Post by nymph on Apr 29, 2018 3:21:08 GMT -5
[7:52 PM] Phibious: I do have this idea that there has essentially never been a solid physical argument for or against full determinism and people generally choose based on which one they want.
[7:54 PM] HangryBish (Ne Δ): There can be no full determinism
[7:54 PM] HangryBish (Ne Δ): It's a lil of both
[7:55 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): Would you say you are soft determinist Tea
[7:55 PM] Phibious: What is soft determinist?
[7:56 PM] TBerg | NiFe-Ti (III-): I find a lot of debates over determinism vs free will to be pretty semantical
[7:56 PM] Phibious: ^^ How so?
[7:57 PM] TBerg | NiFe-Ti (III-): Because they very much depend on what people’s understanding or assertion of what those things actually are
[7:57 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): I think free will can exist in an larger deterministic framework
[7:57 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): Same as how I see chaos and order
[7:57 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): But my overall structure is orderly and determined ngl
[7:57 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): I just like it that way
[7:58 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): It’s prettier
[7:58 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): William James is a soft determinist Phibs
[8:00 PM] TBerg | NiFe-Ti (III-): If the universe is constituted in such a way as to give you the consciousness to carry out a certain action, is it free will?
[8:01 PM] Phibious: I consider compatibilism not really any different from strict determinism.
I think less about determinism vs free will, and more about determinism vs randomness.
Actually, if you assume an absolute stance on free will, and you investigated it physically,
the source of free will would just look like a random event generator.(edited)
[8:01 PM] HangryBish (Ne Δ): There is in constrained free will
[8:01 PM] TBerg | NiFe-Ti (III-): That’s one level of “causation”
[8:01 PM] HangryBish (Ne Δ): It's more like... wiggle room
[8:01 PM] HangryBish (Ne Δ): Humans have a need to feel their Je
[8:01 PM] TBerg | NiFe-Ti (III-): The other level of causation is whether you experienced the choice of what you were doing
[8:02 PM] HangryBish (Ne Δ): But we also need our Ji virtues, which, as you mentioned, only exist under conditions of constraint. Je too actually
[8:02 PM] TBerg | NiFe-Ti (III-): Which exists in pretty much every action unless you step back from it
[8:02 PM] HangryBish (Ne Δ): K lemme digest what you're saying
[8:03 PM] HangryBish (Ne Δ): Yes Jelle I see chaos and order. Ebbing and flowing. Diverting and coalescing
[8:03 PM] TBerg | NiFe-Ti (III-): I just think that it depends on what level we are addressing
[8:03 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): I don’t see any reason chaos and order can’t coexist but the thing is that statement itself is about a certain order of things
[8:04 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): I can’t get away from the orderliness
[8:04 PM] HangryBish (Ne Δ): Oh they certainly do
[8:04 PM] HangryBish (Ne Δ): Not all is ordered
[8:04 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): So I say my universe is orderly
[8:04 PM] HangryBish (Ne Δ): Ordered to be unordered lol
[8:05 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): That just seems more sensible than saying “NO ITS ALL FAKE”
[8:05 PM] Phibious: how do you define chaos and order though?
[8:05 PM] HangryBish (Ne Δ): Phibs what's compatibalism?
[8:05 PM] Phibious: Blending determinism with free will by redefining free will.
8:06 PM] Phibious: Is it like, there is an orderly system but some parts of it are complicated and hard to predict, therefore it's quasi-chaotic?
[8:07 PM] Phibious: Does that count as chaos?
[8:07 PM] Ozzy | NeTi: there i deleted my offensive joke
[8:07 PM] HangryBish (Ne Δ): Right
[8:07 PM] TBerg | NiFe-Ti (III-): Chaos means its significance cannot be predicted(edited)
[8:07 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): Yeah that’s essentially it
[8:07 PM] HangryBish (Ne Δ): I like that
[8:08 PM] Phibious: okay, chaos as in 'chaos theory'
[8:08 PM] Phibious: that is actually extremely orderly btw
[8:08 PM] HangryBish (Ne Δ): That's why I dislike "What something is"
[8:08 PM] HangryBish (Ne Δ): Because we may need multiple terms
[8:08 PM] Phibious: fair
[8:09 PM] HangryBish (Ne Δ): To describe different phenomena(edited)
[8:09 PM] HangryBish (Ne Δ): Language is fuzzy
[8:09 PM] HangryBish (Ne Δ): So we have to be specific and define terms
[8:10 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): Defining terms is saying what is
[8:10 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): This is related to your post about Putnam
[8:11 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): everything context and no form doesn’t work either, Putnam would say
[8:12 PM] HangryBish (Ne Δ): It's saying what is, but to me it multiplies terms
[8:12 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): Multiplies definitions?
[8:13 PM] HangryBish (Ne Δ): Becauase we have to acknowledge that when we say "Chaos is..." we are actually talking about different phenomena, all which are quite real
[8:13 PM] Phibious: right right
[8:13 PM] Phibious: I was specifically trying to figure that out.
