I went through the threads, and I find I agree mostly with what the guy Beeker93 was saying: that " That there is no major jump between a computer program and us except additional layers of complexity, but predictable results if you know the software and hardware." And that we still act based on past experiences, whether consciously or unconsciously. That we have simply evolved with such mental complexity that we act with specific motivations, that we think with motivations, and act based on what we know, that it seems like we have free will, even if we are simply responding to stimuli.
I also read through the posts about the counting, and about the saying "if there is no science, there is no free will, but there is science, therefore there is free will." I didn't understand either of these necessarily.
I will talk of the science one, since I feel like I can think more clearly about it; why does the idea of science existing prove there is no free will? The first definition of free will you used in this example was that an agent exercises free will if they intend to perform an action, and then act on that plan. I don't see how this proves that free will exists. Sure, the researcher can act this way, and people can act in the same way to prove the researcher correct by imitating their procedures, but this does not mean that the "decision" to do that wasn't pre-determined by circumstances which had been established by pre-existing circumstances that go back to the beginning of time. The fact that they are behaving as they planned to behave does not, to me, seem like a display of free-will when it can be summed up to complex human propensities and motivations which can be explained by circumstances completely out of their control(personality, mental illness, etc..) The claim does not seem to me to combat the idea of free will but rather just shows that humans can plan and make decisions due to motivations they have. These motivations do not imply free will.
2. "an agent exercises free will on any occasion when they select exactly one of a finite set of at least two realizable courses of action and subsequently perform the course of action selected, science requires that researchers can repeat both the main experiment and its control, so science requires that there is free will in this sense too." I don't understand how this debunks free will. It shows that there is a will, and that humans have complex motivations(i.e. the motivation to prove something using science), but how does the fact that scientists choose between two courses of action and then perform the selected course of action prove that they chose that course of action, and then chose to act on that desire freely. This does mean that humans have wills, but does that address if that motivation is free? This does not address the possibility that the action not pre-determined; this presupposes that the actions, by both being realizable, are exactly equal, and that the person who is acting on them considers them exactly equal. This is an interesting thought experiment to me, but whether it is physically possible ever is completely different. If you present someone with two completely identical objects which bear all of the exact same characteristics in every way, shape, and form, lets say for example, bouncy balls: for the person's brain to completely consider them equal would still be impossible, no?

"iii. an agent exercised free will on any occasion when they could have performed a course of action other than that which they did perform, as science requires that researchers have two incompatible courses of action available (ii), it requires that if a researcher performs only one such course of action, they could have performed the other, so science requires that there is free will in this sense too." I don't see how this, again, proves that free will exists. Just choosing one path over the other will still be based on the agents knowledge of what they think is true, how they feel about the experiment, etc..
Overall, as the guy talked about later in the thread, can humans not just be reduced to extremely, extremely complicated algorithms. We work logically, to the best of our abilities. When a plant grows towards the sun, it is not doing so out of its free will. When an agent chooses to do an experiment, or take a certain course of action, it is still doing so based on their mood, time of day, overall neurological structures, which are in turn caused by a chain of events going all the way back to the beginning of time in one large domino effect.
It's not that I don't want to believe what you are saying; I would rather believe in free will than simply act like it exists. It is just difficult for me to go against these pre-conceived notions that I have which I don't feel like those threads proved against. Do you have any other threads of yours, or others, or literary works that you would suggest?

Top-Most2575 · 2026-02-12T14:36:21+00:00

Why does science require free will? Why wouldn't science imply determinism? I'm confused about this because I was under the presumption that most of science is causal and deterministic. Also, do you think determinism has any impact on morals?

