Book 3 - Page 84

Hail!

Book 3 - Page 84
Comic - Book 3 - Page 84
Recent posts... (See full thread)
0beron wrote:
So far as I can recall, we've never seen a unit come to the end conclusion that they dislike an order but still obey anyway. They seem to start off disliking it but then conclude its what they should do. Which sounds very much like Suggestions; the mind rationalizes in order to accept what it's being told to do. Given that it's all Thinkamancy, this similarity makes a lot of sense.


Sizemore's done an awful lot of things that he didn't want to do on Parson's orders. He didn't want to do them, he did them, and now he's pissed about it. He hasn't managed to talk himself into agreeing with the orders, and it doesn't seem like he's tried. I don't recall there being a situation where Parson said, "That's an Order!", though.
Hm fair point. It's unfortunate that we don't have a detailed internal perspective with him the way we've had with Jillian, it's hard to know what his thought process is.
Sizemore is probably one of the more interesting subject when discussing free-will.

Casters have a far greater degree of autonomy to direct their own lives yet he worked under Stanley and then the 'Chief Butcher' when he could have just rocked out in the MK getting laid left right and centre and sleeping on a bed of money (when he isn't being laid that is).

Yet he doesn't do this.

Is this really a compulsion or does some deep part of him inside value the concept of his home, of his side and of his leaders? I guess the comparison could be drawn to stupidworld that it is fairly clear to see with my obsession of putting U's in words such as colour that I am not a citizen of the U.S.A so if I stated "All Americans are ignorant dickwads that sleep with goats" I would irk a fair proportion of the fan-base (I don't think that by the way).

My question would be are you anymore brainwashed than Sizemore for being offended by that bizzare statement on the internet, by some random guy. What does your nation mean to you and why? We grow up with that identity being imprinted on us, in Erfworld they simply pop with that identity just like they know how to speak fluent 'Language' is imprinted.
0beron wrote:
That is why the term "Freedom" is more appropriate. It's not Free Will if at any/all moments someone else can force your actions.

As for proposed "demotion" that doesn't seem possible so it's a bit of a moot question mechanically. But thinking of it as a thought exercise, I'm honestly not sure. My initial reaction is that nobody who truly has free will would chose to give it up purely for the sake of it. If there was a strong motivation then I could see it, in which case I'd argue the actions that follow are of shared responsibility. But that's really a moral dilemma than a mechanical one.

This is rather like Parson's idea to take a love potion to make him get with Maggie, isn't it?
I think it would be neat if we found out that Sizemore is not personally attached to Gobwin Knob or to Stanley as such, but rather to the Plaid tribe. I want to see some flashback episodes of Stanley's time as a piker and warlord, as seen from Sizemore's perspective. A kid from the Plaid made good. Then he renounced it all and became the Tool.

I kind of imagine it like Cassius Clay becoming this great boxer, and then changing his name. What did his family think of that?
Lipkin wrote:

Coercion does not impact free will. There is a difference between having no choice and having no choice that you find acceptable.


I tend to agree, but the question isn't how you or I define free will though is it? Isn't the question how Erfworlders define it? We have no evidence that settles the matter either way. However, we *do* have evidence that suggests that erfworlders are subject to "instincts" and "urges" that develop their behavior. Simply put... is a stabber a stabber because they want to stab things? Or do they want to stab things because they're a stabber? Does the order matter? Also question-worthy, if an erfworlder makes a decision that is expected and predictable, does that mean that they didn't ultimately make that decision on their own? Is it possible that "free will" can simply be represented abstractly as some degree of unpredictability? I think the burning down of Jetstone's capitol qualifies (as it wasn't in the plan... and wasn't even remotely helpful to her side). If all she had to do was *believe* it to be the right thing to do... that represents some sort of free will to me.

-edit-

Man I gotta check up here more frequently. You guys have been busy posting lol. Google defines free will as "the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate" which sounds to me like "the ability to do whatever you want" or more simply "the capability of having desires". I tend to agree with this definition simply because of the wording.

