Most active commenters
  • iancmceachern(4)
  • ben_w(4)
  • p1esk(3)
  • starspangled(3)

←back to thread

662 points JacobHenner | 18 comments | | HN request time: 2.245s | source | bottom
Show context
starspangled ◴[] No.40219850[source]
The greatest thing about tight, upcoming elections is that governments actually start to do a tiny bit of what people want. Great result.
replies(7): >>40219858 #>>40219925 #>>40219956 #>>40220471 #>>40220553 #>>40220596 #>>40220713 #
1. p1esk ◴[] No.40219925[source]
Unfortunately different people often want different things.
replies(3): >>40220086 #>>40220142 #>>40223148 #
2. m463 ◴[] No.40220086[source]
Doesn't everyone want freedom, justice, fairness, etc.

(unfortunately everyone doesn't agree on the definition of these terms)

(also: "But apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?")

replies(1): >>40220131 #
3. portaouflop ◴[] No.40220131[source]
Romans have enslaved our children, raped our wives, desecrated our holy places and burned our priests. They razed our villages, slaughtered our herds, and forced our young men into their military service.

So glad that they brought us civilisation!

replies(1): >>40220424 #
4. iancmceachern ◴[] No.40220142[source]
Free will is fortunate, not unfortunate
replies(1): >>40220356 #
5. drusepth ◴[] No.40220356[source]
Interestingly, different people often want different things (including free will and a lack of free will).
replies(1): >>40220451 #
6. drekipus ◴[] No.40220424{3}[source]
Obligatory

https://youtu.be/Qc7HmhrgTuQ?si=ZcQQorNm5px-XoY_

replies(1): >>40228776 #
7. iancmceachern ◴[] No.40220451{3}[source]
Isn't the lack of free will also the lack of consciousness?
replies(1): >>40220591 #
8. ben_w ◴[] No.40220591{4}[source]
"Free will" and "consciousness" are poorly defined, as each means different things to different people.

I can't remember if it was Frederick Nitzsche or Alistair Crowley who said there's only one thing you can do which is truly your own will; that definition seems to me inherently deterministic in a way which violates other people's ideas of free will.

I've seen (and been confused by) a Young Earth creationist fundamentalist Baptist, who cleaned not to believe in evolution "because [he] believed in free will".

"Consciousness" apparently has around 40 definitions.

replies(1): >>40221593 #
9. iancmceachern ◴[] No.40221593{5}[source]
>"Consciousness" apparently has around 40 definitions

Yes but only one that applies here.

From oxfords: "Internal knowledge or conviction; the state or fact of being mentally conscious or aware of something."

I disagree, I think they're both very clearly defined. Both in the clinical and law sense.

replies(1): >>40221693 #
10. ben_w ◴[] No.40221693{6}[source]
I don't see how that helps.

I am deeply confused by much of BDSM, but I am aware that some people report enjoying the experience of not having any control, of their ability to choose being taken away from them.

Can you also give an example of what you mean by "free will" such that your chosen definition does help?

replies(2): >>40221796 #>>40226046 #
11. iancmceachern ◴[] No.40221796{7}[source]
To me, the idea of knowing that I exist and that I can do things with that existence, is free will.

I dont see how I could exist, knowing that I can do things, without doing things.

Hence they are inextricably tied, to me.

replies(1): >>40233970 #
12. starspangled ◴[] No.40223148[source]
Yes they do, for example lobbyists and donors and buddies want to get rich at the expense of the country and its people, and the common plebs don't want that.
replies(1): >>40226203 #
13. p1esk ◴[] No.40226046{7}[source]
BDSM people (hopefully) willingly choose to have that experience.
replies(1): >>40234019 #
14. p1esk ◴[] No.40226203[source]
Common plebs also include different people.
replies(1): >>40230695 #
15. m463 ◴[] No.40228776{4}[source]
lol, that was what I was alluding to, but I seemed to have provoked a non-monty-python-humor reply.
16. starspangled ◴[] No.40230695{3}[source]
Good Lord, when did this happen?
17. ben_w ◴[] No.40233970{8}[source]
OK, I can see how your definitions of those two things are tautologically identical. But this still goes with my point that both terms have many different definitions, so you can end up with situations like yours where the terms are equivalent.

Personally, I've never heard that definition of free will, to know that you are choosing; and for occasions where I don't even realise I'm making a choice (e.g. when failing to notice I've been given a false dichotomy, or which fork of a road I take on long walks), I still have what I would call a conscious experience of them… but then, for me, "consciousness" is usually "qualia" (but if the sentence is more complex then it may also be for example one of "not asleep/comatose" or "not subconscious/pre-conscious").

Likewise, my default (in the absence of further context, e.g. being on this website) assumption when I hear "free will" is that the person using those words means something like a supernatural soul, but the underlying physical phenomena which is actually backing this is some combination of hidden information and being too complex to predict, which is why we also witness animism in various forms

18. ben_w ◴[] No.40234019{8}[source]
As I say, it deeply confuses me: "To choose to have no choice" seems akin to "to desire a state of no desire": https://www.egscomics.com/comic/2003-04-30

On the subject of not having a mental representation of what this means, I have also been pondering recently about "literally unthinkable thoughts", which may directly sound like the same kind of paradox, but is at the meta-level and about the same kind of (apparent) paradox (that isn't a paradox at all for the people using the terms in those ways): https://benwheatley.github.io/blog/2024/04/30-13.54.02.html