this post was submitted on
1,553 points (53% like it)
12,627 up votes 11,074 down votes

funny

subscribe2,700,359 readers

10,038 users here now


Results of the facebook poll


Reminder: Political posts are not permitted in /r/funny. Try /r/PoliticalHumor instead!


NEW! No gore or porn (including sexually graphic images). Other NSFW content must be tagged as such


Welcome to r/Funny:

You may only post if you are funny.

Please No:

  • posts with their sole purpose being to communicate with another redditor. Click for an Example.

  • Screenshots of reddit comment threads. Post a link with context to /r/bestof or /r/defaultgems if from a default subreddit instead.

  • Posts for the specific point of it being your reddit birthday.

  • Politics - This includes the 2012 Presidential candidates or bills in congress. Try /r/politicalhumor instead.

  • Rage comics - Go to /r/fffffffuuuuuuuuuuuu instead.

  • Memes - Go to /r/AdviceAnimals or /r/Memes instead.

  • Demotivational posters - Go to /r/Demotivational instead.

  • Pictures of just text - Make a self post instead.

  • DAE posts - Go to /r/doesanybodyelse

  • eCards - the poll result was 55.02% in favor of removal. Please submit eCards to /r/ecards

  • URL shorteners - No link shorteners (or HugeURL) in either post links or comments. They will be deleted regardless of intent.

Rehosted webcomics will be removed. Please submit a link to the original comic's site and preferably an imgur link in the comments. Do not post a link to the comic image, it must be linked to the page of the comic. (*) (*)

Need more? Check out:

Still need more? See Reddit's best / worst and offensive joke collections (warning: some of those jokes are offensive / nsfw!).


Please DO NOT post personal information. This includes anything hosted on Facebook's servers, as they can be traced to the original account holder.


If your submission appears to be banned, please don't just delete it as that makes the filter hate you! Instead please send us a message with a link to the post. We'll unban it and it should get better. Please allow 10 minutes for the post to appear before messaging moderators


The moderators of /r/funny reserve the right to moderate posts and comments at their discretion, with regard to their perception of the suitability of said posts and comments for this subreddit. Thank you for your understanding.


CSS - BritishEnglishPolice ©2011

a community for

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›

top 200 commentsshow all 452

[–]doublebarreldan123 402 points403 points ago

I wish random strangers would just walk up to me and strike up philosophical debates

[–]pstamato[S] 153 points154 points ago

... What does it all mean?

[–]Kaisen32 21 points22 points ago

[–]Sock1122 5 points6 points ago

FUCK YEAH! snake knows the score

[–]svadhisthana 1 point2 points ago

Option 3: Close the book. Free will prevails!

[–]Hu_dat 45 points46 points ago

42

[–]Deep-Thought 162 points163 points ago

Hey! That's my line!

[–]captainmcr 11 points12 points ago

That's Douglas Adam's line, he just gave it to you after he imagined you.

[–]MAN_IN_BATSUIT 21 points22 points ago

well, not really. 42 is the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything. nobody said the question was "what's the meaning of life?" or anything like that. the whole point of the books were to find out what that question was

Nerd Mode:off

[–]TehSlippy 8 points9 points ago

The question is "What do you get when you multiply 6 by 9?"

[–]pod12333 1 point2 points ago

WAT?

[–]bouchard 7 points8 points ago

Yes, I get mildly annoyed when the answer is misused in this way.

[–]Glebun 22 points23 points ago

We need to get you 42 upvotes, quick!

[–]triplettjon 8 points9 points ago

in that case 6174 why 6174

i think this is a better answer than 42 for the current post because you always end up in at the same sets of numbers in the end so "choose your numbers" o well i think my point was over looked that is why am explaining it in this fashion.

[–]WillieNelsonsFriend 1 point2 points ago

TIL 6174 is the devil

[–]Firenine 40 points41 points ago

It was 43, so I downvoted it back to 42. My job here is done.

[–]Hope1355 8 points9 points ago

It was 40 before i upvoted. F5 made it 45.

[–]MafiaPenguin007 2 points3 points ago

Guys, it was at 41, so I rescued it

[–]Gunsmithy 1 point2 points ago

You were the hero that Hu_dat deserved, but not the one he needs right now.

[–]captainmcr 1 point2 points ago

Nah it was 41 and I made it 42.

[–]Jackle13 18 points19 points ago

"I'm a solipsist, how about you?"

[–]lostNcontent 15 points16 points ago

If you're a solipsist, who the fuck am I?

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]HitMePat 7 points8 points ago

How many fingers am I holding up?

[–]Adventurer_Ted 18 points19 points ago

Eleventy seven

[–]load_more_comets 12 points13 points ago

Ok. Now count how many are on the other hand.

[–]King_of_Swamp_Castle 1 point2 points ago

Potato

[–]TheHornySpirit 3 points4 points ago

Thats NumberWang

[–]bhig3 1 point2 points ago

What if I could prove to you that I am actually a figment of your imagination?

[–]Fordiman 1 point2 points ago

Please. You know you're not that imaginative.

[–]thecapitalc 11 points12 points ago

They are called homeless.

[–][deleted] 23 points24 points ago

one time this homeless guy came up to me when i was 14 on the street outside of this coffee shop and said a bunch of crazy nonsensical phrases and then said, "right?" i nodded and smiled and then he was like "you just agreed with me when i said nothing. what's wrong with you?" and walked off. fucked with my head.

[–]Ah-Cool 15 points16 points ago

Watch the movie Waking Life

[–]tomkaa 3 points4 points ago

...and if you enjoyed that, check out the directors previous effort in the same style, though this one is in film, not Rotoscoped.

SLACKER trailer on YouTube and the whole film on Pirate Bay or if you're an honest sod you could try trusty Google.com / .co.uk to find a DVD.