(more discord posts missing... but this was part of the start of the discussion)
[7:54 PM] HangryBish (Ne Δ): There can be no full determinism
[7:54 PM] HangryBish (Ne Δ): It's a lil of both
[7:55 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): Would you say you are soft determinist Tea
[7:55 PM] Phibious: What is soft determinist?
[7:56 PM] TBerg | NiFe-Ti (III-): I find a lot of debates over determinism vs free will to be pretty semantical
[7:56 PM] Phibious: ^^ How so?
[7:57 PM] TBerg | NiFe-Ti (III-): Because they very much depend on what people’s understanding or assertion of what those things actually are
[7:57 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): I think free will can exist in an larger deterministic framework
[7:57 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): Same as how I see chaos and order
[7:57 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): But my overall structure is orderly and determined ngl
[7:57 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): I just like it that way
[7:58 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): It’s prettier
[7:58 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): William James is a soft determinist Phibs
[8:00 PM] TBerg | NiFe-Ti (III-): If the universe is constituted in such a way as to give you the consciousness to carry out a certain action, is it free will?
[8:01 PM] Phibious: I consider compatibilism not really any different from strict determinism.
I think less about determinism vs free will, and more about determinism vs randomness.
Actually, if you assume an absolute stance on free will, and you investigated it physically,
the source of free will would just look like a random event generator.(edited)
[8:01 PM] HangryBish (Ne Δ): There is in constrained free will
[8:01 PM] TBerg | NiFe-Ti (III-): That’s one level of “causation”
[8:01 PM] HangryBish (Ne Δ): It's more like... wiggle room
[8:01 PM] HangryBish (Ne Δ): Humans have a need to feel their Je
[8:01 PM] TBerg | NiFe-Ti (III-): The other level of causation is whether you experienced the choice of what you were doing
[8:02 PM] HangryBish (Ne Δ): But we also need our Ji virtues, which, as you mentioned, only exist under conditions of constraint. Je too actually
[8:02 PM] TBerg | NiFe-Ti (III-): Which exists in pretty much every action unless you step back from it
[8:02 PM] HangryBish (Ne Δ): K lemme digest what you're saying
[8:03 PM] HangryBish (Ne Δ): Yes Jelle I see chaos and order. Ebbing and flowing. Diverting and coalescing
[8:03 PM] TBerg | NiFe-Ti (III-): I just think that it depends on what level we are addressing
[8:03 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): I don’t see any reason chaos and order can’t coexist but the thing is that statement itself is about a certain order of things
[8:04 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): I can’t get away from the orderliness
[8:04 PM] HangryBish (Ne Δ): Oh they certainly do
[8:04 PM] HangryBish (Ne Δ): Not all is ordered
[8:04 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): So I say my universe is orderly
[8:04 PM] HangryBish (Ne Δ): Ordered to be unordered lol
[8:05 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): That just seems more sensible than saying “NO ITS ALL FAKE”
[8:05 PM] Phibious: how do you define chaos and order though?
[8:05 PM] HangryBish (Ne Δ): Phibs what's compatibalism?
[8:05 PM] Phibious: Blending determinism with free will by redefining free will.
8:06 PM] Phibious: Is it like, there is an orderly system but some parts of it are complicated and hard to predict, therefore it's quasi-chaotic?
[8:07 PM] Phibious: Does that count as chaos?
[8:07 PM] Ozzy | NeTi: there i deleted my offensive joke
[8:07 PM] HangryBish (Ne Δ): Right
[8:07 PM] TBerg | NiFe-Ti (III-): Chaos means its significance cannot be predicted(edited)
[8:07 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): Yeah that’s essentially it
[8:07 PM] HangryBish (Ne Δ): I like that
[8:08 PM] Phibious: okay, chaos as in 'chaos theory'
[8:08 PM] Phibious: that is actually extremely orderly btw
[8:08 PM] HangryBish (Ne Δ): That's why I dislike "What something is"
[8:08 PM] HangryBish (Ne Δ): Because we may need multiple terms
[8:08 PM] Phibious: fair
[8:09 PM] HangryBish (Ne Δ): To describe different phenomena(edited)
[8:09 PM] HangryBish (Ne Δ): Language is fuzzy
[8:09 PM] HangryBish (Ne Δ): So we have to be specific and define terms
[8:10 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): Defining terms is saying what is
[8:10 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): This is related to your post about Putnam
[8:11 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): everything context and no form doesn’t work either, Putnam would say
[8:12 PM] HangryBish (Ne Δ): It's saying what is, but to me it multiplies terms
[8:12 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): Multiplies definitions?
[8:13 PM] HangryBish (Ne Δ): Becauase we have to acknowledge that when we say "Chaos is..." we are actually talking about different phenomena, all which are quite real
[8:13 PM] Phibious: right right
[8:13 PM] Phibious: I was specifically trying to figure that out.
(more discord posts missing... but this was part of the start of the discussion)