Fate, Free Will, and Sarda being a jackass

[Grognor]

I will side with The Wizard Who Did It, because he is the one who is right.

Instead of arguing, I will just link to this effective Cracked article: http://beta.cracked.com/article_1574...ce-horror.html Make sure you read the entire thing.

You'll get over the infinitely depressing epiphany eventually. Even though that's impossible, Screw Destiny. The reason we are able to cope with this knowledge is our inability to completely understand it.~

~Sweet Dreams~

[Fifthfiend]

Originally Posted by The Wizard Who Did It

You're saying they have only one option that they're going to choose, and yet somehow that equals Free Will?

I cannot even imagine what logical inconsistency you are seeing in that statement.

To have free will he would have to... choose both options simultaneously? Anti-choose an option? Spontaneously combust? Honestly, what?

How does free will get any free-willier if you're just randomly shooting down any set of options which are all as likely as any other? If free will didn't allow you to reliably narrow your options down to a single best choice based on observed circumstances and previous experience, what on Earth good would it be?

You're saying there's no such thing as choice because people narrow their options down to one alternative which they then do. That's what choice is. You're trying to say a thing doesn't exist because it exists exactly as defined.

[The Wizard Who Did It]

Originally Posted by Grognor

Instead of arguing, I will just link to this effective Cracked article: http://beta.cracked.com/article_1574...ce-horror.html Make sure you read the entire thing.

HAHAHA!

Cracked is awesome. It's based on iffy logic and science, but in a way that still makes you love it.

Originally Posted by Fifthfiend

To have free will he would have to... choose both options simultaneously! Anti-choose an option? Spontaneously combust? Seriously, what?

Have more than one option that he had the ability to choose.

It's quite simple, he just needs the choice of option A or option B, and the possibility of choosing either as determined by his free will.

Yes, the entire thing is wholly unprovable.

EDIT: It's a debate that's entirely about process. The point isn't that the options are being shot down, the point is under what influence they're being shot down. If they're being shot down by a brain that is entirely under the influence of physical and chemical laws with no input from a person's "self", as in any self that they can actually have control over, then it's "Fate". If there's some level of self that allows control beyond what would normally be allowed by physical or chemical laws acting inside our brain, and therefore allows us to have an "actual" or probable choice in the matter, then it's "Free Will".

[tacticslion]

Originally Posted by The Wizard Who Did It

Come on man, you're usually pretty logically consistent.

Thanks! I like to think so, and I try pretty hard to make sure of that, but it's really quite nice to hear that from someone else! Also, the same to you! I suppose you'd have to be, since you keep doing it!

Originally Posted by The Wizard Who Did It

... I'm not sure how exactly I can make this more clear.

You're saying they have only one option that they're going to choose, and yet somehow that equals Free Will?

I want you to walk up to somebody, and tell them they can either choose to shoot themselves or, y'know what, hey, nevermind that's the only thing that's going to happen. They're going to shoot themselves in the foot, and that's the end of it! Then, y'know, after they shoot themselves in the foot, ask them how much Free Will they had.

This is why people have been referring to this as the "illusion of a choice". It feels like a choice, it feels like you're choosing, but in reality you're not. And because you're not actually choosing among a variety of choices, and instead following a set path with no real level of input, you actually have no input in your fate. Therefore, there is no Free Will.

Let's look at it this way. Pretend you're playing a video game. The game asks your character (which is you in this example) whether you want to fight or flee. However, the game doesn't actually ask for any input on your part, and instead has your character say that he wants to fight. How much free will or choice did you have in that matter?

See the problem with how you and I are looking at it is that we see "choice" as a different value. In the instance where both will and "fate" exist, the person's character itself is the automatic self-fulfilling choice. We are the choice that is made, that is our character expressing itself in action. The choice has long since been made by us because of our nature. I'm not saying it's intuitive... it's not. In fact, I'm saying that a balance between the two is the hardest to look at and find. I'm just implying that they aren't mutually exclusive. In such a system, "will" isn't truly "free" in that it has a large number of rules that it must conform to. The difference is, the rules don't force the choice, but limit the options so that the will makes the only one it ever would make.

To use your examples... ok, I can't because those situations would exist outside of a system like the one I'm describing. Your presuming a dissonance between the character and the choice being made for the character. Whether they will it or not. In my scenario, it happens because they will it.

You're presuming a seperation of will and fate. Most people presume fate is some outside force that forces a cog (us) to turn. For this to work, I'm presuming that will is the cog that makes fate turn. Insert the cog and fate happens. If a different cog was inserted a different fate happens. What makes people unique is that we are a self-aware, self-making, automotive cog, capable of rationalization of what it is that we are doing and making it happen, as opposed to a result pumped out solely by fate, the other. Or, to put it another way, fate is the cog that goes in our machine. Without fate, we'd not do anything either. Insert one fate, because of what we are, you'd get one output. Insert another, you'd get another.

