|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2023 16:14:36 GMT -5
One thing I would agree with is that it doesn't matter if free will exists or not; when things happen depends on an observer's position, so time is not absolute even if the chain of causality is. I would accept that like a Norn tapestry, our future is already woven; it's just that from our point of observation in space-time, we can't see what it's like nor can predict it precisely. That is not incompatible with free will, however. When Hamlet reflects in hindsight upon all his sins, all committed willfully I'd expect, he cannot change any of them; but he did have a choice at the time. Anyway... I'm out of my league, here. I think you explained it very well! It sounds akin to something C.S. Lewis wrote in Mere Christianity. I don’t have that book to hand, so I’m not gonna post anything (I try to avoid paraphrasing). But it definitely feels like that. It was C.S. Lewis’ writing that really combined the idea of an already-woven future and free will. In simple terms, I am free to choose between Corn Flakes or toast tomorrow for breakfast, that isn’t set in stone. Except in some ways it is. But I will still choose it. Silly, perhaps. But Lewis explained it in far more profound terms than I did. And now I want to put my hands on that book he wrote as I know it’s somewhere… |
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Feb 24, 2023 22:16:36 GMT -5
Not understanding why so many people I have great respect for take for granted that free will does not exist, I just read Daniel Dennett's Freedom Evolves. I'm no better off than I was. Dennett uses several chapters to describe the naturalistic evolution of altruism, the impact that our development has on our choices, and on dismissing the concept of the self-forming action. Nothing which is incompatible with free will. Dennett also explains his vision of compatibilism, and it's all done in a very enjoyable style and with great clarity. However, and perhaps because his book is meant for hard core free will denialists like Jerry Coyne, nothing I read in there shows me why free will couldn't exist as an emergent property of enough neurons connected in one network. (If anything, I think Dennett makes a better case for the self being an illusion, something I can at least intuitively relate to.) I don't think the ghost in the machine of Descartes makes any sense; ample documentation shows that a personality can be radically altered with the right combination of chemical drugs or physical trauma, and it most definitely does not exist outside of a functioning brain. But we certainly act as if we had free will, and barring evidence to the contrary, I think that the existence of free will should be the default proposition. (Evidence to the contrary has been published, but I would say that it is not all that convincing. The most impressive evidence mostly suggests, at least to me, that it is our sense of identity that is an illusion; not the process of making choices independently of outside factors). One thing I would agree with is that it doesn't matter if free will exists or not; when things happen depends on an observer's position, so time is not absolute even if the chain of causality is. I would accept that like a Norn tapestry, our future is already woven; it's just that from our point of observation in space-time, we can't see what it's like nor can predict it precisely. That is not incompatible with free will, however. When Hamlet reflects in hindsight upon all his sins, all committed willfully I'd expect, he cannot change any of them; but he did have a choice at the time. Anyway... I'm out of my league, here. Gotta say this for Dennett, though: the man is one fine writer. Out of your league?! You’re an All-Star! You’re one fine explainer, as we all know, mon professeur. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2023 0:36:37 GMT -5
Not understanding why so many people I have great respect for take for granted that free will does not exist, I just read Daniel Dennett's Freedom Evolves. I'm no better off than I was. Dennett uses several chapters to describe the naturalistic evolution of altruism, the impact that our development has on our choices, and on dismissing the concept of the self-forming action. Nothing which is incompatible with free will. Dennett also explains his vision of compatibilism, and it's all done in a very enjoyable style and with great clarity. However, and perhaps because his book is meant for hard core free will denialists like Jerry Coyne, nothing I read in there shows me why free will couldn't exist as an emergent property of enough neurons connected in one