If you claim to have free will, I'll ask you to explain how you make a decision.
If you can answer this question by telling me a decision making procedure/algorithm then your decision was deterministic and hence not free.
If you cannot explain how you made a decision, then you obviously had no control over it.
Does this disprove free will? I'm sure it does.
>>914956
I suppose you could say for the latter that you had control over making the decision in the first place, i.e. choosing not to decide. Although I guess that decision in itself factors into your rubric as well.
>>914956
Ah, but I could also not answer your question. How 'bout that, Mr Gorilla.
>>914956
Why does being explainable mean it's non deterministic?
>>914956
>Wake up on the floor
>I have a headache, there's empty bottles of hard liquor all around me as well as a used crack pipe
>Think to myself
>"Do I want to get up?"
>"No, fuck that."
>Make the conscious decision to fade back into unconsciousness
Or
>Think to myself
>"Do I want to get up?"
>"Fuck it."
>Make a conscious effort to endure the rest of the day despite a hangover and the comedown from crack cocaine
or
>Think to myself
>"JUST"
>Make a conscious decision to end my own miserable life
>>914956
>trying to disprove free will
Why? Isn't life depressing enough?
>Science was a mistake
>>915016
It's kind of like realizing you're a fatass--depression, but ignorance isn't necessarily bliss; it's usually willful and ultimately denial.
>>915162
Lol "willful"
how correct is the claim that free will is a christian invention for the use of judging people as evil/good when they act as they will and that other peoples like the greeks considered that for achilles to choose to stop being a warrior was like rain to choose to stop falling?
>>915016
It would be more depressing to know that free will exist but you choose this shitty live instead of one that worth to live for.
Explainable=/=deteriministic
Deterministic means the explanation only has a linear path
>>914998
OP btfo
Quantum mechanics, OP. Free will isn't deterministic.
>>915272
So it is completely random instead? Feels good when all you decisions are glorified dice rolls.
>>915284
Maybe, or maybe we don't have all the variables yet.
>>915272
Nobody has control over the collapse of the wavefunction. It's random.
>>915304
collapsing wavefunction seems to happen when we interact with it, but yeah that was my point.
>>914956
Will to Power
>>915442
What the fuck does that even mean?
No.
What is real is the illusion of free will.
This illusion is very complete, very compelling and for all intents and purposes every bit as good as the real thing.
We are, for want of a better description, engines that make decisions. So it's not surprising we take responsibility for those decisions. This ownership over our own actions creates the illusion of free will. And very satisfying it is too.
But all our choices, deeds and actions are the result of some prior causes: Memories, genetic-predispositions, character defects, accidents, lusts, goals - momentary neurochemical flickerings or just random quantum interactions. In other words, just atoms doing physics. No will. No freedom.
And all those causes, they too had had prior causes.
If we were an omniscient observer staring into a person, we could watch every one of these golden strands of causality and trace them back in time to before the birth of the person.
Alas, we have no such powers. The mind/brain is a black box to us. It's workings obscured. And so we have to satisfy ourselves that the origin of an action was somewhere within that grey meat-computer. And having done that, we can assign blame.
But pity the poor omniscient observer. He can see the cause of everything, and so is obliged to see every action as blameless and inevitable.
>>915452
Decision making is a part of willing. Will to power is what we all will towards, in all of our willing.
There's your explanation.
>>915465
>>914956
>>915011
We do something based on what we have experienced in the past and how it makes us feel. Does this stop it from being free will? We will sometimes do what we don't want, and sometimes we will do what we do want.
Certainly not all of the time will our decisions be the most rational for ourselves. Sometimes it will be a mixture of what is rational according to emotional disposition with one moreso trumping the other.
Morales can be self imposed or externally imposed (like religion). Whatever the case we will not always want to stick to the morales but we force ourselves to because we deem those important.
If free will is to do something completely random, then no we dont have free will.
If dependent will is taking the past experiences and measuring them according to our emotions and beliefs etc, then we have dependent will, and it sounds a lot like freewill.
>>914956
The will is an extant thing only in the same sense that pain and pleasure are. You are as free as you feel because the will is a subjective experience.
how many people in this thread have had sex?
>>916152
It's because I decide not to, duh
>>916122
I think you underestimate the human ability to reason. It doesn't happen often and lots of people are simply too stupid but it is possible to make a decision completely based on fact. If you are aware of all possible cognitive biases and if you have all the data about a certain subject, you should be able to make a rational decision.