Another example, that I've used before, is the chemical reaction (this one very simple and able to be tested at home, if you want). Suppose that all the world was a sea of vinegar. Injected into that sea is: oil of all different kinds. Those oil bubbles float, remaining seperate from the sea of vinegar. Also in that sea are bubbles of soap. Some oil will come into contact with that soap and - due to a new situation arising - will adapt itself and conjoin with the soap. Some will adapt itself and conjoin with both soap and vinegar. Some will completely pass through the soap because it's the wrong kind of soap or oil. It's the character of the oil itself that determines the reaction, not the events, nonetheless, any given oil's innate character will always react the same way - it's inherent in the traits of the oil.

I understand your point - I'm not saying you have to agree that fate and free will do work together. In fact, you don't have to agree at all. If you're fated not to you can't. If you have free will, it's totally your choice. In my proposed dual system, you've already chosen what the ultimate response will be in every situation based on who and what you are, but it hasn't come to light yet because there's not yet been a final situation for it.

I'm using words "fate" and "will" because there isn't another word for it. I used the examples to make the concept simplistic, but that's kind of like equating the solar system to a gyroscope - it doesn't really work. Sure they both work off of centripital force and gravity, but they have nothing else in common, really. Calling the idea of any kind of "fate" (forces beyond our control that limit our choices) antithetical to any kind of "will" (the ability to make our own personalized choices) reduces everything to purely random chance. The opposite view presumes that we are nothing to this incredible "fate" force that exists out there, and our presence is meaningless and uninteresting. I posit that our presence is inherently necessarry and meaningful because without it, fate wouldn't work. Yes there is fate, but we're the ones who make it by virtue of being what we are and who we are. Equating each element of "fate" (the forces handing limited choices to us) with a machine would be kind of like equating the ocean with a glass of water... they both deal with water, and why it isn't all over your floor right now, and that's about it. More to the point, it would be like comparing a glass of water the entire ecological and geodic system we live on called earth. Technically there's more water (liquid) than solid there! The similarities abound!*

Not so much asking for people to accept this is the way things are as presenting a way of looking at things differently. I really and totally understand why it looks exclusive. And hey, perhaps I'm way, way off base. But I suggest our difficulty with accepting both is that we look at it the wrong way. Kind of like Neutonian physics. Yeah, it works for every day things. Heck, it might even get that missle across the ocean. But it breaks down if you look at it too closely or on too large a scale.

So! Sorry for dragging this on so long. If you agree, cool. If not, ok! I'm actually cool with that. I guess I like teaching and talking too much (especially on theoretical things). My wife says I should become one, so I can talk all day and maybe notsomuch at home sometimes. 'Couse, she also says she likes to listen to my "sermons"... hm.

*I kid. The differences are much, much, much bigger. You have the whole universe to consider in the workings of fate. To get the idea of that, try counting to a google**. It's too big a number to really get so we go with base abstractions.
**Not the search engine. Single value-increases only. Feel free to ignore fractions, but if we're really taking this really seriously, they should be included too.

Note: I guess I was a little vague with the machine-emotion analogy. My point - machines don't have emotions as we know them only because they lack the complexity of chemical interactions that we have. If you looked at it on a purely physical level, reducing it to impulses via chemical reaction, however, all machines operate solely based on emotion - a chemical impulse that says this physical thing should happen. Not one of my solid moments, but there you go.
Note Further: I'm pretty much done. It's fun, don't get me wrong, but I think we've hit an impasse, for now. I'm pretty set in my ways, as are you guys. That doesn't mean you can't respond, just that I can't see us getting past this based on the fact that we're viewing things very differently as a base. Unless something I've said here (unlikely) or something you'll say soon (also unlikely, given that we're now repeating ourselves) will give each other a different view, it's unlikely we're going to change the other's opinion. Non?
Note the Third: As another personal insight into myself, the pre-decision-decision concept requires that a character is preformed. This can go back to purely natural causes or, as I tend to think, spiritual forms. So, for example, if an eternal spirit is incarnated, the nature of that spirit determines the choices it will make. In physical terms, your brain might have stored information that it recieved due to prior physical events (fate) that built and organized your thoughts according to your genes (again, fate) "ensuring" (even though there is no omni-present guidance in a purely physical outlook, thus the implied mentality behind "ensuring" is wrong) that you will utilize it in such a way as to make the decisions you make (will) along the way. It is, however, your unique character that allows you to make those decisions. In a purely physical world, it is solidly machine-like. Save, you know, with emotions attached. In us. Which are purely physical. Go figure.

Edit: Huh, you know, if you wanted to ninja'd me, you could have, at least, I dunno called me to let me know I didn't have to read this long. Oh, except for the part about you not knowing my phone number. NEVERMIND CARRY ON!

[Krylo]

Might I ask what the point of this discussion really is?