[–]lostNcontent 3 points4 points ago

This movie introduced me to philosophy, and years later was I guess the genesis of my decision to become a philosophy major. Maybe the only job I ever successfully land (us majors get one) will be working on something like it for a little while...

[–]Ah-Cool 2 points3 points ago

that's beautiful dude, this movie helped me continue my journey through the realm of existential thought. It's also taught me the importance of analyzing my dreams.

[–]lostNcontent 2 points3 points ago

I keep a nightly dream journal, and have been trying various sorts of self-induced out of body and lucid dream stuff. It's really rewarding, but I haven't been quite as successful as I would have liked.

[–]Ah-Cool 1 point2 points ago

/r/LucidDreaming has some great advice. I don't practice it that often but I tend to lucid dream quite often.

[–]lostNcontent 1 point2 points ago

I was browsing there a few months ago, most of it looked like stuff I already knew from my research but which doesn't work for me for some reason. But thanks for reminding me of it! I'll be sure to check it out again, as I do want to get back into practice. It's been years, actually...

(as an aside, it's really weird that one person is downvoting all your comments. I promise it isn't me!)

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points ago

This is pretty much how I plan to spend my time once I become an old man

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points ago

if you become an old man :o

[–]ProCrastin8 6 points7 points ago

I find philosophical debates too cumbersome... I just believe whatever John Travolta does and use my excess brain cells for gaming and drinking.

[–]pyabo 4 points5 points ago

One day when I was in college (~1997), first day of a lab science class I sit down next to a total stranger at an open table... paused for a moment... and then said to him, "So in Blade Runner, is Harrison Ford actually a human or is he a replicant?" We hit it off quite well.

[–]eyecite 1 point2 points ago

Man, I don't, unless I'm at a bar or something and going to be chilling for a while; it just takes so long to get settled into that type of conversation.

[–]lufraf 1 point2 points ago

I have a friend that does this, no you don't.

[–]Shiniholum 1 point2 points ago

Ever wonder why we are here?

[–]v_soma 3 points4 points ago

I don't understand why people ask this question.

It assumes there is a purpose behind our existence. It assumes that we are important enough to warrant an assumption of purpose. It's as useful as looking at a piece of dust float by and asking "Why is there dust?" Of course, there is a reason for the existence of dust but there is no purpose behind its existence. Somehow this conclusion is deemed unsatisfactory for our own existence.

[–]Shiniholum 2 points3 points ago

I was quoting Red vs. Blue.

[–]load_more_comets 1 point2 points ago

What is the purpose of meaning?

[–]akulPero 37 points38 points ago

Much like Mass Effect 3.

[–]harbinger_of_tacos 6 points7 points ago

It just needs a third "option."

[–]Proassult 1 point2 points ago

destroy the book

[–]Radiancekov 2 points3 points ago

No man, the third option turns the book into a plant/machine hybrid.

[–]goffyrider2 25 points26 points ago

turns to page 71... deal with it.

[–]skymanj 65 points66 points ago

Plot twist, every other page is labeled 72.

[–]bamfsalad 13 points14 points ago

Throw the book then.

[–]yourbuddyjoe 25 points26 points ago

Double twist, book has the aerodynamic properties of a boomerang, you're holding it again.

[–]skymind 16 points17 points ago

Poop on the book.

[–]teres94 14 points15 points ago

Well, now you're just holding a shitty book. Congratulations.

[–]Fordiman 5 points6 points ago

Triple twist: Page 72 orders you to poop on the book.

[–]thepwnguin 3 points4 points ago

"Aha," the warbled, pre-recorded voice of the old man said from a micro-speaker embedded inside the book's binding. "I thought you'd do that. Defiant as always, I see."

[–]Cyriix 1 point2 points ago

Directed by Casey Hudson and M. Night Shyamalan.

[–]CuttingPooWithAKnife 15 points16 points ago

And you think that's free will? Having been in the same circumstances, you could not have chosen any different.

[–]ClampingNomads 3 points4 points ago

This guy gets it.

Inevitably

[–]skymind 2 points3 points ago

Eh, until we can become non-linear observers of time there is no difference. I think -- I don't really know

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

Indignantly acting in accordance with the uncontrollable desire to demonstrate the concept of free will is not evidence of free will itself.

[–]TrueMilli 90 points91 points ago

Rehosted webcomics will be removed. Please submit a link to the original comic's site and preferably an imgur link in the comments. Do not post a link to the comic image, it must be linked to the page of the comic.

Source.

[–]poptart2nd 21 points22 points ago

to be fair to OP, when was the last time you saw an un-rehosted webcomic on the front page? if you follow the asterisk next to the rule, you'll find that I'm the one responsible for such a rule and i'm beginning to doubt that such a rule is the best thing for webcomic artists.

[–]LukeSurl 4 points5 points ago

As the webcomic artist in question, who, y'know, would have kinda liked those thousands of hits imgur just got, "the best thing for webcomic artists" would be to submit links to our websites in the first place, not to rehosted images.

I wrote an essay on this a few months ago: http://www.reddit.com/r/comics/comments/kwmk3/page_not_image_an_essay_by_an_annoyed/

[–]pstamato[S] 18 points19 points ago

My apologies

[–]CaptainNoBoat 17 points18 points ago

Free will vs predetermination makes for an interesting discussion. In my opinion, there is no conflict between the two terms.

Both terms are almost meaningless when analyzed enough. A human has "free will" in the sense that he makes decisions. This does not interfere with the idea of predetermination. Predetermination does not, in any way, evidence that we aren't "in control of our lives."

Predetermination is a useless concept because it essentially says that "what will be in the future...will, in fact be." If you bounce a ball off a wall from a certain spot, it will bounce at a certain angle. If you go back and replay the exact same scenario repeatedly, it will still bounce at the same angle. Likewise, if you decided to buy a coffee in the morning, you could replay the same scenario over a million times, and you would still make the decision to buy the coffee. Something has to change in the scenario for you to buy a different coffee.

