4 ms·

A deterministic machine is still able to react based on external stimulus and able to reason about the world and itself. And we don't even need to go the full

A deterministic machine is still able to react based on external stimulus and able to reason about the world and itself. And we don't even need to go the full determinism route to disprove free will. What can free will be other than an illusion? Am I really deciding to be hungry, to want companionship, and so on? Am I simply doing what needs to be done to fulfill my needs while my brain is inventing reasons? What am I other that environmental factor, genetics, and maybe random noise? Nothing. Objective truth and reality exists independent of any person having a free will or not.

alisonkisk 6y ago
Relativity theories say that objective truth only exists globally/abstractly, and cannot shared between observers.
- mcswell 6y ago
  No; all observers see the speed of light as the same.
  - lanternfish 6y ago
    Do you see the speed of light?
    - mcswell 6y ago
      You can measure it quite easily, in fact in a high school lab. So yes, in a non-pedantic sense, "see".
      - lanternfish 6y ago
        But ultimately that's still an observation of a measurement; any 'truth' is necessarily abstracted into an internal ontological representation of that observation. One person's understanding of the measurement of the speed of light may absolutely be different than the next. These represntations may converge more strongly than, say, something more ephemerate like the human condition, but regression towards shared observation via scientific processes (or otherwise) doesn't have to imply truth. Ultimately the definition of 'truth' dictates the extent of it's subjectivity, so this discussion is necessarily pedantic. I'm not well enough studied in ontological theory to have a horse in the race, but I don't know that the conclusions of relativistic experiments are enough to indicate universality of experiential truth.
smeej 6y ago
You may not decide to be hungry, but regardless of your hunger, you can choose not to eat. Incidentally I think that's also what separates us from other animals. Animals can't fast, for example. If the instinct is present, the animal acts on it. We don't have to. In fact, if it mattered enough to me, I could starve myself to death.
- cardanome 6y ago
  That is not true. Some dogs are famously picky eaters and will not touch the food even when hungry because they learned that their handler will then panic and provide better food. You might interpret that as the dog "choosing" not to eat. Of course it is just a learned response as with humans. You can absolutely train a dog to not eat food, to "fast" if you will. Of course it wont starve itself to death probably, at some point survival instinct will kick in. This is the same with humans. Let's be honest. Most humans are barely able to keep their target weight, most are not able to fast for any extended period of time. They are still slaves to survival instincts. So much for the power of the free will.
  - smeej 6y ago
    A dog can't starve itself to death in the presence of food. Mild hunger, sure, abstain in pursuit of preference. The instinct applies to the pursuit of the preference, and while it's stronger than the instinct to eat, can be overridden. But if the hunger gets bad enough, the dog will eat the food. There's no question about "if," only "when." Just because some humans have weaker wills than others, or would find it harder to override their instincts than those who have practiced, doesn't mean it isn't a uniquely human trait.
    - kranner 6y ago
      This really reads like you are assuming that x == [no dog will choose to starve to death in the presence of food] is true and then the rest of the argument simply follows from x. Is there any evidence for x?
      - 6y ago

alisonkisk 6y ago

Relativity theories say that objective truth only exists globally/abstractly, and cannot shared between observers.

mcswell 6y ago
No; all observers see the speed of light as the same.
- lanternfish 6y ago
  Do you see the speed of light?
  - mcswell 6y ago
    You can measure it quite easily, in fact in a high school lab. So yes, in a non-pedantic sense, "see".
    - lanternfish 6y ago
      But ultimately that's still an observation of a measurement; any 'truth' is necessarily abstracted into an internal ontological representation of that observation. One person's understanding of the measurement of the speed of light may absolutely be different than the next. These represntations may converge more strongly than, say, something more ephemerate like the human condition, but regression towards shared observation via scientific processes (or otherwise) doesn't have to imply truth. Ultimately the definition of 'truth' dictates the extent of it's subjectivity, so this discussion is necessarily pedantic. I'm not well enough studied in ontological theory to have a horse in the race, but I don't know that the conclusions of relativistic experiments are enough to indicate universality of experiential truth.

smeej 6y ago

You may not decide to be hungry, but regardless of your hunger, you can choose not to eat. Incidentally I think that's also what separates us from other animals. Animals can't fast, for example. If the instinct is present, the animal acts on it. We don't have to. In fact, if it mattered enough to me, I could starve myself to death.

cardanome 6y ago
That is not true. Some dogs are famously picky eaters and will not touch the food even when hungry because they learned that their handler will then panic and provide better food. You might interpret that as the dog "choosing" not to eat. Of course it is just a learned response as with humans. You can absolutely train a dog to not eat food, to "fast" if you will. Of course it wont starve itself to death probably, at some point survival instinct will kick in. This is the same with humans. Let's be honest. Most humans are barely able to keep their target weight, most are not able to fast for any extended period of time. They are still slaves to survival instincts. So much for the power of the free will.
- smeej 6y ago
  A dog can't starve itself to death in the presence of food. Mild hunger, sure, abstain in pursuit of preference. The instinct applies to the pursuit of the preference, and while it's stronger than the instinct to eat, can be overridden. But if the hunger gets bad enough, the dog will eat the food. There's no question about "if," only "when." Just because some humans have weaker wills than others, or would find it harder to override their instincts than those who have practiced, doesn't mean it isn't a uniquely human trait.
  - kranner 6y ago
    This really reads like you are assuming that x == [no dog will choose to starve to death in the presence of food] is true and then the rest of the argument simply follows from x. Is there any evidence for x?
    - 6y ago