Do you believe in free will? why or why not?
Yes because Independence Day has been out for like 20 years now and no one's going to buy it
there is a spectrum of freedom and a spectrum of will
the concept free will nor its opposite exist in reality
Non determinism is a completely incoherent concept so no.
People probably confuse meta-circular loops for free will.
>>8222884
What is this spectrum of freedom you speak of? And of will...
>>8222885
What is Non determinism?
what are meta-circular loops?
>>8222892
nothing stays
>>8222884
This.
I don't believe in free will or hard determinism.
The will is like a ship that controls its direction of travel with sail and rudder but is ultimately guided by the wind and waves and temperament of the weather, all of which represent various aspects of the mind.
Sorry if that sounds dramatic.
>>8222899
what does that mean?
>>8222900
But wouldn't you say that ultimately your decision to will something is based of much external influence?
Basically this is what you said, you are saying your will is influenced by outside factors making your will subject to whatever the external influence permits. So your will wouldn't be your own if this is what you mean....
The notion of one's will being 'free' or not relies on an unwarranted separation of the individual from the whole.
We are not 'determined by fate', we *are* fate.
>>8222913
idk just pulling stuff out of my ass lol
>>8222923
The will is a product of internal and external factors, you don't have 100% freedom, and your life is not on predetermined rails.
>>8222970
>internal and external factors
What do you mean internal factors? Emotions? Physical health ? Mental health? Thoughts?
Wouldn't all these things be influenced by external factors ?
I'm kind of a philosophy babby can you guys point me in the right direction
I like taoist and gnostic writings a lot and have currently been reading kierkegaard and aurelius
polite sage
This question is weird because the 'do you believe' presupposes free subjectivity.
>>8222869
Yes, but not all Wills are equal.
I think it's the only question absolutely not worth exploring.
No matter what the 'answer' is it won't affect anything.
The "hundred times refuted theory" of free will. No, the Consequence Argument has never been satisfactorily answered, and Agent Causal is "spooky". Might as well appeal to a God. All forms of free will other than the classic definition of "the ability to do otherwise" are irrelevant, as they are obtainable in other ways, like the dumb concept of "MR freedom".
Most belief in free will is simply the fake soil for morality trees, to use a stupid metaphor. It is only ever cared about because of its supposed strong tie to morality.
So, no, I don't believe in free will.
Is it free will if you have to have it?
>Free will
No such thing.
Your brain knows what you will do before you do it.
I remember reading about an experiment, (I can't remember the details) but by monitoring brain activity, they could see the outcome seconds before the person made the choice.
Even now, it was a specific chemical reaction that took place in your brain that led you to post this question in the specific way that you did.
You don't get to decide whether you like Marmite or not. You don't get to choose what makes you tick.
Free will is a myth. Makes me want to an-hero desu, senpai.
>>8223194
>You don't get to decide whether you like Marmite or not
Tastes can change though.
>>8223207
Yeah, and you don't get to change them. You don't get to choose.
>>8223194
But isn't your brain essentially you? Being that all brains are unique because not everyone would have the same chemical reaction to the same thing. They are basically one and the same
>>8223211
I think you can to some extent, and at the least there are many tastes you can uncover, which you might not have known you had.
>>8223217
No, you can't. You're not thinking about it properly.
There is no way that you can choose to like something. The very mechanism that takes place in your brain to make you ''like'' something, is out of your control. You can't will yourself to like it. It's like willing yourself to fly. You can try, you can pretend... but you can't do it.
Think of it this way:
Imagine there are two men. Their alarm clocks are set to go off at 9am. One of the men (Man A), opens his eyes rolls over and hits snooze... The other (Man B) gets up immediately and gets dressed.
What happened in Man A's brain that forced him to react differently to Man B? At the deepest level, the molecular level (or whatever else) something was different in their brains to cause them to react in a different way. This is the only logical explanation.
You might say ''Yeah, man A is lazy'', but WHY is he lazy and others aren't?
You can think about this for a long time and eventually the only thing it boils down to is: Something in his brain (a chemical reaction) caused him to respond differently from others who are not this way and have different brains.