I believe this conflict is largely spawned by religious philosophies. The truth is: human beings aren't superior to everything else in the laws of physics. We don't have a random generator within our bodies that would produce an array of outcomes if the same scenario is repeated. We do have indescribably complex minds that allow us to reason and make decisions, but decisions are based on internal and environmental factors, always - even if your decision is to "be random," or not "to not make a decision."

[–]Meditato 11 points12 points ago

Your message really comes across as a fallacy of moderation.

A human has "free will" in the sense that he makes decisions.

No, humans don't have "free will". They have will, but including the word "free" clouds the issue and invites traditional religious connotations. The point of the anti-free will argument is that "decisions" are functions of environmental and biological influences, mediated by neurological processes. A human might deterministically or probabilistically compute a course of action based on the different degrees of freedom presented to him/her, but that's as far cry from originating an arbitrary decision or choice, as traditional free will calls for.

Predetermination is a useless concept because it essentially says that "what will be in the future...will, in fact be."

It's called "determinism". You're mixing up "predestination" and "determinism". And no, it's not a useless concept, because the principle of determinism suggests that a system could, in principle, be known and predicted. Currently, we can't always figure out why a person commits a crime. But understanding that their "immortal soul" didn't arbitrarily decide to "sinfully rebel against his creator" is a huge step in the right direction. Determinism tells us that a person commits a crime because there was a causal chain of events leading to his crime, and that we can potentially understand this causal basis. It's very valuable.

It's even more important to understand that when debunking free will, determinism isn't strictly necessary- even randomness couldn't "create" free will. There's simply no mechanism by which traditional free will can exist- it's a logical impossibility.

[–]HexagonalClosePacked 1 point2 points ago

We don't have a random generator within our bodies that would produce an array of outcomes if the same scenario is repeated.

As someone who's taken a couple quantum mechanics courses I can tell you that we in fact have billions and billions of random number generators in our bodies (in the form of electrons and other small particles). In the world of quantum mechanics things are definitely non-deterministic. To take your example of bouncing the ball off the wall, if you make the mall small enough it in fact will not bounce off the wall at the same angle every time; even if you throw it with the exact same amount of force in the exact same direction each time. The ball may bounce away at a high angle, it might come straight back at you, it might even pass right through the wall entirely and there is no way to tell which outcome will occur until you watch it happen. Sorry to get my physics in your philosophy, but physicists threw out the idea of a predetermined universe a long time ago.

[–]Pantalicious 15 points16 points ago

Name of the book? :)

[–]redheaded_robot 26 points27 points ago

It's from a webcomic, Luke Surl.

[–]Davada 19 points20 points ago

That actually made me sad. I love which-way books.

[–]Chaos_Tempus 2 points3 points ago

It also reminds me of God's Debris (the PDF is online, and it's a fantastic half-hour read)

[–]thelogikalone 2 points3 points ago

God's Debris is great. Its sequel, The Religion War, is out too, haven't read it yet; have you, any good?

[–]Pantalicious 4 points5 points ago

Cheers

[–]letmelinkthat 1 point2 points ago

I've seen this link 1 time before:

  • 1 hour, 20 minutes earlier by TrueMilli - source

[–]YoureMyBoyBloo 54 points55 points ago

I love this. It is what I believe, and every time I tell someone that I am an atheist who believes in a form of predestination, they are like, what what WHAT?

[–]BranchDavidian 50 points51 points ago

Or you could just tell them you're a determinist. Most people don't realize that determinism is a completely logical conclusion to arrive to should you already be an atheist.

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points ago

But what you have always called "choices", are still choices as far as you are concerned. Nothing changes, for a determinist.

[–]Jackle13 16 points17 points ago

My behaviour hasn't changed at all since I learned about determinism. I realise that my "decision" to type this was inevitable and the universe decided that I would do it billions of years ago, but I still feel like I chose to reply to your comment.

Edit: grammar.

[–]Subbuteo 4 points5 points ago

I realise that my "decision" to type this was inevitable and the universe decided that I would do it billions of years ago, but I still feel like I chose to reply to your comment.

You realise nothing!

[–]BranchDavidian 15 points16 points ago

You mean determinists don't live in an alternate reality where everyone's a robot? I've been mislead.

[–]FHSolidsnake 14 points15 points ago

beep boop

[–]PlatinumToasterRape 4 points5 points ago

fuck the turret

[–]SpaceShrimp 1 point2 points ago

You can still be something other than an robot even if the world is deterministic, you could be an observer incapable of effecting the world.

[–]Lentil-Soup 6 points7 points ago

Except, regardless of the choice that you make, it's the one that had to be made. If I decide right now to go on a killing spree, it's because it was predetermined by the universe. Seems odd.

[–]bigbeau 8 points9 points ago

But you can still be punished. Your actions are still wrong. That doesn't change. And if your actions still have consequences, essentially nothing changes.

[–]xebo 10 points11 points ago

lol, "wrong". That's precious.

[–]bigbeau 5 points6 points ago

Well, not wrong in the absolute sense but still detrimental to society and other people.

[–]IMasturbateToMyself 2 points3 points ago

So is it fair to punish someone still? They didn't "decide" to do this.

[–]bigbeau 6 points7 points ago

Besides the fact that we didn't decide to punish them, if I told you that a person couldn't help brutally murdering and raping everyone he met, you would agree that these actions are detrimental to society, and therefore he needs to be removed from it.

Just because a person can't help doing a crime, doesn't mean anything should change.

[–]IMasturbateToMyself 1 point2 points ago

Hmm... "Besides the fact that we didn't decide to punish them" that's a really good point.

[–]cephas_rock 2 points3 points ago

Of course they decided to do this. Decisionmaking is a deterministic process. Decisions don't disappear just because there aren't multiple mutually exclusive futures co-existing somehow.

[–]TheAmazingWJV 1 point2 points ago

But could they have reached another decision than the one they made (killing spree)?

