Servant/Project Idea Thread, "The Womb"

[Random]

I feel like Freedom is a legitimate Logos in its own right, honestly. I can't comment much further because, much to the frustration of anyone I talk philosophy with, I've never found a concept of free will that both makes sense and also satisfies someone who actually gets it, so I don't understand it very well. But maybe my confusion can inspire some kind of take at least, so here's what I've got:

Free will, conceptually, is opposed to the idea that all of our decisions are determined on our behalf by surrounding circumstances. If they are entirely informed by those circumstances, then there is nothing "free" about it - we are compelled to make a decision entirely because of our memories and because of what's happening right now. No part of it would be under our control. This is similar to the idea of the philosophical zombie.

However, if there is a part of our decision-making that is entirely apart from material circumstances, and thus gives us more than one option, then that extra input must not be based on the outside world at all. It is not informed by anything we experience or remember right now, nor can it be affected by our logic (i.e. our thoughts and considerations based on the information that matters). Because it's based on nothing, it is essentially random, maybe even literally random, and we're locked into one of multiple paths based on a roll of a die because that is the nature of choice. There's freedom, but it can't be called "will".

You can contend as to where a human being lies between these two answers, but it's deductive - as far as I can tell, there's no third option, only some value between one and the other.

Even if this doesn't get the gears turning in your head, I would recommend specifically figuring out what you mean by free will if you wanted to make a Beast of it.

[BnEl15]

Makes me think of a Nega-Skill/NP that literally switches the world to sandbox mode. The user is exempt from causality and "external factors" that would otherwise restrict their "free will". Sure-hit attacks fizzle out and disappear at the last second because otherwise, the user has no choice but to take the hit, and that feels like an infringement on their will. Debuffs are nullified because having a debuff would force them to act a certain way (DoT, weakened parameters, sealed abilities, etc), and that's also an infringement on free will. Natural laws like day and night can be turned on and off according to the user's will. For another example, fire is hot, but the Beast doesn't want it to be hot because that would hinder them in some way, so it just... isn't anymore, at least to them. The more I write this, the more they feel like a... Beast of Egoism?

Would be a real busted ability for a Beast, but which Beast doesn't manifest with an absurd cheat skill or two?

[tsugumi]

Damn, I guess I believe in free will a little less than I did before reading this

[Kabalisto Koga]

Damn, I guess I believe in free will a little less than I did before reading this

i still believe in it.

- - - Updated - - -

Makes me think of a Nega-Skill/NP that literally switches the world to sandbox mode. The user is exempt from causality and "external factors" that would otherwise restrict their "free will". Sure-hit attacks fizzle out and disappear at the last second because otherwise, the user has no choice but to take the hit, and that feels like an infringement on their will. Debuffs are nullified because having a debuff would force them to act a certain way (DoT, weakened parameters, sealed abilities, etc), and that's also an infringement on free will. Natural laws like day and night can be turned on and off according to the user's will. For another example, fire is hot, but the Beast doesn't want it to be hot because that would hinder them in some way, so it just... isn't anymore, at least to them. The more I write this, the more they feel like a... Beast of Egoism?

Would be a real busted ability for a Beast, but which Beast doesn't manifest with an absurd cheat skill or two?

intresting i must say . and it sounds really like a Beast of Egoism

[Salt Pillar]

Since free will is one of the most well-known lies humanity tells itself, I think there are a few ways to go about making a Free Will Beast:
1. FW Beast that attempts to bring humanity free will by crushing lives into singular Instances. If there's only one Instance in someone's life, then they could never be influenced by others or influence others. The flaw in this way of thinking, is that this doesn't really bring free will as much as it removes the possibility of predeterminism.
2. FW Beast that attempts to craft a chaotic, post-comprehensive Pattern that makes Logic completely disfunctional. The problem with this Beast's plan, would probably be the fact that humanity, eventually, would simply construct a new way of thinking based on this new Pattern, and uncover optimal routes too.
3. FW Beast that resembles a Singularity super-computer; this beast could unravel the entire timeline, decide what is most definitely about to happen, and then intentionally destroy the sequence. The issue with this plan, is that any interference with the universe, to an entity further in the future than this Beast, would have already happened, and thus nothing this Beast does could ever be not predestined to happen.