If there is no free will then everything is pointless, because it is all predetermined. Ok, but acting on that is even MORE pointless than acting as though free will exists even if it doesn't.

The existence of free will doesn't matter at all so long as the illusion of free will persists.

[Mondt]

Not to mention that this debate can't actually go anywhere without delving into religion, so...

yeah!

[Fifthfiend]

It's a debate that's entirely about process. The point isn't that the options are being shot down, the point is under what influence they're being shot down. If they're being shot down by a brain that is entirely under the influence of physical and chemical laws with no input from a person's "self", as in any self that they can actually have control over, then it's "Fate". If there's some level of self that allows control beyond what would normally be allowed by physical or chemical laws acting inside our brain, and therefore allows us to have an "actual" or probable choice in the matter, then it's "Free Will".

See I have no idea how this even theoretically supposed to work. You're saying it's not free will if the brain decides things, it's only free will if the brain hands everything off to some metaphysical homunculus brain-pilot, and then he decides things. Assuming we're still talking about a system where input goes in, gets filtered through experience and personality, and a reliable result gets spit out, how is any of that more or less free-willed or fated or whatever if it's my invisible brain-pilot doing all the heavy lifting instead of me? What's he doing from his metaphysical pilot's seat that makes his decisions any more valid than mine?

EDIT: It's a debate that's entirely about process. The point isn't that the options are being shot down, the point is under what influence they're being shot down. If they're being shot down by a brain that is entirely under the influence of physical and chemical laws with no input from a person's "self", as in any self that they can actually have control over, then it's "Fate". If there's some level of self that allows control beyond what would normally be allowed by physical or chemical laws acting inside our brain, and therefore allows us to have an "actual" or probable choice in the matter, then it's "Free Will".

What I'm getting at here is process is irrelevant because whatever the process is, that's self. If that's your brain taking in sensory input, gathering reactions from an assorted shit-ton of neurons and hormones and chemicals and whatever all else is in there variously representing instinct, appetites, needs, reflexes, consciousness, beliefs, morals, and whatever, then that's what self is. If the brain takes in sensory input, runs it through all that other shit the brain has chugging along in there, and then hands that off to the brain-pilot who does whatever it is he does with it and then comes to the same conclusion that is whatever thing I ultimately end up doing, then that's what self is.

[The Wizard Who Did It]

Yeah Tactics, I see where you're coming from and it seems that we've been having a debate about semantics. So on that note I think our debate has come to a close!

It was fun!

Originally Posted by Krylo

Might I ask what the point of this discussion really is?

The debate is entirely pointless and unprovable. It's more of an intellectual exercise than anything else.

Originally Posted by Mondt

I am talking about stuff.

I LOVE YOU!<3

[tacticslion]

Originally Posted by Fifthfiend

See I have no idea how this even theoretically supposed to work. You're saying it's not free will if the brain decides things, it's only free will if the brain hands everything off to some metaphysical homunculus brain-pilot, and then he decides things. Assuming we're still talking about a system where input goes in, gets filtered through experience and personality, and a reliable result gets spit out, how is any of that more or less free-willed or fated or whatever if it's my invisible brain-pilot doing all the heavy lifting instead of me? What's he doing from his metaphysical pilot's seat that makes his decisions any more valid than mine?

The issue with all of this, Fifth, is distinction. Your distinguishing your metaphysical from your physical in this case. If the two are, instead, one, than no distinguishing is necesarry. It's a very, very murky area in many ways, because of the emotional attatchments people have to the nature of physical and metaphysical. The question is, whether or not without a metaphysical addendum, or an extra non-physical 'part' the "decisions" one would go through would be the same. Further, if the decisions are the same, do they have the same weight as if they wouldn't? Yeah, it's all non-intuitive at this point. Dang it! I thought I was out! You pulled me back in Fifth, YOU PULLED ME BACK IN! THIS IS ALL YOUR FAULT*!

*See, this is an ironic statement**, given that in my will-with-fate model, nothing can force the choice, but the inherent nature of the entity making the choice. So it's my fault. That suxx0rs.
**Not purposeful irony, but situational. Grognor might be proud.

Edit: Agreed!

Originally Posted by The Wizard Who Did It

Yeah Tactics, I see where you're coming from and it seems that we've been having a debate about semantics. So on that note I think our debate has come to a close!

It was fun!

The debate is entirely pointless and unprovable. It's more of an intellectual exercise than anything else.

I LOVE YOU!<3

I agree with that. All of it! Without equivocation! Except given this: a very large range of meaning both for "all of it" and "without equivocation"!

[Primalmoon]

Originally Posted by Ronfar

Is it just me, or is Sarda starting to sound an awful lot like Nihel from Nuklear Age?

Yeah, where is Arel when you need him to get you away from this Fate crap?

Are Clevinger's works starting to show some Author Tract about the role of fate and free will in our lives?