[–]RedditFed 3 points4 points ago

You're missing the point.

The actual act of decision making is like a program running on a highly advanced biochemical computer. Your decision making process is a byproduct of interaction between your internal biology and your environment over the course of your life.

The decision you came to was the only one you were ever going to reach at that specific time frame. The choice exists, but the way in which you decide is determined by your brain, which functions based on nothing more than firing rates of brain cells.

Because of this, going on a killing spree was inevitable. It's not inevitable in the sense that nothing could have been done to stop it, it's inevitable in that the way everything aligned at that moment in time made it happen. The state of the person's brain function, the environmental circumstances that provided that person's brain with data and the choice to commit the crime, and the lack of intervention against it. Your brain is not some other-worldly magical object, it follows the same laws of physics and chemistry that every other object in the universe follows.

Likewise, society's reaction to people who go on killing sprees is also inevitable. We punish people who act in such destructive manners not because they made a poor choice (although this is how we justify it because we don't actually understand ourselves very well), we punish them because it is how we are conditioned to react to such behaviors.

This process is also deterministic but not fixed. The manner in which you decide things changes every second. So while you may be a perfectly normal person one day, if something rather odd is happening in your brain and a certain set of circumstances come along at that specific time, you may just go on a shooting spree. If these same circumstances happened at a time when your brain was functioning in a different way, you won't go on a shooting spree. This is why deterministic but not fixed is so complex, it means that no set of conditions will perfectly predict how you will behave at all times. Your brain is a machine, but one which constantly changes. Because of this, the decision making process of the human mind changes across time.

It's really messed up, and to be perfectly honest it's a lot easier not to think about it too much on a day to day basis. I personally know what's actually going on, but at the same time in order to actually function as a member of society I have to delude myself into thinking I'm actually making choices in a non-deterministic fashion. If I didn't practice this sort of 'double-think' I would probably go completely insane.

(Random aside, as if what I already wrote wasn't enough:The whole question becomes even more insane if you gain a basic understanding of quantum physics. Then you start thinking in terms of things being both inevitable and not inevitable simultaneously and all kinds of other very strange logical paradoxes. Luckily quantum effects are essentially negligible on any scale above the sub-atomic, and so can probably be more or less ignored, but it's interesting to consider.)

Anyways, that satisfies my intellectual masturbation for the day, I'll clean up now.

[–]Draders 3 points4 points ago

But we also didn't decide to punish them for it, so how does what's fair even apply. What we decided as being fair was also predetermined.

[–]omgpokemans 1 point2 points ago

Sort of, however there is no 'right' or 'wrong' in a true determinist point of view. Determinism is all about cause and effect. If a person goes on a killing spree, it is because every experience in that person's life led them to that point. The choice to do it is an illusion. They will still be punished because all of the events of the world have led to a system that demands this; and that punishment will serve as it's own 'cause' to another chain of events in an endless cycle of ongoing effects.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points ago

But it's still the one you chose.

[–]MBAmyass 2 points3 points ago

Wait have I been a determinist and not known it? I always think of past decisions and state "If I went back to that moment with all the information I had at the time and no new information I would always have chosen the same path." Serious question, is that the basis of determinism?

EDIT: Read the Wiki for Determinism I get it but just don't comprehend some of the implications. One I am struggling with is Why can't we have free will at the point of choice but since we can never go back in time and add information to the moment of choice we hypothetically would always make that same choice? Or maybe I just misunderstand determinism and it's all about being future predictive? Which would seem odd to me.

[–]charliebruce123 1 point2 points ago

Determinism - if the current state of the system can be known completely, and the rules that govern the system are known, the next state can be calculated.

Your description in the first paragraph seems to fit with this.

How that applies to free will - the universe has an "initial" state, and follows fixed rules, therefore the every state of the universe is inevitable and is defined completely by the rules and "initial conditions" (whatever they may be). Therefore, there is no "true" choice made (indeed, no such thing can exist), and every action you believe you're deciding on is defined by the universe's initial conditions and rules.

I can't see any difference between "having free will at the point of choice, but never being able to use it because we have the same information" and "having no free will". Surely if you will respond exactly the same way based purely on the information you have, then your response is purely based on the information and there's no free will involved?

How that practically affects things: I can't see any effects. The most common argument is that since crimes are predetermined, it isn't the responsibility of the criminal, but of the universe's rules/conditions. Saying that this somehow absolves someone of responsibilities for crimes is silly IMO, since the point of punishment should be prevention of future occurrences, not anything else.

[–]zbud 1 point2 points ago

Getting into determinism was a pretty fun experience for me... I felt pretty proud of myself to think of the whole theory because I wrote 10 pages in my journal about it and then sent it out to my friends who were hip to philosophy and existentialism... I had called it "The blameless Ideology" and later on I began to read that determinism was basically mimicked everything I wrote... I contend (I think) a bit that it is possible that there is a destination; but it is infinitely more plausible that the entire system/universe was just sent into motion with out a consciously known predestination (maybe just a hope and a prayer if it were to be an entity). I do think there is inevitable destination to things although I find it very unlikely that all the details of how the universe will interact to get there is known by anything. I Also think that if things had been consciously created with a known destination by some entity that's kinda shitty in a lot of aspects (you know all the atrocities and what not and people damned from birth to starve and suffer)...

Anyways, in order for you're reaction to have changed in a very complex action the antecedents to your behavior would have to be different... You with eye patch on will incur differing stimuli/antecedents and react with varying behaviors due to your eye patch than you with out eye patch... but you couldn't change the chance that you were going to wear an eye patch (just an example).

[–]ClampingNomads 1 point2 points ago

Here's a nice way of looking at it, borrowed from a Dennett book I've been terribly excited about recently - I think he was quoting a review of an earlier book: "There is a soul - but it turns out it's made of tiny robots".