Which is ideally how all political decisions should be made. Weigh the needs of all parties involved and determine which result would reap the most benefits to all.
>>916152
S-shut up
>>914956
Your argument is empty.
If you are right, it is not >you< that is sure about anything and argument is both useless and irrelevant.
>>914956
Determinism and free will are not mutually exclusive, retard.
>>914956
We are not free to choose what we think, but we ARE free to ignore our thoughts and thus control our behaviour.
>>918257
>No, we are not.
If you find yourself unable to ignore the ideas that pop into your head you should go see a shrink. Our freedom lies exactly in our ability to inhibit ourselves from simply acting "on impulse" all the time, like other animals do.
>>918264
You can only inhibit those urges based on your nature and nurture. That's not actually free will.
Lets look at the most extreme case: If a criminal decides to kill or not kill their victim, this "decision" was either predetermined, i.e. the criminal would always choose to commit or not commit the crime based on their inherent nature, or random, nothing more than a coin flip.
And remember, the non-existence of free will has obvious consequences for morality and punishment, it's not irrelevant. Our justice system is based on the idea that people can choose their fate, when the opposite is true.
>>914956
Hardly. I could explain to you in great length why I should be studying right now, yet I am wasting my time on 4chan and I don't know why.
>>918305
So because we don't have perfect freedom, we don't have free will? What a nonsense "argument" that is. Only a fool claims he is fully free to do anything he can imagine. Our freedom is curtailed by the laws of physics just like everything else, it's real nonetheless.
>>918305
You are taking it to an incorrect extreme
>>918314
And so are you.
We have free will thats determined by emotions, experience, norms, beliefs etc. Its not entirely free but its not entirely deterministic either.
All of our decisions are based on some form of reasoning whether it be logical or not, we base those decision upon something.
You will never see someone commit suicide for the sake of it, they will back up the reasons why they should commit suicide and then commit suicide.
But everyone has the freedom to start transforming their minds into believing suicide is going to be done for whatever reason.
>>914956
>Develop a procedure/algorithm based on previous experiences and education
>Use new stimuli to continue to build on this procedure/algorithm called a personality
>Can be selective as to which stimuli you will let effect your personality
>Thus you have no free will because (You) determined what your decisions will be
>>914956
Your argument is that if you do not constantly make random decisions, then you do not have free will.
The argument is specious, as it relies on "random" to include "meaningful".
>>915465
>If we were an omniscient observer staring into a person, we could watch every one of these golden strands of causality and trace them back in time to before the birth of the person.
This is what God does btw.
>>916152
I had sex with a mare once.
>>919067
Not quite as God knows all.
To elaborate, Imagine being outside the 4th dimension where the past , present and future are the instance.
This will help you understand what it means to be timeless.
Also to know the position of everything like the universe collective electrons positions in an atom for example.
>>914998
>can or can not
>>914998
But you just did.
Free will's existence depends on how it is defined. All of your reCtive behaviors are essentially predetermined by your subconscious, however, your conscious mind can make observations that can change the predetermined reactions of your subconscious.
>>919090
I like to think of it like looking at a tree's rings. If you start at the mid point of the radius of a tree and assign that as the "present", the core as the "past" and the outer edges as the "future" you see all of the trees conditions through time without being involved in the timeline.
>>919090
>To elaborate, Imagine being outside the 4th dimension where the past , present and future are the instance.
>This will help you understand what it means to be timeless.
You have no idea what you're talking about, this doesn't even make sense
>Also to know the position of everything like the universe collective electrons positions in an atom for example.
This is literally impossible. Due to the nature of the very things you're trying to collect information about. An electron CANNOT be an electron if you can know where it is or where it is going. Not even god can know these things.
t. physicsfag
p.s. come at me, you are straight up wrong.
>>919949
Interesting way of putting it.
>>915506
please try to construct your ideas better than this
>>914956
>ha ha you decided to hold yourself to a rational moral framework, therefore you have no free will
>ha ha you won't explain to me why you did that, therefore you don't have free will.
The quality of being free is irrelevant. I will, regardless.
>>915182
Incorrect, you have placed the cart before the horse. The invention of people was first used to explain free will, not the other way around.
>>920028
>You are wrong because i said so.