network. (If anything, I think Dennett makes a better case for the self being an illusion, something I can at least intuitively relate to.) I don't think the ghost in the machine of Descartes makes any sense; ample documentation shows that a personality can be radically altered with the right combination of chemical drugs or physical trauma, and it most definitely does not exist outside of a functioning brain. But we certainly act as if we had free will, and barring evidence to the contrary, I think that the existence of free will should be the default proposition. (Evidence to the contrary has been published, but I would say that it is not all that convincing. The most impressive evidence mostly suggests, at least to me, that it is our sense of identity that is an illusion; not the process of making choices independently of outside factors). One thing I would agree with is that it doesn't matter if free will exists or not; when things happen depends on an observer's position, so time is not absolute even if the chain of causality is. I would accept that like a Norn tapestry, our future is already woven; it's just that from our point of observation in space-time, we can't see what it's like nor can predict it precisely. That is not incompatible with free will, however. When Hamlet reflects in hindsight upon all his sins, all committed willfully I'd expect, he cannot change any of them; but he did have a choice at the time. Anyway... I'm out of my league, here. Gotta say this for Dennett, though: the man is one fine writer. , I'm intrigued by the topic and appreciate your insightful summary of this book. I've always sensed that compatibilism ultimately has been the intellectual quest for human relevance in the face of conceding determinism to physics (putting quantum considerations aside) and logic. I don't think it will ever be ultimately satisfying (in terms of a conclusion at least, though the journey itself is a different matter). Some of the hypotheses can assert constructs (and intriguing ones at that, I don't casually dismiss) that our actions (and the phenomenon of self-awareness we think we have) may still have concepts of "significance" that can make free will, as a minimum, not something simply dismissed as complete illusion. But determinism still "lurks" in the background...we can sort of get around this at times by saying "that's not the point", and continue to relate biological processes to a picture of "human condition" that forms, and from there derive a relationship to topics like the aforementioned altruism. But does this insight serve to not only potentially support, but even rather "insist" that free will must be further defined beyond classical determinism? Or are we still inherently perhaps "humbled" by the human condition and are looking for significance that may not in fact exist/matter? Which is not to say it may not exist, but more is it knowable (I somewhat have an epistemological outlook on this), coming full circle to my earlier statement on compatibilism may not be ultimately satisfying. From a personal outlook standpoint (and I developed this conclusion back in college more from my philosophy coursework), there are two simple scenarios. The first is free will is in fact real, and I effectively bear the responsiblity of my choices. The second is of course the opposite, but I would argue that even if I COULD have the insight that that scenario was true, I couldn't do anything about it by definition (I can't then say, "hey, being a good guy doesn't matter, let's go evil!", I still don't have the free will for that). So it is much more logical to me to assume the first case. Or as Rush said..."I choose freewill". Sorry, midnight musings here, thanks for indulging me  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2023 9:20:53 GMT -5
One other thought on whether the "future is woven" topic.
I won't pretend to remotely have a mastery of every physics theory on the nature of time and potential deterministic outcomes, but at a very high level two concepts always come back to me on this. There are more literal interpretations that the "future is woven", in that it already exists just as "real" as the present, but our frame of reference is different. And as we perceive "moving forward through time", we then experience that very real and already woven "future".
The second is more the "illusion of time" in that it's really more the phenomenon of physical changes occuring that we perceive as time, but if those changes are again deterministic, the "woven" part is that they were already predetermined outcomes (and then you have relativistic physics implications that compound our intuition further).