TL;DR, free will is kind of... impossible. Beasts that attempt to reach this would be predestined to fail

[MuramasaMachII]

Since free will is one of the most well-known lies humanity tells itself, I think there are a few ways to go about making a Free Will Beast:
1. FW Beast that attempts to bring humanity free will by crushing lives into singular Instances. If there's only one Instance in someone's life, then they could never be influenced by others or influence others. The flaw in this way of thinking, is that this doesn't really bring free will as much as it removes the possibility of predeterminism.
2. FW Beast that attempts to craft a chaotic, post-comprehensive Pattern that makes Logic completely disfunctional. The problem with this Beast's plan, would probably be the fact that humanity, eventually, would simply construct a new way of thinking based on this new Pattern, and uncover optimal routes too.
3. FW Beast that resembles a Singularity super-computer; this beast could unravel the entire timeline, decide what is most definitely about to happen, and then intentionally destroy the sequence. The issue with this plan, is that any interference with the universe, to an entity further in the future than this Beast, would have already happened, and thus nothing this Beast does could ever be not predestined to happen.

TL;DR, free will is kind of... impossible. Beasts that attempt to reach this would be predestined to fail

This... is interesting. I actually really like these ideas. And the knowledge that free will is impossible yet continuing to try this would only make this Beast have an extremely contradictory personality to the levels of being hypocritical in my opinion. It also brings into matter what this Beast's version of 'love towards humanity' would even be.

[Kabalisto Koga]

Since free will is one of the most well-known lies humanity tells itself, I think there are a few ways to go about making a Free Will Beast:
1. FW Beast that attempts to bring humanity free will by crushing lives into singular Instances. If there's only one Instance in someone's life, then they could never be influenced by others or influence others. The flaw in this way of thinking, is that this doesn't really bring free will as much as it removes the possibility of predeterminism.
2. FW Beast that attempts to craft a chaotic, post-comprehensive Pattern that makes Logic completely disfunctional. The problem with this Beast's plan, would probably be the fact that humanity, eventually, would simply construct a new way of thinking based on this new Pattern, and uncover optimal routes too.
3. FW Beast that resembles a Singularity super-computer; this beast could unravel the entire timeline, decide what is most definitely about to happen, and then intentionally destroy the sequence. The issue with this plan, is that any interference with the universe, to an entity further in the future than this Beast, would have already happened, and thus nothing this Beast does could ever be not predestined to happen.

TL;DR, free will is kind of... impossible. Beasts that attempt to reach this would be predestined to fail

i believe in free will , its similar Question like what does Heroes distinguish from normal humen ?

[MuramasaMachII]

i believe in free will , its similar Question like what does Heroes distinguish from normal humen ?

I could argue that those two questions are not really similar at all, and that the latter is more easy to understand, but this is somewhat off topic. It also really depends on the definition of free will.

[Salt Pillar]

The distinction between heroes and commoners is not really the same as the paradox of free will

[Random]

It is a bit similar in my view, insofar as both questions are gibberish to me

[DelRey]

a discussion of free will and predetermined fate?
These concepts are dependent on a timeline and time breaks down at small scales and becomes meaningless at large scales.
Its the chicken or the egg question.
If predetermined fate came first, then the action and therefore the will comes after.
Sounds logical. But I think that free will becomes fate itself, especially in the Nasuverse context, because Servants are recorded even when being alive, because the root is outside time in some weird manner.
The actions done by our own will sets us on a path that will shape our destiny, which is in return recorded and becomes a driving factor when the soul is spit out in the first place. They blend. These are my thoughts that came up while reading Random

but yeah, philosophical questions like that are nonsensical to actively answer because it is in the realm of religion and/or copium that grants comfort and reason in certain situations.

