How can there be free will and choice when there's causality?
Having free will or not does not make any difference. Regardless of if it exists we are all defined by who we are rather than by any conscious effort.
There cannot. But is there causality?
>>69950
>But is there causality?
Anyone who seriously asks this question should be punched in the face.
You may choose, but you don't get to define the choices.
>>69939
>we are all defined
nope
If the thing that defines is itself fluid then it can't be defined. Any attempt is authoritarian.
There is no free will but there is free won't
>>69987
He would have then certainly learnt the nature of causality.
>>69863
Even if our choice is pre determined, it does not make it any less special or influential.
And I make the choice to call you a fag
>>69863
Quantum mechanics.
>>69863
At some level everything is determined by the laws of physics, but given the practically infinite number of interactions between particles, atoms, molecules, and complex combinations of molecules (read: living things), treating human behavior as free will is the only practical way to understand the nature of existence.
Maybe with a quantum computer you could predict human behavior exactly and demonstrate that there is no such thing as free-will, but until the day comes the question is too hypothetical to be worth worrying about.
Given no free will it's more useful to understand why people seek to defend the concept.
>>69863
To accept causality but deny free will denotes a lack of understanding of the term infinity.
>>69863
Read up Kant, specifically on the Third Antinomy in the Critique of Pure Reason lad.
>>70385
To further elaborate, free will must exist for the game of infinity to be complete, otherwise it literally would not be infinity.
>>69863
There is no free will, depending on how you define it.
It's clear that humans have the ability to make choices, as in, a man can make a conscious choice to lift his arm, and it would be his own action.
However, one cannot explain where the ability to actually make that choice comes from, hence there is nothing "free" about it, because we don't even understand the nature of consciousness and it's agency.
Like Arthur Schopenhauer said: "Man can do what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills".
>>70423
>game of infinity
Let me guess, you did mushrooms once
>>70452
This is a good way of looking at it.
But it also requires that an infinite multitude of possibilities for ones own action must take place, regardless of the path that you perceive.
>>70386
>dualism
IMO
Everything you do is guided by a Higher Self, or soul, whatever you want to call it, it is timeless and is your peak self, with all knowledge from birth to death. In this way, you are predestined because of this guide's influence (aka in heathen antiGod speak "gut instinct", "going with the flow", "luck" whatever)
But.... The guide is pushing you to learn certain lessons. Moral/ethical/sexual things.
If you fail you have to keep trying. If you pass, you get to goof around between classes. Karma, enlightenment.
>>70475
no. it's described like this in a bunch of non judeo christian religions, and to be honest, it's intuitive and makes sense
much more sense than some political god in heaven.
>>70510
>non-judeo christian religions
Bruh you've been smoking, clearly, because you've got it backwards.
Abrahamic religions like Islam and Christianity are always the ones stressing infinity when it comes to things like God, how Allah is eternal and formless and perfect and infinite and all that.
Pagan religions have always had a much more confined sense of the world, even the fact that the world will eventually end - hence why so many pagan religions had mythologies wherein all died in some cataclysm and the Earth would be laid to rest or other.
>>70481
>But it also requires that an infinite multitude of possibilities for ones own action must take place, regardless of the path that you perceive.
How so? I think it only requires a recognition that in the sphere of human social organization, we need some kind of system that makes people accountable for their actions, and free will is simply the illusion that we are, as individuals, always responsible for our own actions, for the purposes of a legal system and so on, even though we know that's not completely true.
Ted Bundy murdered several women throughout his life, and for all intents and purposes, he is solely responsible for those actions, and was punished for them. However, given what we now know of how the mind functions(which is very little), how responsible is a person really for being born a psychopath? It's not like it's their fault, in some cosmic sense.
>>70452
It's not that we don't know where the ability to make choices comes from, it's that we know where it comes from and it's the stimulus-response machine of the brain, something beyond our actual conscious control. Choice is made before we consciously notice that we have made the choice (Libet experiment); there is something inside each of our heads making choices for us and it is simply not the same as the things that we each recognize as our "selves". We own those choices in that we are seen to perform them, they are "our" choices, but we can't say that they are free in any way, rather they are constrained by causal factors. You don't flinch away from a hot stove because you freely willed to, you do it because you are a neurochemical machine which has developed to recoil from extreme heat. And the same principle can be applied to every single thing we do whether we understand WHY we have developed to do X thing in Y situation or not.
>>70558
I'm not talking about pagan religions.
The second part of my statement applies to pagan religions a well. All of their gods were some politically motivated agents.
I'm talking about your presence, your life as it is right now, being completely important to the universe otherwise, without it, infinity would literally be incomplete.
I don't smoke and I don't do drugs.
>>70613
>And the same principle can be applied to every single thing we do whether we understand WHY we have developed to do X thing in Y situation or not.
I agree with you completely, it's just that I was trying to make it clear that philosophically speaking, the problems of consciousness are not really solved, and probably never will be.
>>70648
What is your fetish with infinity?
>>69863
>How can there be free will and choice when there's causality?
Well, there can't be, actually. However, I do believe in Free Will. Newtonian physics doesn't allow for Free Will, but it's also insufficient, in explaining the universe. Quantum Mechanics allows for Free Will, and the existence of the Universe. Read up on it.
>>70604
To better express what I'm describing. Given the Ted Bundy example... Accountable, as he was in this facet of time, in another facet of time he may have a completely different life and pursue completely different actions.
That different (infinite) lines of time exist simultaneously is supported by modern physics. So to give another example, a paradox where you go back in time to kill your parents and therefore kill you to prevent you from killing your parents wouldn't exist because by going back in time to your parents you have immediately created or moved to a new branch in time where you aren't required to be born in the future of the possibilities available in that new time line in order to exist in it.
As someone who's a determinist, you'd do well not to mistake the existence of causality for the absence of free will. Most serious defenders of free will don't believe we operate completely free, but that even under certain duress there is still choice
>>70787
I'm not really well versed in quantum mechanics, but as far as I know, the many-worlds interpretation of it, is simply one among a series of theories about how physics at that microscopic scale functions.
And even if what you say is true, it would still lend no credence to the idea of free will, at least not as I understand it.
>>70838
You're not wrong, but the only problem with what you're saying is that the simple existence of choices does not prove the existence of free will.
But it all depends on how you define free will to be honest.
>>70685
Not some fetish.
It took me a long time to come to that conclusion and I'm convinced that it is literally the point of everything.
To give you a start, watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wU0PYcCsL6o
It's just the tip of the iceberg my friend.
>>69863
If there is no casuality you are reduced to being a slave to RNG because for every choice there must be a reason.
>>70745
>this quantum mechanics meme
The conclusion of quantum bullshit is that reality only exists in the present conscious observation. Being unable to be predicted does not mean it could have been otherwise.
>implying "causality" isnt just random language bullshit