I still hold that these concepts do not persuade me to dispense with the notion of human free will, again more from the standpoint I do not believe it is necessarily knowable (in spite of intriguing concepts like the above). And therefore I don't have full confidence the future is fully written so to speak, nor would it have any application to me even if I could understand that it in fact was.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2023 10:56:11 GMT -5
One other thought on whether the "future is woven" topic. I won't pretend to remotely have a mastery of every physics theory on the nature of time and potential deterministic outcomes, but at a very high level two concepts always come back to me on this. There are more literal interpretations that the "future is woven", in that it already exists just as "real" as the present, but our frame of reference is different. And as we perceive "moving forward through time", we then experience that very real and already woven "future". The second is more the "illusion of time" in that it's really more the phenomenon of physical changes occuring that we perceive as time, but if those changes are again deterministic, the "woven" part is that they were already predetermined outcomes (and then you have relativistic physics implications that compound our intuition further). I still hold that these concepts do not persuade me to dispense with the notion of human free will, again more from the standpoint I do not believe it is necessarily knowable (in spite of intriguing concepts like the above). And therefore I don't have full confidence the future is fully written so to speak, nor would it have any application to me even if I could understand that it in fact was. For me, even though I did understand (on a certain level) what C.S. Lewis wrote in Mere Christianity, there was a lot I did not understand. It certainly makes you think. I mean, if there truly is no free will, can I really condemn the burglar who once tried to break into my apartment? If he has no free will, and his attempted burglary was always set in stone, can I condemn him? Should I? (On a more primal level, I wanted to thump his nose) It’d be a get-out clause for every robber, killer and terrorist if they could point out that their choices weren’t free will. As I said, I don’t have Mere Christianity to hand, but one part boiled down to, “Past, present and future exist simultaneously to God, you still have free will, though.” That can make a certain kind of sense. God has already “seen” me deciding to go 100mph down the motorway tomorrow (in the wrong direction!), but it’ll still be my free choice to drive dangerously tomorrow. It doesn’t absolve me of responsibility. I’m not a smart guy, but C.S. Lewis did seem able to explain the most complex things in the easiest way, whereas some writers have me scratching my head and reaching for a physics dictionary. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2023 11:21:25 GMT -5
It certainly makes you think. I mean, if there truly is no free will, can I really condemn the burglar who once tried to break into my apartment? If he has no free will, and his attempted burglary was always set in stone, can I condemn him? Should I? (On a more primal level, I wanted to thump his nose) It’d be a get-out clause for every robber, killer and terrorist if they could point out that their choices weren’t free will. This is really the big morality question at the end of the day, you hit right on it. And again why I still hold to the criminal can't actually ever get the "pass" in either of those situations. Because if we do have free will, then it's clearly the wrong conclusion. And if we don't have free will, you by definition still could not "give" the criminal a pass, because that awareness does not let you change your actions, it just gives you awareness of the motions everyone is going through. Saying you would not condemn them is a "choice", and we just said in that situation you don't truly have any. |
|
Roquefort Raider
CCF Mod Squad
Modus omnibus in rebus
Posts: 17,433 
Member is Online
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Feb 25, 2023 15:21:30 GMT -5
One other thought on whether the "future is woven" topic. I won't pretend to remotely have a mastery of every physics theory on the nature of time and potential deterministic outcomes, but at a very high level two concepts always come back to me on this. There are more literal interpretations that the "future is woven", in that it already exists just as "real" as the present, but our frame of reference is different. And as we perceive "moving forward through time", we then experience that very real and already woven "future".The second is more the "illusion of time" in that it's really more the phenomenon of physical changes occuring that we perceive as time, but if those changes are again deterministic, the "woven" part is that they were already predetermined outcomes (and then you have relativistic physics implications that compound our intuition further). I still hold that these concepts do not persuade me to dispense with the notion of human free will, again more from the standpoint I do not believe it is necessarily knowable (in spite of intriguing concepts like the above). And therefore I don't have full confidence the future is fully written so to speak, nor would it have any application to me even if I could understand that it in fact was. The bolded part is what I consider the most intuitive option. (Not that the universe cares about what's intuitive or not, of course, but there we are). Quantum indeterminacy might not directly explain why we seem to have free will, but it shows that indeterminacy does exist. In my opinion, if non-deterministic outcomes can occur in one aspect of reality, I don't see why they couldn't in others. The future being already woven is akin to, say, Lord of the Rings. Frodo could have taken the ring to Mordor on his own, or not. A choice was consciously made. But the book we held in our hands was already written, so it could be argued that Frodo had no real choice in the matter; however, the many early drafts of the manuscript show that it was not a done deal from the get-go; things could have gone in another direction. The early, unused drafts are the equivalent of realities in which a different choice had been made at certain moments. Are there really other universes in which other choices were made, the same way there really are early drafts on the LotR novel we know? I have no idea, and it's a concept that seems difficult to falsify; but whether it be true or not, I find the idea of a universe in which free will exists even if if ultimately gives us a single timeline both sensible and parsimonious. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2023 15:57:42 GMT -5
