Do you believe in libertarian free will?
Do you believe in libertarian free will?
As in the sense that you have the power of contrary choice in any given scenario? I.e. choosing between chocolate or vanilla ice cream
I do not believe man has this capability but would be interested to learn how you believe that would work. Please, share your thoughts in your answer.
- Yes
- No
Answer the question at dpoll.xyz.
0
0
0.000
Voted for
I believe man chooses according to their nature and cannot choose otherwise.
If at a point in time, we are inclined to choose one thing over another thing. That is precisely what we will choose.
Our desires are determined by complex processes such as the state of information in our mind, neurotransmitters, cultural influences etc
Would vote for yes but I'd have to using posting authority for dpoll and go through with another set of processes just to make this reply.
Anyway, I believe man has this capability to do or not and it goes beyond just looking at it at a univariate dimension. It's not a question that can be answered in a linear sense because, as you said, these are determined by complex processes which is another theme of the problem being multifactorial.
The idea of being altruistic and committing to altruistic acts is irrational from a survival standpoint because it serves no benefit for the one committing and only puts them at a disadvantage for sharing resources to the point of losing one's life at extremes.
It's not just an answer of whether you'll save your significant other with yes or no because those don't really do the question justice. It's a yes or no, but there are going to be conditions imposed and the idea that you are presented with the opportunity to weigh them in your head and select a course of action is already part of the process of committing to a choice.
Your significant other can be your world, so you would say yes, but then you found out they deceived you, so you say no, then a plot twist happens that it wasn't intentional and their harm to you became a benefit for the greater good but so now you're placed with even more dilemmas as the information you're given gets weighed in. And if they deceived you, you're cool with it, but to what extent can you tolerate the deception and its consequences. It's not a black and white answer that fits a question that deserves a multivariate approach to answer.
The common hazard here is trying to simplify complex questions and forcing simple answers to these questions.
Multifactor or not, I still believe the decision is determined by factors out of the person's control and think that applies to all of us.
Those factors exist at a systemic problem but these are precipitating factors and not necessarily a finite outcome. The problem with a yes or no is assuming all variables are absolute but we know precipitating factors (things that can be changed) and predisposing factors (things that can't be changed) affect one another interdependently to arrive at a complex decision. If we look at outcomes between 0 and 1, we're going to find categories that only fall under 0 and 1.
In that sense, we end up generalizing factors unique at the individual level. Like how can two people having almost similar life circumstances still end up with different conclusions or same conclusions. We know it's much more complex that just merely get told an illusion of choice.
The problem I have with this thinking is that it takes away accountability of the individual and surrenders that control to external forces under the big umbrella called society. By all means, I do agree that being in desperate situations can be tempting conditions to do evil but if it's the expected outcome then existing outliers that do altruistic deeds don't make sense at all.
Voted for
Voted for
Neither yes or no.
Each person has a certain range within which a contrary choice is possible.
This range depends on:
-the situation
-the number of parallel universes this person can connect to
😜
(loosley base on an idea broadly discussed in Neal Stephenson's book Anathem)
The multiverse is an interesting theory but don't think we will ever be able to interact with any other universe but our own.
We can imagine many different timelines in which a myriad of choices being exercised but the thing to consider is why we make the decisions we do.
I believe that why is knowable although it is incredibly complex. In a universe with x factors involved in a decision and assuming x is static, the same decision will be reached every time.
Unless the inputs change, we will reach the same outcome. If your proposition is that we can deviate from this, my question would be how. What impetus would change our mind from natural course?
The idea is that when considering a decision we might conect with parallel selfs from different timelines where different outcomes of the decision have been experienced already. This then can inform our decision.
This theory describes quite well how I perceive this process: You load up on knowledge, but then immerse into something much deeper, visualizing/feeling different outcomes and suddenly you now which way to go.
If this process can actually bring something really new, or is simply another predetermined path, maybe is another question. Which also is widely discussed in the book mentioned.
In general my experience is that no decision ever is the same. Being rooted in arts I'd say people try really hard to arrive at recipies that produce repeatable art. But it never works, most of the time it's a dead piece of shit ;)
Voted for
Voted for
Voted for
What's up with the spam, doggo?
Oh, that's weird. Not sure why that happened. Sorry about that.
Edit: There we go, deleted the duplicates.
All good. Thanks!
Voted for
if teach them
Voted for
Voted for