He is this way because his brain is this way.
He does not get to choose, he only has the illusion of choice. He knows that there are many other possibilities and can imagine different outcomes but it does not matter! His brain will decide for him, it already has.
>>8223263
You can change the pathways that your brain operates through, see neuroplasticity and cognitive behavioral therapy.
While it isn't free will, it seems like actions wilfully done, will have unpredictable effects due to the indeterminacy of the future and the emergent complexity arising from interactions over time.
I guess I mean something like reverse manipulation, instead of being influenced by external factors (advertising etc), you instead choose to exert your will into changing yourself (might not be free, but it does have an influence).
>>8223299
You used all of those long words and still managed to say nothing.
Sometimes I forget that this is /lit/...
>While it isn't free will,
>it seems like actions wilfully done, will have unpredictable effects due to the indeterminacy of the future and the emergent complexity arising from interactions over time.
What did he mean by this? What does this even mean, dude?
>>8223326
I was actually thinking of adding that i'm not sure if I used the terms correctly. Just try to see the gist of it.
And I meant that even with causality, this doesn't mean that there isn't some sort of wiggle room between the present and the future at an individual level, regardless of a lack of free will.
Are you going to complain about not having free will to choose if your body runs on petrol rather than glucose.
>>8222869
As long as you have the ability to learn then yes you should be held responsible for your actions.
Define "free will".
Sorry guys, I'm probably already too late to save this thread.
>>8222986
Shit I forgot about this thread.
Anyways, yeah. Internal factors are influenced by external factors, but that doesn't negate them, it guides them the way a river is guided by soil and stones and rain and plantlife. The water will still flow from top to bottom, from sea into land.
Sorry about all these metaphors, I'm just a metaphor kinda guy.
>>8223350
t. an idiot
no one is responsible for their actions. well, they are held responsible for them by society but they did not choose them.
if you are born disabled, you did not choose this, even though you still are disabled and viewed as being disabled by others.
no one can choose. there are no choices to be made.
>>8223363
i think he means free will as in, free will over your actions. are you in control of yourself? of your actions?
the answer is quite simply, no, you are not.
whatever makes you DO anything, whatever makes you LIKE anything, already existed in your brain. whatever makes you do something while other people do not do something, already exists. you choose nothing.
>>8223103
Op here, I agree with you , my train of thought at that moment caused me to word it poorly, but I think readers understood the point.
>>8223106
My question was if the freedom of will is a reality or just a ideology.
>>8223115
I think you are saying that freedom of will is not a reality therefore not worth exploring so you are rejecting the idea of free will but what I'd like to know I why...
>>8223141
Do you believe that one can influence himself externally to motivate one to reach certain
goals, this in turn seeming as the freedom of
will? If not why do you believe this? And if so
are the actions taken by an individual to
influence his reality (choices) his own or are
those subtle actions to reach a higher purpose
also subjected to a chaotic disorderly let say.. fate?
>>8223194
I reject your argument, you believe that reality
is nothing more then a subject of chemical reactions in the brain as you state, but these
chemical reactions in the brain that cause your
reactions and choices are just as susceptible to
external influence(s) (nature) as your reasoning
and logic skills are. One can say, use reason and logic through contemplation to sway his
reality in the direction he wants, in turn effecting
your chemical brain reactions as you say.
>>8223263
My argument is relevant in this post as well. Man A rolls over and hits snooze.. but why?
What is allowing the man to afford such an action? If Man A had, say, an important meeting that morning or a very pressing matter he must attend wouldn't he jump to action regardless of his state of mind? You can say now that well the man knew he must wake therefore his brain and "chemical reactions" caused him to wake for the important matter. I understand this as well but you must think about another perspective, what if a man whom never wakes up and always presses snooze because he has no pressing matters decides he must create a pressing matter in order to cause this reaction in his brain that will force him to wake.... wouldn't this be freedom of will?
We do what we have to do.
>>8223378
>i think he means free will as in, free will over your actions. are you in control of yourself? of your actions?