One other thought on whether the "future is woven" topic. I won't pretend to remotely have a mastery of every physics theory on the nature of time and potential deterministic outcomes, but at a very high level two concepts always come back to me on this. There are more literal interpretations that the "future is woven", in that it already exists just as "real" as the present, but our frame of reference is different. And as we perceive "moving forward through time", we then experience that very real and already woven "future".The second is more the "illusion of time" in that it's really more the phenomenon of physical changes occuring that we perceive as time, but if those changes are again deterministic, the "woven" part is that they were already predetermined outcomes (and then you have relativistic physics implications that compound our intuition further). I still hold that these concepts do not persuade me to dispense with the notion of human free will, again more from the standpoint I do not believe it is necessarily knowable (in spite of intriguing concepts like the above). And therefore I don't have full confidence the future is fully written so to speak, nor would it have any application to me even if I could understand that it in fact was. The bolded part is what I consider the most intuitive option. (Not that the universe cares about what's intuitive or not, of course, but there we are). Quantum indeterminacy might not directly explain why we seem to have free will, but it shows that indeterminacy does exist. In my opinion, if non-deterministic outcomes can occur in one aspect of reality, I don't see why they couldn't in others. The future being already woven is akin to, say, Lord of the Rings. Frodo could have taken the ring to Mordor on his own, or not. A choice was consciously made. But the book we held in our hands was already written, so it could be argued that Frodo had no real choice in the matter; however, the many early drafts of the manuscript show that it was not a done deal from the get-go; things could have gone in another direction. The early, unused drafts are the equivalent of realities in which a different choice had been made at certain moments. Are there really other universes in which other choices were made, the same way there really are early drafts on the LotR novel we know? I have no idea, and it's a concept that seems difficult to falsify; but whether it be true or not, I find the idea of a universe in which free will exists even if if ultimately gives us a single timeline both sensible and parsimonious. Yes!! I have long felt the same as you on quantum indeterminacy disrupting an "absolute" concept of determinism (I had put that aside in my original post, but I'm glad you highlighted here). I love your example of the LOTR scripts, a wonderful way to analogize. Much like the fundamental quantum mechanics premise that probabilities can collapse into a single defined state, this provides an interesting thought exercise to me when contemplating free will (regardless, as you say, whether that could actually be true of not). I also love your choice of words with "sensible and parsimoniuous", you are very eloquent sir! |
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Feb 28, 2023 3:29:54 GMT -5
Not understanding why so many people I have great respect for take for granted that free will does not exist, I just read Daniel Dennett's Freedom Evolves. I'm no better off than I was. Dennett uses several chapters to describe the naturalistic evolution of altruism, the impact that our development has on our choices, and on dismissing the concept of the self-forming action. Nothing which is incompatible with free will. Dennett also explains his vision of compatibilism, and it's all done in a very enjoyable style and with great clarity. However, and perhaps because his book is meant for hard core free will denialists like Jerry Coyne, nothing I read in there shows me why free will couldn't exist as an emergent property of enough neurons connected in one network. (If anything, I think Dennett makes a better case for the self being an illusion, something I can at least intuitively relate to.) I don't think the ghost in the machine of Descartes makes any sense; ample documentation shows that a personality can be radically altered with the right combination of chemical drugs or physical trauma, and it most definitely does not exist outside of a functioning brain. But we certainly act as if we had free will, and barring evidence to the contrary, I think that the existence of free will should be the default proposition. (Evidence to the contrary has been published, but I would say that it is not all that convincing. The most impressive evidence mostly suggests, at least to me, that it is our sense of identity that is an illusion; not the process of making choices independently of outside factors). One thing I would agree with is that it doesn't matter if free will exists or not; when things happen depends on an observer's position, so time is not absolute even if the chain of causality is. I would accept that like a Norn tapestry, our future is already woven; it's just that from our point of observation in space-time, we can't see what it's like nor can predict it precisely. That is not incompatible with free will, however. When Hamlet reflects in hindsight upon all his sins, all committed willfully I'd expect, he cannot change any of them; but he did have a choice at the time. Anyway... I'm out of my league, here. Gotta say this for Dennett, though: the man is one fine writer.