[tsugumi]

I'm not sure I believe in free will because people are influenced by their material conditions to such an extent that it kind of starts to horrify me? I definitely don't believe there's much, if any, merit in talking people down from their beliefs when they're diametrically opposed to whatever it is you have to say, because they got there as a result of their entire life circumstances leading up to that point - what the hell is a conversation going to do? You can only change their lives materially so that they change their opinions on their own.

If we define free will as "decisions made in a vacuum" then the back of my brain starts to itch uncomfortably in a similar way because I know that's not how it works, and it's distressing. Thinking about how we are pinballs in a machine is oof. ick.

[BnEl15]

Hmm, this instead gives me the complete opposite idea. A motive for a Beast of Determinism. Freedom from accountability.

You've never truly made any "independent" decision without being influenced by external factors, whether you realize it or not. Taking it one step further, you have never made a single decision that isn't chosen for you in some way. Therefore, if things go wrong, it's also because of these "external factors". It's the fault of whatever god/fate/script/etc. who wrote your life to be that way.

You don't need to be sad. You don't need to regret anything. You don't need to torture yourself endlessly over the mistakes you made in your past. You don't need to worry over what the future may bring. You don't need to choose or sacrifice anything. You are never at fault, and a path has already been laid out for you.

The desire to "liberate" humanity from their regrets and the burden of choice can be counted as some kind of twisted love, right?

[RoydGolden]

I feel like Freedom is a legitimate Logos in its own right, honestly. I can't comment much further because, much to the frustration of anyone I talk philosophy with, I've never found a concept of free will that both makes sense and also satisfies someone who actually gets it, so I don't understand it very well. But maybe my confusion can inspire some kind of take at least, so here's what I've got:

Free will, conceptually, is opposed to the idea that all of our decisions are determined on our behalf by surrounding circumstances. If they are entirely informed by those circumstances, then there is nothing "free" about it - we are compelled to make a decision entirely because of our memories and because of what's happening right now. No part of it would be under our control. This is similar to the idea of the philosophical zombie.

However, if there is a part of our decision-making that is entirely apart from material circumstances, and thus gives us more than one option, then that extra input must not be based on the outside world at all. It is not informed by anything we experience or remember right now, nor can it be affected by our logic (i.e. our thoughts and considerations based on the information that matters). Because it's based on nothing, it is essentially random, maybe even literally random, and we're locked into one of multiple paths based on a roll of a die because that is the nature of choice. There's freedom, but it can't be called "will".

You can contend as to where a human being lies between these two answers, but it's deductive - as far as I can tell, there's no third option, only some value between one and the other.

Even if this doesn't get the gears turning in your head, I would recommend specifically figuring out what you mean by free will if you wanted to make a Beast of it.

Feels like you're discussing free will from a libertarian (the philosophy, not political view) perspective there. Compatibilist free will (which most philosophers now adhere to) is precisely that our actions are decided by our thoughts, experiences and memories and that's what makes them "free". As I've heard it put "the future is written and we are the writing".

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not sure I believe in free will because people are influenced by their material conditions to such an extent that it kind of starts to horrify me? I definitely don't believe there's much, if any, merit in talking people down from their beliefs when they're diametrically opposed to whatever it is you have to say, because they got there as a result of their entire life circumstances leading up to that point - what the hell is a conversation going to do? You can only change their lives materially so that they change their opinions on their own.

If we define free will as "decisions made in a vacuum" then the back of my brain starts to itch uncomfortably in a similar way because I know that's not how it works, and it's distressing. Thinking about how we are pinballs in a machine is oof. ick.

Eh, that seems needlessly cynical. There's definitely people who do change the viewpoints they were indoctrinated in since birth. Derek Black is an example of that. And your point actually sounds almost tautologous, since having to live with and be confronted by people whose opinions differ from your own (or whose personhood you'd disregard on the basis of their identity) itself can constitute a change in material conditions, if you grew up in an environment that insulated you in such beliefs.

[tsugumi]

Eh, that seems needlessly cynical. There's definitely people who do change the viewpoints they were indoctrinated in since birth. Derek Black is an example of that. And your point actually sounds almost tautologous, since having to live with and be confronted by people whose opinions differ from your own (or whose personhood you'd disregard on the basis of their identity) itself can constitute a change in material conditions, if you grew up in an environment that insulated you in such beliefs.