You are literally saying nothing with these words. They do not produce a coherent statement. Did you forget grade school English where they talk about not using I/you/me?
>>8223366
It seems most who advocate for the freedom of will here always resort to expressing their views through some sort of metaphor of nature. Which is great, nature seems to fully present the underlying lack of will in itself but then again we will never know, nature is nature and man is man, these two and their issues can not be compared side by side as they are completely different entities and alien to themselves. Man is simply trying to understand it's alienating nature of itself and its form through contemplation of questions like these. Or who knows maybe we're screwing things up and nature has already got it figured it out.
Free from what, causality?
We are physical, down to our thoughts. That there is a notion of some other substance, that acts in some other way, the entire premise of such duality, is a primitive delusion. I don't cling to delusions, as per what makes me...me. I cannot conceive of this unnatural unatomic undeterministic whatever.
I see it as a matter of semantics. An irreducibly complex system of determinism would be, in essence, the same thing as the human conception of free will. There is no real difference, as the only form of free will that wouldn't be able to be able to be simplified as an irreducibly complex system would be the sort of new age libertarian systems where free will exists outside of both the material world and causality in a one-way relationship.
So for all intents and purposes, I would say we do have free will, but in a manner that isn't necessarily in conflict with determinism.
>>8223416
correct! this is precisely what I am trying to understand, but can one, say, act out to create something he must do? This in turn establishing this 'free will'?
>>8223437
>I cannot conceive of this unnatural unatomic undeterministic whatever.
You just did.
>>8223437
>We are physical, down to our thoughts. That there is a notion of some other substance,
You contradict yourself my friend! You state this ^, but then you fail to see that you are choosing to believe this idea of yours.... wouldn't you say?
I do because I'm Roman Catholic
>>8223410
>One can say, use reason and logic through contemplation to sway his reality in the direction he wants, in turn effecting your chemical brain reactions as you say.
No. Whatever allows his opinion to be swayed already existed in his brain. Someone else could be told the same and they would reject it. Not by choice.
It appears as choice but there is no choice.
The man who is swayed by outside influence, his brain was perfect for that moment, for whatever it was that swayed him. He still, did not choose.
Next. Also, i'm trying to explain this in the simplest terms so that unnecessary words do not convolute what it is that I am saying.
>Fate
Fate exists but it is not magical. It is logical.
>>8223461
>You contradict yourself my friend! You state this ^, but then you fail to see that you are choosing to believe this idea of yours.... wouldn't you say?
Obviously not, considering I explicitly stated the very opposite? If you had an ounce of reading comprehension rather than an ocean of readiness to reply with trite garbage, I state I think as I do as per what I am, in the very post you reply to.
>>8223460
Nonsense. How would such a world operate? I can't even begin to imagine it.
The existence of the idea is not proof of anything, that really is some garbage tier ontology, the likes of which hasn't been relevant or un-ridiculous since the 11th century.
>>8223467
Or are you Roman Catholic because you do
>>8223410
>what if a man whom never wakes up and always presses snooze because he has no pressing matters decides he must create a pressing matter in order to cause this reaction in his brain that will force him to wake.... wouldn't this be freedom of will?
Whatever it was that would cause him to act in such a way already existed in his brain. Any response, anything at all that he does... it was already there.
No matter how minute or seemingly insignificant, it was there all along. It was HIS and his only, particular brain and it's particular structure, how the neurons fired in his head at the specific time... that caused him (in that moment, or any moment) to react in the way he did, or the way he will react.
>>8223422
The sentence made perfect sense. I sense you're mad from an earlier comment directed at you. I am trying to explain in the simplest terms so as to avoid misinterpretation and convolution. There is nothing wrong with explaining something in the simplest way possible.
>>8223478
>Nonsense. How would such a world operate? I can't even begin to imagine it.
>The existence of the idea is not proof of anything, that really is some garbage tier ontology, the likes of which hasn't been relevant or un-ridiculous since the 11th century.
Keep conceiving of it. You're doing well.
Laplace's demon up in this bitch.