I haven't read this book, or anything else by Dennett, but I feel more or less in tune with general drift of the thoughts you express here. Especially the conclusion that for us it doesn't really matter: we have little choice but to act as if we have free will (excuse the seemingly unavoidable paradox).
But the very idea of free-will is so difficult to pin down, I find myself very reluctant (avoiding the word 'unwilling' - oh wait, now I'm trying to have it both ways) to commit myself to any definitive opinion on the subject.
For example, does free-will mean anything without reference to the self, to a willing subject? Hamlet had a choice - but if there is no Hamlet, only an illusion of a Hamlet, even to Hamlet himself, can Hamlet's free-will be said to be real?
All right, let's forget the subject, let's just have free will with no subject, no will-er, no beings or entities that will. What would this give us? Just Will, nothing else: it's pretty hard to conceptualise, isn't it? It sounds like a mindless impulse, an unstoppable drive - but to what ? Already we need to think of things to be willed, so there must be something besides the will, which seems to lead us back again to subject and object, the will and the things it wills.
I think this is what Schopenhauer was getting at, in a way. There was Will, which he considered the fundamental basis (excuse the redundancy) of all being and there was Representation, which is what we experience, the phenomenal universe, full of things that 're-present' the Will - and nothing but those things, including inanimate objects.
I was going to carry on but this is a such a deep subject that I would never get to the end of it so I'll make an arbitrary end here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2023 23:13:41 GMT -5
 Not quite a book, but I read Tales from the Magician's Skull Vol. 6, which is a sword & sorcery periodical anthology put out by Goodman Games which channels the spirit of Appendix N of the DMG. I was aware of its existence but had never seen an issue until I chanced upon one in a Half Price Books hidden among their RPG offerings a few months back. This issue, #6, features Fafhrd and Gray Mouser on the cover and includes the first authorized (by the Leiber estate) Fafhrd & the Gray Mouser pastiche since 1998. The risk with these kinds of mags is that the stories can be amateurish. None of the stories were at that level. All were solid, if not spectacular S&S stories, with a decent variety of setting and trappings. One even had a Meso-American setting and vibe. The F&GM story was decent, the the pair joining an acting troupe to infiltrate the Wizard's Guildhall, but it felt a bit off as it didn't quite capture Leiber's voice. It was no worse than some of the Conan pastiche's the filled the market over the years in these sense, and was still n entertaining story despite that. New sword & sorcery material, especially in short story form, is definitely a niche product in today's market where fantasy needs to be sprawling 1000 page volumes in multi-book settings to make it to market from a major publisher, so it is nice to see a venue for that type of story still, even if it is not a "book" per se. -M |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2023 16:44:08 GMT -5
I’ve ordered this (has anyone read it?):  |
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Mar 2, 2023 10:13:12 GMT -5
That definitely looks like the sort of think Slam would like Raising Caine Charles Gannon This series continues to be one that turns pages and makes you want to know what happens, but it's not GOOD exactly. I do really like the Slaasrithi, that seem pretty unique as alien species go.. not quite a hive mind, but not quite independent either, with very interesting world views. Much better than the other races Gannon has created, which are almost directly right out of Star Trek.. the Ktor also get some spotlight here, and they are VERY Romulan. Interesting choice from a character standpoint... other than our superman Caine, everyone else from the first two books has been discarded for a new supporting cast (some were minor characters that get 'promoted' others are brand new). To be honest, the main plot action of a rebel Ktor house causing trouble, was far less interesting that the exploration of SLassrithi culture, which was both interesting and terrifying. Gannon spends ALOT of time describing guns and ammo that it totally unecessary, especially since they're make pretend future guns. At least 50 pages could be cut out (probably more) getting rid of logicstical chapters. Honestly, I think this could easily be one of those series that skips the fights and just tells you what happens, but then it probably wouldn't be published by Baen . |
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Mar 5, 2023 18:18:57 GMT -5
Paperback Jack
Loren D. Estleman
This one grabbed my attention at the library... I've read one of the authors westerns, and this seemed to be a new noir-ish book, so I was intrigued.