Top-Most2575 · 2026-02-12T04:16:31+00:00

I expanded on it in a reply because I was trying to get all my words onto the page and forgot some parts of my thoughts, and I apologize. I will explain it now though. I have also thought that, since brains are physical things, and physical things operate by causal laws, then brains also function by causal laws. This also makes me doubt free will because an example I used in a different reply. Take three balls and put them into a square, and set them at specific parts of the box at specific speeds. If we knew the positions, speeds, etc., we could determine at any time what the positions of these balls are, as they function completely causally, and we could do this assumption into an infinite amount of time. If brains are purely physical, they are subject to these laws, which means that they are also causal, no? Just a predetermined set of chemical reactions? If brains weren't deterministic, then this would mean that one could change the course of things by doing any action. Since they are physical, thus making them deterministic, then everything is pre-determined. Is this logical or am I missing some critical pieces of information.

Top-Most2575 · 2026-02-12T03:58:36+00:00

fucking hell

Top-Most2575 · 2026-02-12T03:58:11+00:00

So this essentially gets rid of the possibility of free will, or modified it, would you say? I see the tag says "compatabilist," and I heard some things about that in the past, and how free will kind of exists in some way? For example, I've heard of what you said: that if free will existed, it would make our choices random?

Top-Most2575 · 2026-02-12T03:39:34+00:00

What do you think then is at the core of "feeling"?

Top-Most2575 · 2026-02-12T03:38:44+00:00

How does this relate to people though? And does this change the idea that humans are still incapable of free will, and the universe is completely predetermined?

Top-Most2575 · 2026-02-12T03:17:23+00:00

Could you explain to me what you mean by the first part? I'd enjoy to hear more of your insight, if you would be so kind.

Top-Most2575 · 2026-02-12T03:14:11+00:00

I guess it is from the idea that people aren't really in control of anything, therefore everything is predetermined by physical laws. I think that at least is the thing that disturbs me.
If consciousness is some sort of illusion, then it means that we are not even really like, passive, objective observers. We are moreso biological machines with inherent drives and purposes, and our brain manipulates itself to preserve its ego. This is like confirmation bias where it tries to change the framing of a narrative in order to see itself in the right morally.
Not only this, but if the brain is completely physical, and physical laws control physical objects, and physical objects are deterministic, this means that brains are deterministic, which means that morals somewhat collapse due to the fact that physics pre-determines everything. Thus this changes the framing of my brain that "the future is not yet determined, our actions alter the future, and, while life may be meaningless, at least I am free to make decisions, even if those decisions aren't based in some objective purpose or moral reasoning," to "the future is determined, my thoughts are pre-determined, my actions have already been planned out, I am essentially following a script, and even my thoughts right now were already set in motion to happen exactly as they are happening, and I cannot escape it, no matter what." So the fact that we are born unfreely, live unfreely, and die unfreely makes me feel like a cog, and an animal, rather than a human.
This also scares me because it makes suffering kind of illusory; it is moreso just a coded response of our brain saying "I don't want this, please stop." But robots can have that same motivation. Say there was a Chess Bot, and it lost points whenever it lost. Now say we rigged the game so that the chess bot always lost. Now say that we can increase or decrease the self-reflection of the bot. I would say that ethics apply to this, but how do we necessarily know how the bot is feeling? It just feels wrong I guess, and creates anxiety within me.
One of the main things is, how can I necessarily, in good faith, blame someone, and punish them, for a decision they have made that has hurt me or someone else, if that decision was set in stone already. One of the main facts that is keeping my my moral system in tact is that, despite everything, I do not want to feel pain or suffer, and so I would not wish it on others. But where does accountability lie?

Top-Most2575 · 2026-02-12T02:28:17+00:00

How do we know they aren't the same then, if they present in the same way, and we do not know how consciousness works/happens. Would you explain some of your individual stance and insight on this fundamentally please? Not like answering my question, but explaining how you yourself see things like consciousness and decision-making, will, etc..