That's basically it, and it's not even all that controversial: your mind is an extremely complicated, chemically-moderated electrical circuit. It produces wonderful effects for its owner, sure, and allows complicated things to happen. But every bit of it can be considered, researched, described, in relation to its component parts and interconnections with the rest. The fact that we're unlikely to finish this research any time soon does not make this less true.

No part of your brain is exempt from the deterministic universe you were reading about on wikipedia. And suppose it was! Suppose there was some element of control from a higher being, or a cosmic-random-number-generator exerting some sort of influence? Would that give you more "free will", more "choice", or less?

IMO you're barking up the wrong tree with predictive futures: nobody says that because in a deterministic universe, the entire future could have been predicted, means that it ever will be.

The real problem is that we discuss this stuff using concepts which are fashioned for other areas of our lives, and inadequate to deal with what's actually going on. "Choice" is not an "illusion", any more than seeing your computer monitor is an illusion. In fact, your brain is more directly engaged with your "choices" than with the objects you perceive.

I think determinism is actually a liberating and exciting way to think. Consider what it means to be an "individual" - whether separateness from the rest of the universe is meaningful in any way. And when we talk about the mind (or brain) making decisions, why do we draw a little line around the brain, excluding the eyes, the ears, our chemical composition, our centuries of cultural development... I don't actually think the "self" is an illusion, in spite of what my hippy friends say. I just think it's a phase we're going through.

The universe is made manifest every time your heart beats. Don't get hung up on the small print. But then, you weren't going to...

[–]sirbruce 22 points23 points ago

Far more atheists don't realize that atheism doesn't require you to believe in determinism, or even strict materialism.

[–]alkapwnee 12 points13 points ago

And an even greater amount require that for one to be logical they must be atheist :P

[–]Lentil-Soup 12 points13 points ago

That's the mindset I can never understand...

[–]PPOKEZ 22 points23 points ago

Then again, you had no choice.

[–]fa93r 5 points6 points ago

What about it can't you understand? I think it's true and I'd be glad to address any issues you may have, if I can.

What I truly don't understand is how anyone thinks otherwise - devout theist, staunch atheist, or anything in between. Is the basis of all major religions not faith? Is faith not virtually the antithesis of logic? Unless someone has come up with (what I believe would be history's first) logically sound argument for theism, what about that statement is not understandable?

[–]DrDragun 3 points4 points ago

Logic as a mechanism cannot determine axioms though. Logic takes a few known truths and derives additional truths or rules from them by reasoning. Most people have the similar starting axioms: truth has value; human life has value, etc. But if someone disputes these things or doesn't believe them then it impossible to objectively prove them wrong with the process of logic.

For example lets say someone believes that happiness has value and truth has value. They are an act-utilitarian in their philosophy so they believe that the correct choice in a decision is the one that maximizes objective value. So you go around trying to do things that maximize truth and also maximize happiness. However such a person could assign values to a religious life feeling more purposeful than a nonreligious life. Even though this is a delusion (it loses value in truth) it still gains value in happiness. I don't share this belief and I don't want to have a delusionally happy life, but with pure reason and philosophy someone could make the argument above in favor of a religious life using completely cold logic, if they were truly unhappy living a life without comforting thoughts of God and Heaven. Of course these aren't arguments for the actual existence of God, they are arguments for escapism basically.

[–]fa93r 2 points3 points ago

I agree with everything you said, but why bring 'value' into the argument? Whether one values truth or not, is the truth still not the truth? Or at the very least, is there not one 'truthful' belief for any person given the information available? In that context, doesn't the notion of faith (not limited to religion) plainly go against all that is logical or rational or whatever words we want to use (without getting into a debate of semantics)?

In your example, would the person who goes around arguing for a religious life still not be aware that they are, as you said, arguing for a delusion that happens to bring happiness? Does believing that their religious life is more purposeful make the validity of the claims used to bolster that life any more logical, regardless of what they value? Maybe we can argue that the act of believing is logical (though I've yet to encounter any worthwhile argument for that), but what about the belief itself?

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points ago

Quantum reactions seem pretty damn random. You suggest they are determined by something?

[–]Lets_Adapt 3 points4 points ago

A determinist would, yes. Quantum reactions would only seem random because we haven't discovered the cause of their reactions.

[–]kangtea 1 point2 points ago

Quantum reactions may be random, but that is point. Determinism doesn't always focus on predestination as much as it absolutely tries to defy the possible existence of 'free will'. Perhaps quantum reactions may be random, but we never exactly consider the randomness of the universe when performing actions or tasks, or perform in random ways ourselves. Quantum reactions can't have free will, and although their random patterns may show that we don't live in an 'Iron block universe', it doesn't suggest that we have any more control of our actions or influences. In fact, if things are more random and less in order than originally thought, that it is less likely we'll be able to control our influences or what we influence. Particularly so our influences. In reference to Laplace's demon, it most likely makes things even more repressive to our 'free will', than to support it.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]l1sten 3 points4 points ago

More people should read the Foundation Series by Isaac Asimov. They are really his finest work in my opinion, specifically Prelude to Foundation. Reading this book was what got my mind wrapped around determinism. Essentially the protagonist develops a system to predetermine the outcome of large scale events through "math"; it's an interesting read.

[–]Shadowss 13 points14 points ago

Quantum mechanics would like a word with you.

[–]amazing_rando 10 points11 points ago

The universe being probabilistic instead of deterministic doesn't make free will any more likely, though. And if you take the many worlds interpretation, isn't it just determinism over multiple universes?

[–]CrasyMike 2 points3 points ago

Many worlds still doesn't determine which world "you" live in. One of them gets chosen for a given state and this is entirely random. It doesn't speak about free will, but the future certainly is not determined already.

[–]amazing_rando 3 points4 points ago

That's what I meant. The future for any given universe is not determined, but the combined future of every universe is. It's probabilistic from a universal scope, but deterministic from a multiversal (?) scope.