Turns out rather it's a fictionized account of the dime novel industry.... the main character is a vet that wrote a few magazine stories (and one serialized novel) before the war and came back home to find out the magazines were mostly gone, but paperbacks were where it's at.
The main character is thoroughly annoying and way to perfect and successful, but the other characters are pretty interesting. I have no idea how accurate the story is (it seems to fit the general progression and timeline of similar happenings in comics, so it makes sense), nor do I know if there a particular author and/or publisher he's fictionizing, but it was a decent story.
There's a bunch of references in the back, so it's at least intended to be close to real history, I think.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2023 17:07:58 GMT -5
 So Robert W, Chambers the King in Yellow is a book that has loomed in my consciousness for a long time without my ever having read it. It informs a lot of the weird fiction genre and its mythos informs a lot of the Lovecraftian and post-Lovecraftian weird fiction of the 20th and 21st century, up to and including the first season of HBO's True Detective. But I had never come across an actual copy of it to read, nor found any of its stories including in anthologies of weird fiction. So after watching the Call of Cthulhu liveplay series Bookshops of Arkham, which drew heavily on that mythos as well with Carcassonne playing a large part, I decided to track down a copy and did so via interlibrary loan. And after reading it, I have to say I was left vaguely unsatisfied. Oh, the four short stories (or weird tales) included as all good. But there's very little of that actual mythos there, some vague hints, some name drops, etc. and looming sense of something ominous, but very little of actual weight or detail. The Kings of Yellow is a fictitious work, much like the Necronomicon or other tomes of Lovecraft or Howard's fiction, a play whose second act is so vial and sacrilegious it corrupts or drives mad any who read or experience it. But other being told that, and seeing how reading it affects characters in each of the stories, we never learn more of it than that. And aside from name drops of Hastur and Carcassone and other other dimensional places, Chambers does very little to develop that "mythos" that has become so influential. I think it's power is in its vagueness, and that it inspires those who read of it to imagine these horrific elements to include as "mythos" elements in their own stories. Just like a horror film that never shows the monster, it's made all the more scary because it's the imagination of the audience that provides the details of the horrific things within. Less is more so to speak. As a writer, Chambers is proficient, his prose is smooth and readable, and the stories flow. He has a few quirks and tics, that I see echoed in Lovecraft and other early weird tale writers that I think display that his stylistic quirks were as much an influence as his undefined mythos on the genre of weird fiction. I'm glad to have finally read it, even if it didn't live up to the mystique, it was still in interesting an enlightening read. -M |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2023 20:21:46 GMT -5
 The Flame Winds by Norvell W. Page Page was a prolific pulp era writer, but one I had never sampled. Having done so now, I doubt I will explore more of his work. The Flame Winds is the first in the Prester John (i.e. Wan Tengri) stories Page wrote. It is paint by number sword & sorcery featuring every popular trope used in the most obvious trite way with turgid prose and essentially unlikable characters. I forced myself to finish since it was short and I wanted it to get better, but alas no. It wasn't bad, it just wasn't good either. If I was 12 and just discovering sword & sorcery, I might have liked this more, but even that is doubtful. -M |
|