>>8223461
He is not CHOOSING to believe this. Whatever it was that makes him believe this, already exists. It is simple: It is the way it is. He believes this because his brain fired in a particular way. He had no choice in the matter. It simply does what it wants, you cannot chose. If I tell you to blink twice now and you refuse... This does not mean you have free will. It just means the refusal was there all along. You never would have done it. And if you did do it, you always would have. You have no choices.
>>8223492
>I am trying to explain in the simplest terms
How is referring to the entirety of a human's composition "simple"? A simple explanation uses only clearly defined terms.
>literally describe it as a whatever
>conceiving of it
I'm actually offended by your idiocy.
Why do all the indeterminists and the like in these threads always have to premise their cause on casuistry and essentially a total lack of reading comprehension?
>>8223422
>You are literally saying nothing with these words. They do not produce a coherent statement. Did you forget grade school English where they talk about not using I/you/me?
I'd laugh if it wasn't so sad.
>>8223509
I cannot conceive of this post because it no longer exists.
>>8223513
>How is referring to the entirety of a human's composition "simple"?
It is simple to say there are billions of stars in the sky.
It conveys the reality exactly the same as if I was to write 6 paragraphs detailing the different types of stars, etc. Sometimes the details are not so necessary.
Since OP's question was simply: ''Do you believe in free will?'', I see nothing at all wrong with explaining it in simple terms.
Something can be outrageously complex and at the same time still simple to explain.
>>8223522
It conveyed exactly what I was trying to say. Stay pleb, though. Using big words when they are not needed is so /lit/ though, right?
>>8223533
Okay, how about this: How would a human behave differently if they didn't have free will?
>>8223538
They would act like a human who doesn't have free will.
>>8223538
Well, no one has free will so it would be exactly as it is now...
Aaaahhh... Discussions about the nature of free will and determinism. The go-to venue for pseudo-intellectuals to scramble for attention and a lent ear.
Okay guys, take your pick now: Will you guys play:
The determinist class, heavily equipped with "scientific facts", redundance, an absolute incapacity to get their points across and infinitely regressive logic.
Or
The uber-fucks, who are among the most stubborn creatures conceived by nature, unable to understand even the most basic of correlations; now joining the fray amply armed with Nietzche quotes, theological tomfoolery and circular logic.
I am not even mad, you guys. Hell, i am joining in too!
Now, let the memes proceed!
>>8223474
>Fate exists but it is not magical. It is logical.
I agree, I believe that fate... the idea that things are established as they go and a bit of contemplation are what can create this 'free will'. If an opportunity presents itself through the order of fate , then the use of thought can be applied to influence the influence a choice that your brain as you say has already determined. So in short, I dont believe it is already determined rather a initial thoughtless reaction almost like a reflex and a choice with thought behind it can change it.
agree?
>>8223478
You are quick to jump to your defense, only because you I think I have made you feel offended. Put in plain you simply said
I THINK, THEREFORE I AM
and nothing more. A statement that has been abused for countless generations by individuals who are ignorant to what it even means.
>>8223568
shut up you pseudo intellectual faggot. you're mocking people discussing shit. you're worse than anyone else in this thread, you fat fucking sperg.
>>8223508
Well.... what if you put a gun to the head in that situation and then ask me to blink? YOU WILL BLINK, you will say. What makes you so sure? What makes you so sure that I will refuse to blink my eyes even with a powerful incentive like that ?
>>8223576
>Proceeds to answer an insult with an equivalent one
>>8223568
Enlighten us FINE SIR! With topics so deep and complex that they are from an entirely different dimensions one where only your excellence can conjure up! Oh, how petty, how weak these discussions of this kind are, if only all the simple people who speak of things that have already been spoken of and thought of long and hard from your excellency and abandoned only to move onto higher greater topics....
How would a human behave differently if they didn't have free will?
>>8223599
*did
>>8223595
>Enlighten us, FINE SIR! With topics so deep and complex that may only be from entirely different dimensions, some from where only your excellence can conjure up! Oh, how petty, how weak the discussions of this kind are. If only all the simple people who speak of things that have already been spoken of and thought of long and hard abandoned them only to move onto higher, greater topics....