[–]xartemisx 1 point2 points ago

Many worlds implies that each different possibility does exist in some other universe. It doesn't say anything about determinism, probabilistic outcomes, or anything along those lines. There are just different outcomes, and no reason that one of them must be chosen in this universe, so there might be other universes where another choice was made.

[–]aoskunk 1 point2 points ago

what makes me not neccessarily beleive this is what ive learned in quantum mechanics. super position, double split yada yada

[–]sullyj3 1 point2 points ago

Nuclear decay is truly random. Completely unpredictable.

[–]Spheniscus 4 points5 points ago

Let's assume determinism is true. If we knew how everything started and knew how everything reacted - we could calculate every reaction that will ever happen afterwards, thereby predicting the future. Let's say we calculate we will do X tomorrow, with this knowledge we now have a choice, we can continue to do X or we can instead do Y.

That's a contradiction so determinism can't be true?

If anyone can explain this to me that would be awesome as this is something I've wondered for a long while.

Edit: Thank you all for the replies, this was the only stumbling block I had with determinism and it seems so obvious now that the thought experiment was way too unrealistic (probably impossible) and the act of determining the future is a variable itself that needs to be accounted for.

[–]SubtleMockery 15 points16 points ago

That assumes that precognition of an event allows you to alter it.

[–]Lentil-Soup 1 point2 points ago

I think it would. Let's say that I determined that 1 minute from now, I turn on a blue lamp. After learning this, I decide to turn on a red lamp instead. What would prevent me from doing this? Or prevent me from not turning on any lamps at all?

[–]rockabilly_pete 17 points18 points ago

From the deterministic point-of-view, I think it means that your data was flawed.

[–]pat5168 7 points8 points ago

Nothing would prevent you from doing that, it would just be the new thing to be determined. Taking into account how you want determinism to be false, the logical conclusion would be that you are going to pick the red lamp now. It changes constantly as you learn and change, but once you get to the point of "choice", you can only make one decision.

[–]CaptainNoBoat 2 points3 points ago

Knowing a precognition is, by itself, an illogical idea.

Edit - Additional: One cannot "know precognition."

Now, you might be thinking, "Yeah, but what if you could, for scenario purposes? What if you knew you were going to step on a nail, but didn't?"

This is still illogical. You didn't have precognition, by its definition, because you didn't know the correct event would happen. Whatever fictional means that you used - to tell you that you were going to step on a nail - those means were incorrect. They did not account for you "having precognition." See what I'm getting at?

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]CaptainNoBoat 3 points4 points ago

Here is a hypothetical you might appreciate:

If two exact copies of the same human are placed in a symmetrical room, facing each other, could they ever do anything different from one another?

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]CaptainNoBoat 2 points3 points ago

Well, the scenario would be "mirrored" for both people. Each person would see/experience/think the same thing (because the room would be symmetrical, and because they are the same person). If you tried to grab the other copy's shoes, he would also try to grab yours, and you would probably hit heads, and grab your heads in the same spot, and both say "Ow." at the exact same time, etc. If both individuals run at each other, they will hit each other, and fall on the floor in the exact same manner.

It's an interesting concept to think about. People that believe the individuals could do things different from one another are people that don't believe in determinism.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]CaptainNoBoat 1 point2 points ago

Oh, yeah. Exactly. It would be a little different than a mirror, in that you could reach past the other person's arm. (if you touched their right shoulder with your right arm, they would touch your right shoulder with their arm.)

[–]I_got_syphilis_from 8 points9 points ago

When calculating what you will do tomorrow, you are also taking into account the act of calculating. Determinism is founded on the premise that ALL variables are evaluated, even self-referential ones.

It may seem to end in a recursion, but recursion isn't new to math by any means. The harder aspect to proving determinism (if it can be proved) or any other school of thought for that matter, is gathering all the variables.

[–]pidginduck 13 points14 points ago

The flaw in your logic is that you assume it is possible for humans to determine every possible reaction that occurs within our universe with how little we know. If string theory is true, the fact that we cannot even observe past the third dimension already puts a stop to any possible attempts to quantify the universe nor fathom the "future". Nobody has observed "the future" - it is merely an abstract concept constructed in the mind. The idea that you could change an abstract thought confined to your mind by mere willpower (which, afterall, is still just a bunch of chemical reactions) is a farce.

[–]Spheniscus 5 points6 points ago

Thanks.

So because there's no way of knowing all possible reactions we can't predict the future (and therefor not change it).

If we somehow could then determinism would be false, but we can't so it might be true.

Is that the gist of it?

[–]eyecite 4 points5 points ago

Also, even if we were able to observe everything and predict the future with 100% accuracy, the fact that we would change it any certain way would already be determined. Think about it like life following a specific formula, and all the variables were entered at the beginning of time; life would just be the a graphed timeline. Our decision to change it was already determined.

[–]pidginduck 1 point2 points ago

Yes, but it is akin to saying that we can't prove god is false so we'll never know. To deny determinism is to say you believe in a supernatural idea of "consciousness". If a scientist introduced certain simple chemicals into a reaction, then they could eventually guess what happens every single time. Well, your brain is exactly the same thing. Again, it's just a physical structure with a bunch of chemical reactions going on. All of your actions and thoughts are a result of whatever chemicals were present in your head at the time. This can be proven by the introduction of a hallucinogen which reverses certain reactions and cause a delusional perception of the world. Thus, willpower is false.

[–]YoureMyBoyBloo 2 points3 points ago

There are a number of misunderstanding and fallacies in your argument.

1) I am not saying a human has the capacity to predict anything for a number of reasons. First off it is presumptuous to think we understand every law of nature. We have a good understanding of the basics of physics and chemistry, but we are still delving into the field of quantum theory, and even in that field of Quantum theory there is a possibility that quantum mechanics are strictly probabilistic and as a result still the result of a measurable and somewhat predictable pattern. Without a PERFECT understanding of all laws, humans will not be able to predict the future because they cannot appropriately measure all variables.