I'm not sure "Derek Black changed because he moved away from home for the first time in his life and lived in a radically different environment surrounded by a radically different group of people" refutes my statement that material conditions are what form beliefs.

[Random]

Feels like you're discussing free will from a libertarian (the philosophy, not political view) perspective there. Compatibilist free will (which most philosophers now adhere to) is precisely that our actions are decided by our thoughts, experiences and memories and that's what makes them "free". As I've heard it put "the future is written and we are the writing".

Not sure what would distinguish that as "free", but scrapping the "free" part of free will is generally how I function anyway. It's just that when I put it like that - which is to say, the only way I can understand the concept - most people consistently react by telling me that free will is somehow more than this in a way that they can't really elaborate on, so I usually can't do anything but say "okay sure" and concede that whatever they're referring to when they say it, it's clearly beyond me[/tongueincheek].

[DracoScribe]

You know this discussion on free will is very interesting to me and I really wanna engage with it because of it being so interesting...
...but I am reminded I know jack squat on philosophy despite my curiosity for it (and now I think I might just go and sate it thanks to this), sooooo...

VERY OBVIOUS SUBJECT CHANGE

I'm not sure where to ask this. Should I just ask Del directly?
Idk
It's about the summer collab event.
It's still a go, right?
I can't help but be curious of the starting date because of making a very poor attempt at a subject change of it being close to June and July.

Oh though now that I'm here.
Gonna ask for second (and more) thoughts on something I've been meaning to ask but have been hoping to try figuring out myself...
I haven't.

So! Some of you might remember I showed Francisco Tarrega in the GaS thread and weeelll...
It's about class ideas for him.
I was trying to see if I could come up with any justifications for classes that aren't Caster to kinda try and be creative about it.
But the best I could think of was:
Lover, not because he was known for a relationship with one person or group, but because, as far as from what I read, his main "contribution" to classic guitar was basically loving it so much he played it professionally and thus elevate it to being "equal" to the piano.
So basically my logic was "Lover because loves guitar and elevated it", but that feels flimsy to me...
Watcher as like a teacher of guitar, but he liked to perform as much as teach and he doesn't have any pupils that became big or really known as a "teacher". At best he influnced other guitarists after his death.
And Saber/Lancer/Archer because he was one of the first, if not the first, guitarists to get a Torres guitar, aka the modern guitar design, and got big and thus spread the design even more. So basically his guitar is the reason for him being a Saber/Lancer/Archer.

...maybe I'm just overthinking this/trying to force a square into a circle and really should just stick him into Caster...idk...

[BnEl15]

I say Caster is fine. Maybe Archer (sound waves n shit?). The others feel kinda iffy imo.

[Vididii]

because, as far as from what I read, his main "contribution" to classic guitar was basically loving it so much he played it professionally and thus elevate it to being "equal" to the piano.

I'd also consider Voyager honestly. My justification is moreso referencing the "Experience Type" representing a metaphysical journey that Del lists in his class guide, but I think you could justify it through the voyage he took the guitar on in terms of popularizing it. The way you describe it here, it being from a place of love that he came to play it professionally and prove it as a sort of proper instrument, it almost comes off as a coming of age story for the instrument. I'm with BnEl15 in feeling that Caster is fine, but if the sheet's soul lies in the expression and elevation of guitar to the world, rather than Fransico as the founder and origin, I'd go Voyager.

[RoydGolden]

I'm not sure "Derek Black changed because he moved away from home for the first time in his life and lived in a radically different environment surrounded by a radically different group of people" refutes my statement that material conditions are what form beliefs.

I wasn't objecting to your "material conditions" point (which is borderline tautologous to me), but the "dialogues are pointless" one. It's strange to say that a conversation can't change people's minds because only material conditions do that, when as you even admitted being surrounded by radically different people who disagree with you (and vocally express that) is itself a material condition.