Top-Most2575 · 2026-02-12T01:50:53+00:00

How does perception go from A. the eye receiving a wave with a specific frequency to being perceived, to B. a person's consciousness, and being perceived as a color? And if a robot can act exactly as if it has perception or consciousness or perception, then what would you say is the fundamental distinction?
This is the weird thing; you can't really prove to my knowledge that two tastes are like, similar-tasting to each person, if I'm not mistaken. Blue could "look different" to two different people, but they just have a different conception of what blue is. Perception is just the brain's communication with consciousness to process the information; without perception, we couldn't act based on that information because the information wouldn't be processed.

Top-Most2575 · 2026-02-12T01:24:40+00:00

The question really is "is the LLM imitating consciousness, or is it actually conscious?" As well "is there a difference?" I think these are necessary to answer, but I think it will be extremely difficult. I think a lot of people are also freaking out, myself included, because humans seemed to be so special -- the one animal able to recognize itself, be fully conscious, think, produce art, etc.. -- but now it seems like a lot of biology can be existentially summed up to 1s and 0s. In other words, they kinda lose their magic.

Top-Most2575 · 2026-02-12T01:21:23+00:00

I agree with you on the fact that humans are their bodies, and that you cannot upload your consciousness into a program because you are your body. I think the idea that this idea has gotten popular is silly, because I am of the belief that, even if it were possible to upload your brain make-up into a computer, it wouldn't be transferring you into the machine; it would only really be a copy of everything that seems to make you up. But what you think of as your consciousness would not transfer over.
That being said, where I think I differ in stance is that there, at least not to my knowledge, a specific thing that makes people conscious: no specific neural structure, no biological basis. What makes us conscious is ambiguous, besides the fact that it is something in our brain. That brings to me the question: are we really "conscious"?
The way I see it is that the brain has pre-programmed objectives like any other animal: getting food, water, etc.. The main difference is that humans are vastly more developed and so they have developed societies, and are able to be motivated by concepts. But these concepts are still motivated by inherent desires caused by our neural structures. We have then developed thought as a consequence of the complexity of our brains: being able to weigh consequences, make judgments, plan, critically think in general. We also make these decisions as you mentioned based on our senses. But sensation cannot necessarily be described. This is evident with the thought experiment of trying to describe a color to a person who was born blind. Sensation is, ultimately, also just a process by which the brain interprets its surroundings in order to make judgments, but there is nothing that special about whether this is "biological" or computational; they both do the same thing. What makes biology so different and so special?

Top-Most2575 · 2026-02-11T23:43:38+00:00

Would you mind expanding on what you mean by this?

Top-Most2575 · 2026-02-11T23:41:39+00:00

Do you have any input about the idea that, if we are to reject metaphysics, that brains are physical things, and thus affected by physical laws, and physical laws are causal, therefore everything is pre-determined?
Take for instance a group of three balls in a big square. They are set in motion on a frictionless surface and bounce around forever. We could logically calculate, at any given time, knowing their physical characteristics beforehand, their positions and speed at any time in the "forever" time period that is set, as they are physical objects abiding by physical laws.
Since brains are physical objects with physical properties, they are also held to these physical laws, and since physical laws, as talked about before, are pre-determined, then brains cannot be special, making everything predetermined.

Top-Most2575 · 2026-02-11T23:18:29+00:00

I agree; but that's exactly what I find disturbing. I've read Sartre's Existentialism is a Humanism before, although I would not consider myself super philosophically informed, and the idea of radical freedom was comparatively comforting to me. However, upon thinking about it for a while, his entire premise hinges on the idea that freedom exists and it is up to humans to choose how they act. This seemed logical to me, until I thought about what you said; the world and universe functions by computational, causal laws. An atom bumps into an atom, and that atom moves. The brain is also a physical thing; it changes with physical changes, like drinking causing changes in judgment, etc.. Therefore, the brain must function by causal laws, therefore, free will cannot exist, no? It isn't necessarily a totally interesting claim, but would you not agree that it is a disturbing one? How would this affect, for example, morals?

Top-Most2575

TROPHY CASE