2) Even if humans had all the laws of nature understood perfectly, there is a very solid chance that the volumes of information would be too great to calculate faster than they were happening. This is a silly analogy, but in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (which I do not believe is the bible) the Earth is actually a large computer because to calculate something as complex as the Big Question, the only way you can do it is in a simulation environment, and to do that you would need every variable ie everything in the world duplicated. This pretty much excludes anything from having the ability of foresight as to properly do it you would need to build an exact model and then speed up the passage of time.

3) While my first two points kind of make your question irrelevant, I will answer it none the less and will do so in the simplest way I can think of: Your question is if a human COULD see the future what if they just did not do what they saw? I believe the person they would NOT be able to deviate from what they saw. I believe this is so because I believe events are unfolding on a predetermined course, not through a consciously predetermined course but simply because we live in a rational world ruled by natural laws. I also believe that these laws apply equally to brain chemistry and as a result the firings of neurons can be traced back to a set of bio-electrical transactions that are governed by rules. I believe consciousness is simply a feeling experienced during the process of thinking. I believe I can control my actions in the way I know what I am doing as I do it, but the electrical impulses in my brain are the result of a predictable flow of atoms and sub atomic particles meaning that I technically am just as in control of my actions as a mitochondria making energy.

Disclaimer: when I say predictable, I mean a process is following a set of rules. I do not necessarily mean a human can observe the entire process in real time.

[–]Eagleshadow 3 points4 points ago

I think I can offer a good answer to that, as I'm determinist myself. It's pretty simple, the key, in that case, is that you are predetermined to predict your future and change it in a predetermined fashion. And I'd like to add that "predetermined" sounds bad, it's more about every slice of time being the exact and unique only possible result of the actions/events that occured or are occuring in the time slice before that... if we imagine that time slices exist ofcourse, which is just a figure of speech in a way, since there isn't such thing a "tiniest" slice, but I hope you get the point.

The point is that absolutely everything, has to obey natural laws, otherwise it would be magic. Hence determinism.

Oh, and just case you'd ask "what if I predict that I'm gonna predict future correctly and then change it... and so on and so on", again, simple, no matter how many times you'd try that, determinism would always be one step ahead of you.

[–]TheLonelyHumanist 3 points4 points ago

Laplace's Demon would like to have a word with you...

What you assume about determinism is true in that if we were to determine precisely the position and momentum of every particle in the universe, we could know every event that will follow and every event that preceded.

The problem arises from the facts that:

-Fundamental particles don't have exact positions or momenta

-The universe truly is random in nature

-And even if we could collect the (literally) astronomical amount of data needed, and ignore the subtle randomness, the problem is so computationally complex that, logically, it can't be solved by a computer contained within our universe.

So, once again, you are correct in that the universe isn't truly deterministic in nature and once again causality wins the day.

[–]someguy945 1 point2 points ago

Some have argued that the further a thought experiment strays from something that could actually happen, the less meaningful any conclusions drawn from it can be.

Since your thought experiment (know how everything started, know how everything reacts, know the current state of every quantum particle at a given point in time, and be able to perform the necessary calculations faster than they actually play out in real life) is almost infinitely far from the realm of possibility, some would claim that any conclusions we can possibly draw from your experiment are almost infinitely far from being meaningful.

Your experiment makes the Swamp Man experiment look like a walk in the park by comparison, and according to Wikipedia even that draws criticism for being too unrealistic (and rightfully so IMHO).

[–]m42a 1 point2 points ago

That might be true if we could determine what state things started in or are in right now, but we can't even do that. This also assumes that the result of the universe's determinism is computable in a sufficiently small amount of time. In order to do what you suggest we would have to do computations that predict the result of themselves (since computing that X will happen is part of X).

[–]OKcancel 5 points6 points ago

[–]UnfunnyExplainer 14 points15 points ago

It's funny because by being instructed to turn to the same page regardless of decision, the reader doesn't actually have free will, as the old man in the picture suggests.

[–]atheist_maybe 4 points5 points ago

If you have to explain the joke..... Oh. Never mind. You are the joke.

[–]SimilarImage 22 points23 points ago

Age User Title Reddit Cmnt Points
9 months Spencer487 Determinism. /r/pics 21 142
1 year Image-Thee-Mistress Freewill... /r/pics 25 168
1 month drunkentune 56! 56! Now that's all I can think about!!! Fuck philosophy. /r/philosophy 17 55

This is an automated response

FAQ | Send Feedback | Report Error

[–]myownSPIRAL9 2 points3 points ago

My Biopsych Professor = the Old Man

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points ago

I want a re-do.

[–]pstamato[S] 1 point2 points ago

Good afternoon, good sir.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points ago

Except now the reader will flip back in the book and choose different decisions because he is aware of this particular outcome. Of course, these too will be predictable based on the various influences present in the reader's life, but they will be different as the reader will want to avoid an observed path.

[–]spinozasrobot 2 points3 points ago

[–]HE_WHO_STANDS_TO_POO 15 points16 points ago

Obviously the first one. The second is all squishy.

[–]Kelta 4 points5 points ago

Keeley Hazell and Whitney Stevens if you're wondering

[–]analcarbomb 2 points3 points ago

You're my favorite novelty account. Just sayin

[–]thatonelurker 4 points5 points ago

The first one! Wait can I choose both?

[–]pstamato[S] 22 points23 points ago

¿Porque no los dos?

[–]NovemberXSun 12 points13 points ago

Yayyyyyyy! *cheering

[–]thomasrye 3 points4 points ago

Burn the book! HA! Where's your control of my will NOW?!

[–]lufraf 1 point2 points ago

Silly pawn. The author knew that you would react indignantly and somewhat violently to his attack on free will so he wrote that page for the purpose of making you burn your book, causing a chain of predetermined events.

