Hey, armchair philosophers of /lit/.
I'm really curious about the idea of determinism. I know nothing whatsoever about philosophy really, but I've found it impossible to rationalize the idea of free will.
I was wondering if any of you could steer me in the direction of pro-free will arguments and more advanced arguments for determinism. Sorry in advance for the cancerous pic.
>>7796875
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/
>>7796886
this is some good shit, cheers
>>7796907
thanks! hope we stay friends :)
>>7796875
There is no free will. All of our action or inaction is predetermined beyond our control but the number of variables in each choice make it mostly beyond our comprehension; therefore, we may as well live as if we have free will, even though we don't.
ps. Anyone who says free will exists is a fucking retard.
>>7796875
If everything we can measure in the universe appears to be causally determined, you have to prove why humans are an exception to this. Essentially you have to reject evolution and assume humans are different to other organisms or believe in some kind of spirit for which there is no evidence. I'm not an atheist by the way.
>>7796875
>pro-free will arguments
There aren't any sound ones because free will doesn't exist.
If free will doesn't exist does that mean god made shitpost here? Retarded cunt, get out.
In the science of Hermetics, it correlates with the humid path, or supplanting the soul with something foreign and outer. As opposed to the dry path where man stands on his own.
>>7797055
Literally not an argument. Are you going to provide evidence for your position that human beings (made from the same materials as the rest of the universe) are exempt from the laws of the universe? Also, I said I'm not an Atheist.
>>7797099
you're making me cringe, fedora cuckold
>>7797080
>science of Hermetics
>Hermetics
>science
>>7797110
Even if you want to call quantum mechanics "non-deterministic" because its probabilistic quality, you still have a chain of causality that denies free will.
>>7797125
>believing in the causal jew
you're brainwashed kid
>>7797104
>fedora cuckold
I'm not left-wing because I'm not a degenerate, I believe in God, so, neither a fedora and I support evolution because I'm not a fucking idiot.
>>7797141
god created evolution, idiot
>>7797146
EXACTLY.
>>7797150
and God gave us free will
>>7797125
Dude I didn't say shit and neither did you.
>>7796875
here you go OP, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_in_quantum_mechanics#Philosophical_problems_of_quantum_measurements
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation
if there is only one "universe" or whatever, it would make sense that there is no free will. however if there is an element of randomness to every wavefunction collapse, and if the wavefunction can collapse "either way", then you have an universe that's constantly "splitting" to new directions. You might not have any "control" over it, but at least it isn't deterministic
>>7796886
>compatibilism
lel. This is the last gasp of sophists trying to preserve substance dualism. "The mind and body just happen to be working in tandem even though one can not possibly affect the other!" Jeez, what is the fucking point? Materialism renders these mental gymnastics utterly pointless. The sooner you realize free will is an illusion, the better.
>>7797948
the people trying to separate "free will" and "deterministic biology" are the dualists man
>>7796875
a conscious choice is composed of influence and desire. That desire is met with uncertainty and necessity. Acting on this will allow you to judge what is right and wrong to do.
You get to choose. Free will exists, accept it.
>>7798096
>what is right and wrong to do
Nice spooks. Also, you didn't prove anything and you are full of shit.
>Man can do what he will, but he cannot will what he will
This argument was ended ages ago.
hard incompatibilism is the only logical think
because both determinism and free will are false
compatibilism is bs, its basically:
I have an apple
but i want a banana
So i call my apple a banana
>>7798096
>influence and desire
All desires are influenced. You're creating an argument of semantics by pretending that these are distinctly different things.
"While hard determinism clearly opposes the concept of free will, some have suggested that free will might also be incompatible with non-determinism (often on the basis of lack of control associated with pure randomness).[] This is hard incompatibilism, and has been used as an argument against Libertarian incompatibilism.
Under the assumption of naturalism and indeterminism, where there only exists the natural world and that the natural world is indeterministic — events are not predetermined (e.g., for quantum mechanical reasons) and any event has a probability assigned to it — no event can be determined by a physical organism's perceived free will, nor can any event be strictly determined by anything at all."
>>7798282
>This argument was ended ages ago.
This. No serious thinker today believes in free will. It's an absolutely retarded feel-good position for plebs of the highest order.
>>7797016
Thread should have ended here
>>7798282
the problem with this is that you imply "man" is something else than a biological machine.
There really is no difference between willing or doing
>hey guys I know free will isn't real and we're really just the product of molecules bouncing into each other, but listen to this mental gymnastics of how free will still exists
literally everyone who opens this discussion
>>7797141
Fedoras are predominantly right-wing you dumb mongoose.
>>7798305
I imply nothing of the sort, you fucking retard.
Schopenhauer's point was this; we have no control over our likes, dislikes and general desire, which is what our alleged 'choices' ultimately revolve around.
