Is this true?
>via 9gag
>>587161
No
We dupe ourself into thinking we have free will by way of our conscience.
Ultimately our brain is in total control.
>>587345
Jokes on you, whatever kind of ghost you are, I am my brain.
Is determinism vs free will the greatest non-issue in the history of philosophy?
Uncertainty principle killed determinism.
Is the Catholic "foreknowledge" the biggest fence-sitting horseshit ever invented?
>omniscient prime mover and creator of every single atom who already knows the outcome
>but he somehow doesn't decide what happens
It's bullshit according to Newcomb's paradox and even common sense. Either go full pelagian or full calvinist, don't half ass about it.
>>587391
No it didn't. It killed the immediate feasibility of exploiting/calculating it
>>587398
Which leads us to the P=/=NP problem, a dead end for determinists.
>>587408
Making it incalculatable doesn't make it any less predetermined
>>587362
>personal delusions of control
>>587161
>a priori statements with no empirical content
>truth
choose one, cause both the Wiener circle and Popper are rolling in their graves right now
>>587415
it makes the determinism angle indifferent and meaningless.
>>587394
>Newcomb's paradox
Bullshit wankery. Why would the almighty being even put the money in the box if we postulate it lets everything get decided by the guy who chooses the box?
>>587362
Same. Let's be brain-friends.
>>587465
> Implying we're not our brains and that we're something else mystical outside of it.
Go away Descartes.
>>587394
t. Gottschalk of Orbais
>>587161
Variables never stop changing so it might be true but its a flawed outlook.
>>587502
Not at all, as the point regardless is that sentient things have no real control.
>>587394
If he's truly all powerful, he could choose not to know at the exact moment of creation.
This is really a question of theology. With no god, we everything is controlled by determined physical laws of the universe.
Through God, however, you are more than just a being in a material realm. There is a spiritual realm in which you are eternal. The source of our despair, then, this eternal suffering which starts at the creation of the individual and the binding of the soul to body, is a source of continual discomfort which forces some people to behave abstract in regards to the spirit. The spirit, however, is something inherently not explainable by any physical laws. It is something you can only either feel or receive direction to notice. Once you are grounded transparently in a guiding body, you realize we are all connected which is why your 'will' can have such an influence on the world around you. God is a very empowering and humbling entity and idea. He is the realm of possibility, which is completely self-determined, but since you are grounded in God it is determined by him as well.
>>587161
It is provably impossible to know all variables of a universe, unless you exist outside the universe. Any mechanism that would know and calculate another variable would have to know it's own variables as well, as they are part of the universe.
>>587544
Then he wouldn't be all knowing.
>>587513
>implying were not
>>587564
He is in general, but can self limit.
He may not know everything, but only temporarily and voluntarily.
>>587544
But the Christian pressuposition is that he is omniscient, as in he doesn't limit his omniscience.
And Bible clearly supports this, in for example with Jesus correctly predicting that Judas will betray him even though Judas at the time was loyal to the core.
Determinism is logical to me. What isn't, however, is Schopenhauers "soft determinism."
How can you say the one has free will to act while conceding that what one wills, and thus who one is, is shaped deterministically be the world? If you admit one has no freedom is becoming who they are, that one is shaped in that regard, there is no logical way they can be said to have true freedom of action. The just act as the world shapes their desire to act.
It seems that to admit any determinism is to admit all of it.
>>587597
He knows at all times but during the act of creation.
That is literally the only way to reconcile christianisty with any possibility other than God being intentionally malicious in creating man only to suffer and then be punished for being no more than what he intentionally made us.
>>587583
Where are you getting this information?
>>587624
Metatron.
It's merely a thought.
>>587161
1: there is no proof either way, so trying to draw conclusions from this while claiming to be 2deep4u is fedora tier
2: free will and time could be illusions, but your experience of them itself is not an illusion, in the same way that the nerve signals from your eyes to your brain are real even if you are watching an illusory magic trick
>>587161
>le free will isn't real
Why do fedoras care so much about this shit? It doesn't matter AT ALL whether it does or it doesn't.
No because we have an influence on the possible outcomes.
*rolls doobie*
"Whoa dude"
*has a chuff*
"that frog sure has given me a lot to think about"
*passes the duchie to the left hand side*
>>587161
Well this assumes people will always act 'logically' which isn't a thing.