IE: will = the ability to make a choice
free will = representative of a situation in which the choice made is influenced by nothing other than the person's own thoughts.

Given these definitions, I don't believe most people (in erfworld or our own) have total "free will" because we all have needs, loves, relationships, responsibilities, cultural expectations, etc. I believe that the idea of "free will" exists primarily for analytical purposes. One could say that economics is the applied study of free will, and that sociology is the study of how free will is limited in reality by our preconceptions, ideas, and relationships. It's undoubtedly a deep question, but uncertainty about *why* erfworlders act the way they do when presented an order is definitely still there. Could there come a point when disobeying a direct order could happen? The canon says so... "I must obey an order unless I believe disobedience to be necessary for the good of our side." (approxiquote :p) And what of Bunny, who appears to have broken her loyalty to thinkamancy for love, and was banished as a result? Granted, this is speculation on my part... but we've seen people turn, we've seen orders disobeyed, and we've seen how "fighting against fate" can lead to misery. This all suggests that erfworlders make choices all the time, even about big things that have big consequences... sometimes even against orders.
I don't think that soldiers auto-attack because they are mind controller to do so. Rather they are popped with personalities that make them want to obey commanders above all, but also love fighting. So without commanders around, attacking is what they want to do.

Now to put it another way, would you say dogs do not have free will? They are usually completely loyal to their owner, and act in predictable ways. Does this mean they are controlled? No, they just have limited cognitive capability, and a built in pack mentality. Free-will is way to open-ended of a term. I find it more useful to talk about intelligence, or natural emotions.

Erfworld popped infantry are of course more complex and intelligent then dogs are, but the underlining reasons of why they do what they do are the same. They have personalities that make them completely loyal to their side, make them find a strong purpose in combat, and not much cognitive ability to think beyond this. Humans and animals in stupid world have their intelligence and base emotions determined by genetics. In erfworld they are just made that way when they pop. But the result is the same. So you could say that erfworld pops units with certain intelligence and emotional motivations in order to fulfill its agenda. So instead of there being an issue with units lacking free will, there is an issue with genetic tampering.


So the question I am asking is the problem in erfworld
1) lack of free will. ie. some magic controls behaviour, and once you get rid of that magic units will act more as individuals.
2) genetic tampering: ie. units act according to their base instincts and intellectual ability, with these factors being determined by Erfworld at the time of being popped.
3) perhaps a bit of both

I believe it is mostly 2. All characters, even Wiggly and Mary , seem to be real people who act according to their beliefs. .
Lipkin wrote:
0beron wrote:
That is why the term "Freedom" is more appropriate. It's not Free Will if at any/all moments someone else can force your actions.

As for proposed "demotion" that doesn't seem possible so it's a bit of a moot question mechanically. But thinking of it as a thought exercise, I'm honestly not sure. My initial reaction is that nobody who truly has free will would chose to give it up purely for the sake of it. If there was a strong motivation then I could see it, in which case I'd argue the actions that follow are of shared responsibility. But that's really a moral dilemma than a mechanical one.

This is rather like Parson's idea to take a love potion to make him get with Maggie, isn't it?


Could he order, or have Stanley order, himself to like it?
But seriously, all he needs is to cross a few fantasies he's already got with Maggie. Use his existing habits and desires and mix them with her until they become intertwined in his mind.
Sse though, that's kind of the problem. Parson doesn't want to indulge in his fantasies because they all involve taking the unit's choice out of the matter. He feels that is wrong based on our ideas of sexual abuse. Those fantasies won't really help him here.
0beron wrote:

Anomynous 167 wrote:
"The meaning of Free Will", you say. Talk about leveling the philosophical debate. [and other assorted logical fallacies]
As stated above, if one wishes to engage in a debate, one must accept the established definitions of the common English words being used. To operate otherwise is circular reasoning.


Oh, and don't even get me started on your rather pathetic ad hominem. I'll just let Justyn chat with you about that particular fallacy.

I know it's a bit late for an appology, but in my defence what I was doing was appealing to absurdity. An "Ad hominem" would be one where I was quoting you accurately.