A culinary example: I hypothetically hate mushrooms. At a restaurant, I choose not to have the mushroom risotto; and though the choice seems free, it obviously wasn't as I wouldn't like it. Even IF, for some reason, I did choose this dish; I still wouldn't like it.
Hence, the alleged 'choice' is forever framed by something I cannot change; in this case, my taste. The choice can only take place within a fixed context.
>>7798312
Free will apologists on suicide watch
>product of molecules bouncing into each other
This is what they don't want to admit. It's that last shred of dignity before the acceptance of nihilism etc.
the complacency and dunning-kruger effect of the determinist kids is mildly entertaining
the hubris to think you know with absolute certainty the answer to one of the most fundamental questions about human existence
same level as fedora atheists
>>7798323
fedora is a state not a declaration
If free will doesn't exist then why are people conscious? Is consciousness even compatible with the kind of determinism we see in science?
>>7798351
>If everything we can measure in the universe appears to be causally determined, you have to prove why humans are an exception to this.
You have the burden of proof. Fuck off.
>>7798325
Fucking this.
Add circumstance/chance to this and you begin to see that Human 'choice' revolves around things we cannot possibly help or change; and thus is not truly free.
>>7796875
>armchair philosopher
as opposed to pro field-operating philosophers
>>7798360
I don't know how you define consciousness. Nothing really suggests to me it's anything but an elaborate mechanism of the brain.
The beauty of it really is how different the inside and outside view on humans are. There definitely is no free will when you observe humans from the outside but for us on the inside it's a necessity to live the illusion.
>>7797070
Argumentation on this level boils down to 'Every act is an act of randomnes'
Why? Because key proceses in DNA recombination and mutation are (weighted) random processes, with a emhpasis on functionality.
This weighting on the other hand is controlled by Genes again thus can be reduced to the same initial randomness then the Genes to be controlled.
tl;dr Self-organizing behavior of recursive systems with at least on random term, aka "I Am a Strange Loop"
Expanding further:
Why this randomness: becaus of certain eniormental conditions protein such and such behaves that way
Why does it behave that way (under those conditions)? Becaus it si made up of atoms such and such with those stuructures/bondings/interaction
Why do those bonds/interactions/...? Because Physics.
Why Physics? Because Quantum Stuff (actuall the only source of real randomness in this universe ;) )
pic related, at the abbyss we find the frontier of knowledge, much of philosophy and/or god
>>7797150
If you think evolution had to be invented you completely misunderstand what it is.
Define free will. I have never heard of a coherent definition that actually makes sense.
Everything is part of a causal chain and even if things exist that aren't that still doesn't count towards free will.
>>7796875
Determinism as a debate of philosophy is essentially meaningless. As physics comes to understand the the nature of time more and more, we get closer to the truth of determinism vs freewill. Look at the Block Time Theory, which treats time as physical place (the fourth dimension, yadayadayada). The basic idea is the just as your house does not disappear when you are not in it, so to is last Wednesday still there, you're just not in it. The same can be said about the future. The Eiffel Tower doesn't appear when you get to it, it's there waiting for you, so to must be next wednesday, then.
All this arguing about randomness and organization is meaningless when considering the only thing that matters in a discussion about the future: the nature of time itself.
Academic philosopher here, someone burn this thread.
>>7798832
Someone should burn everyone attempting a Western interpretation of Buddhism.
>>7797016
>There is no free will. All of our action or inaction is predetermined beyond our control but the number of variables in each choice make it mostly beyond our comprehension; therefore, we may as well live as if we have free will, even though we don't.
Yep.
There's not really any free will, but we might as well live like there is.
if there is no free will, then can someone explain to me the chain of events that led to us shitposting on a east timorean hula hoop hip spin technique form check board? deus vult or what?
>>7798832
>Academic philosopher here
>Academic philosopher
>here
>>7798797
>As physics comes to understand the the nature of time
Sorry to burst your bubble but physics is not the key player in understanding time. It's the intersection of mathematics, physics, philosophy, and psychology. Although most do attribute it to physics, in fact, physics gets little to no credit in this matter since time isn't something observable. Mostly it's the other three (A and B theories are philosophy, spacetime is a concept pioneered by Minkowski--so, essentially it has a mathematical basis, and so on).
>>7797016
Have you any evidence to the contrary? Because as far as I can tell, the great hand of fate remains unmoved by external forces.
>>7798887
Could you point me to some publications on the nature of time that you consider credible? I'd be grateful.
>>7798905
Not sure what kind of publications you're after. I'd recommend learning enough mathematical physics and contemporary analytic philosophy that deals with this kind of stuff that you're then able to make up your own mind about the subject matter.
>>7798647
That's abiogenesis, you fucking moron.