>>587161
Yeah ok but
>if all variables were to be known
literally not possible
>>588268
This is a good point. There are known knowns, there are known unknowns, but you are completely fucked with unknown unknowns.
>>587161
>implying reality isn't ontologically incomplete
>>587513
>Not giving her the D
>>587161
I read Foundation too
>>587513
>implying you have any control over your instincts, natural desires, or unconscious thought
I shigg'd
>>587161
What do you call the thing that experiences it?
Can you perfectly simulate the entire universe using a computer less complex than the entire universe?
>>591472
It's what separates us from the animals.
God damn you people, read some actually philosophy. All compatibilist arguments aside, it doesn't matter if free will is a myth or whatever. It doesn't change the fact that from your perspective, you must choose. Even if you know exactly that your outcome is predetermined, you must -do- something with that information. even if you sink into despair and do nothing as a result, you have chosen it. The knowledge that free will is a myth doesn't change anything from the perspective of the decider, so it's nearly irrelevant
>>591489
But we are animals.
>>591606
>implying happy fatalism isn't the perfect philosophy
>>591612
It's a trait the human animal possesses that no other animal is known to possess.
>>591634
You know you possess consciousness, you don't know any human possesses it. Although I agree they probably do.
Claiming Chimpanzees, Orangutangs and Gorillas, as mere examples not as a conclusive list, don't have consciousness is an enormous leap and one not supported by evidence.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/chimpanzees-understand-death/
http://news.discovery.com/animals/zoo-animals/chimpanzees-self-awareness-110504.htm
>>591659
One of the things anon mentioned was ability to alter ones own desires. This is actually possible for people, we can want to want things. We can even want to want to want things. And we can make ourselves want the things we want to want.
Admittedly, I don't think it would be easy to make an experiment to show if anything but a human could do this, since we can only really express it through language.
>>591682
>we can want to want things. We can even want to want to want things. And we can make ourselves want the things we want to want.
I don't think you can prove this at all. Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills.
>>591634
It's not a trait man is "known" to possess
>>591472
you can master control of them, however.
>>591756
Even the decision, or the will, to try and do that is part of chain of causality you have no control over.
>>591760
that, and this, are not the same.
You most certainly do have control over your internal psyche. That's what allows us the ability to even attempt to achieve mastery of ourselves. Is it, or is it not, possible to change the system, despite being a part of that system itself?
And if not, can you explain the impossibility to enact the change so that I may better understand?
>>591784
shut the FUCK up you stupid fucking nerd LOL
don't ever fucking reply to me ever again
>>587161
Why is this in /his/? Is'nt it mor some kinda philosophically-related thing?
>>591784
>You most certainly do have control over your internal psyche. That's what allows us the ability to even attempt to achieve mastery of ourselves.
if you can do it, its because of your past experiences that allowed you to be able to succeed
if you cannot do it, its because of your past experiences that allowed you to not be able to succeed
we have.....no free will
>>591659
No other animal has the ability to question and philosophically reflect on stuff in a sapient fashion.
Coco the gorilla, while smart and knowing quite awesome concepts, never asked "how?" or "why?"
>>591855
yes, but you have the ability to be self aware, and thus, the ability to begin to develop those experiences do you not? Whether or not you can actually instigate change upon the world outside of yourself, you still have the ability to rationalize for yourself and make a decision. Granted, it will most likely be based off of your own personal experience, but is it not possible that despite a lack of experience you could still act, and generate something which for yourself as an individual is completely nuanced.
When it really comes down to it, the idea that we are solely the expression of our experience is paradoxical.
>>591805
I don't know who you are and I don't care what you want. If you are looking for agreeent, I can never give you that. But what I do have are a very particular set of skills, skills I have acquired over a very long career posting on a Japanese pornographic weebsite. Skills that make me a nightmare for anons like you. I can recognise your syntax and grammar and spelling and target you in any thread I want.
If you agree every single point in my post is correct, that'll be the end of it. I will not look for you, I will not pursue you. But if you don't, I will look for you, I will find you, and I will reply to you. In this thread or the next.
>>591891
>We declare the following: “The absence of a neocortex does not appear to preclude an organism from experiencing affective states. Convergent evidence indicates that non-human animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with
the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors. Consequently, the weight of evidence indicates that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Nonhuman
animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also
possess these neurological substrates.”
http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf
>>591699
>Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills.
How do you justify this statement?
isn't this a power metal lyric