[–]killerdeknix 1 point2 points ago

where do you get books like that?

[–]HedgeFund_Manager 1 point2 points ago

And that's when I would close the book.

[–]myiaway 1 point2 points ago

I loved these kind of books! I mean most of them were about like.. fighting the dragon or running away but these were the best. Now they can do this virtually without books..

[–]cali_weed420 1 point2 points ago

If this was fallout 3, the old man would be dead.

[–]brosenfeld 1 point2 points ago

What's on page 72?

[–]YSCapital 1 point2 points ago

Anyone ever tried to read one of these books cover to cover in order of pages? Talk about an idea orgy.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]CatoftheCanal 1 point2 points ago

Reminds me of a quote:

"Do you believe in free will?"

"I have no choice."

[–]haiku_robot 1 point2 points ago

Reminds me of a 
quote:  "Do you believe in free 
will?"   "I have no choice."

[–]JayGatsby727 1 point2 points ago

I would have liked it even more if it only gave one option:

You disagree with his hypothesis. Turn to page 72.

[–]angelofdeathofdoom 1 point2 points ago

Choice three: put the book down and walk away.

[–]DudeBroWeedIsDank 1 point2 points ago

WHAT'S ON PAGE 72????!!?

[–]Allan0n 1 point2 points ago

Joke's on them, I turned to page 57.

[–]oceansunfish23 1 point2 points ago

"If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice"

[–]ucdkwmiller 1 point2 points ago

I didn't want to comment on this post, but for some strange reason I did anyways

[–]1tepa1 1 point2 points ago

Once again the usual mistake.... don't leave us hanging here, show us the damn page 72!

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

Determinism does not state that the result of option A and option B will be the same, just that whether you select option A or option B is determined. The result of agreeing or disagreeing would be different, it is just that you were determined in whichever one you would select. So the joke is stupid and I hate it.

[–]Spadle 3 points4 points ago

I choose to say that freewill doesn't exist [/irony]

[–]Jessarium 16 points17 points ago

But the machinations of your brain made it inevitable that you would choose that.

[–]Siethron 1 point2 points ago

unless someone had previously pointed out the inevitability of that it which case the machinations of his brain would appropriately and yes, inevitably respond.

[–]Jessarium 2 points3 points ago

Just like any computer, yes, if you add new information to one of its inputs it will alter the system in some way.

[–]Siethron 1 point2 points ago

I knew you'd say that.

[–]Jessarium 1 point2 points ago

Whoa.

[–]Spadle 1 point2 points ago

curses, foiled again.

[–]MyPunsSuck 3 points4 points ago

That has nothing to do with modern neuroscience. Just sayin'

[–]MrRenahm 1 point2 points ago

[–]_angel 1 point2 points ago

Our universe is chaos like white noise on an analog tv. However, the chaos is not random. It is predictable. A math formula can actually be written that predicts what happens next, and many have been written different formulas that do just that already. For example, fractals is one such formula.* It is a type of white noise where you only know what happens next once the last step has been computed. You can never know multiple steps into the future without knowing all of the steps leading to that. Because of this the future can not be predicted even if a formula can be made that does just that.

Our free will is that, and knowing how it works means one could, for example, make AI that is true artificial intelligence. However, anyone who is smart enough to understand this should not make a Frankenstein like monster because they are smart enough to know better than to do something so reckless, I hope.

What I mean to say is it is free will, but it isn't free will, because it has happened before it has happened, but it is still technically free will. It is both, kind of.

*technically it is a formula of one who looks at themselves like a feed back loop, or a camera looking into the tv it is broadcasting to. It isn't a formula to predict someone's next move. It is just an example of one such type of formula for predicting one type of thing, not everything in this universe/world that we live in.

[–]MyPunsSuck 1 point2 points ago

I started off agreeing, and then you really lost me. Universe = chaos (well, universe = arbitrary, insofar as it doesn't seem to have any goals), but is ordered by physical rules. Therefore not 'random'. I believe you are quite right there. Things will happen in the single only possible way that they can.

However, this does not at all mean that it is predictable (Find a program to predict the next digit of pi, or the next prime number, and you will change the world). It's not just that nobody is clever enough to go from perfect information to perfect predictions, it's that gathering all the information is impossible. Measuring one thing might make measuring other things impossible.

Also, fractals do not make predictions, they make arbitrarily complex patterns. If we had a formula to determine the next step from any step, we would have a formula to determine the nth step. Math does that all the time.

Your second paragraph is unjustified. "true artificial intelligence"...? You mean intelligence? One can create this by giving birth.

I don't understand your concluding paragraph, so I ask for further clarity.

[–]theskabus 0 points1 point ago

I looked through every single comment, not one ME3 reference. Are we over that now?

[–]vgasmo 0 points1 point ago

This has come up some many times in Reddit, that I lost count. I usually don't adress the subject of reposts, but I'm startying to think I'm in some kinf of glitch on page 72.

[–]Biganon 0 points1 point ago

Read John Searle if you can't sleep because of it.

[–]Person_On_The_Web 0 points1 point ago

If this is true or not, it doesn't matter to me. If I am not free, and if I accept that, then does that mean my life will be lived any differently? No, because what has been predetermined is predetermined. It has no value to me to have this knowledge, I might as well assume I am free and at least have that comfort.

If that comfort somehow impedes me, then I would prefer the knowledge of predetermination. As it stands, feeling free or knowing I am free does not impede me in any way. There is actually a positive value to having the knowledge of freedom in my life, and that's more than enough reason for me to reject this theory. Not on grounds of truth, but on grounds of the value of that truth. If the value of a truth is not positive, I think it should be considered untrue.

[–]Worst_Lurker 0 points1 point ago

mass effect 3 ending?

[–]JWN6513 0 points1 point ago

self determination is an illusion....RISE UP SHEEPLE

[–]Drag0nflamez 0 points1 point ago