I corrected your post. No need to thank me!
>>8223580
>You will blink, you will say.
I would not say anything of the sort. I assure you, not everyone would blink. This doesn't mean free will exists though?
My point was: Any '"""choice""" (because it was never your choice) that you make, as I said... no matter how significant or insignificant it is, you didn't have a choice anyway. (Yes, of course you either blinked or you didn't) but it does not matter. Your brain knew what you were going to choose before you chose it.
>>8223599
Who knows?It is like asking what came before the big bang... Who fucking knows? You can't possibly imagine it.
>>8223606
I created this thread because I am genuinely interested in discussing this topic friend, not because I crave and seek some type of purposeless attention.
>>8223606
>If only all the simple people who speak of things that have already been spoken of and thought of long and hard abandoned them only to move onto higher, greater topics....
What makes you so sure that they're greater or higher, faggot? Because they have a penguin classics logo on the front? Because the men who wrote them have Wikipedia pages?
Suck a dick on your way out.
>>8223612
I think I touched on this a few posts back. I agree that your brain has predetermined reactions that one has no will to control over but external influence plays a large role in provoking those reactions, a thoughtless being would perhaps not react at all to what you were telling him but rather react to the fear of the situation like an animal would thus the brain knowing what it would do like you say, but what about a human being that has the right of thought?
>>8222869
I don't. Existence of free will is synonymous with a religion to me. You have to believe in some metaphysical consciousness which doesn't abide by the laws of physics, since our material matter makes us a puppet which goes through the motions, essentially. I'm a materialist for the most part but have no issue humoring the idea of free will, but I also find it humorous considering myself as an entity without free will contemplating free will without any capability to experience it.
>>8222869
No, because the individual has no contol over society, we are the embodiement of the mode of production's logic (in this case capitalism).
Example: if you own a business you can't be in control of the ratio of labour and machinery, you WILL HAVE to invest in machines or else go out of business. The law of value determines the logic you have to follow or else you'll be raplaced with someone more obedient of capital's rules.
The mode of production sets the goals and dictates how we act (by rewarding and punishing certain attitudes) narrowing the range of choices we actually have.
Free will can only exist in a utopia (or if you live isolated, i suppose)
Where does the idea of free will even come from?
>>8223615
Oh, so you are the gentleman who created this thread, for the sole purpose of discussing a matter that has been and will still be discussed to death and beyond on a thousand other indentical ones?
Why, thank you, chap! That cleared up so much for me! Here, have my eternal gratitude!
Also:
>I am genuinely interested in discussing this topic, friend.
At the very least slap an autocorrect on your shit, bro. You are already looking like a hedonist. Don't look like a dumbass too.
>>8223625
I was being sarcastic.
To make a point that this topic is not weak or insignificant because it did not meet the standards of a poster here.
No need to be so offensive and use profanities.
>>8223640
A utopia would be the absence of the need for free will.
>>8223644
This guy I know.
>>8223625
Wait, do you realize you are responding to a quotation from someone else's post?
Wow, man. do eugenics a favor, fashion yourself a spanking new noose and kick the chair.
You know, for humanity.
>>8223660
>OH WOW I GUESS I SHOULD KILL MYSELF BECAUSE I DON'T CARE FOR MEMETEXT ON AN ONLINE IMAGEBOARD
jeez guy, i think you're right
>>8223640
Your post is pretty sound, all things considered.
I do, however, have a few grips with this:
>The mode of production sets the goals and dictates how we act (by rewarding and punishing certain attitudes) narrowing the range of choices we actually have.
>narrowing the range of choices we actually have.
>choices we actually have.
Excuse me? Do you not believe free will because we have limited choices? That we can WILL to follow?
>>8223615
Then why not create a thread about something that isn't a troll topic?
>>8223634
Yes I read the post. I was just letting it simmer for a while so I could think more about it before I replied.
>>8223672
I guess then only traditional, omniscient God would have true free will.
At least we can conceive of it.
>>8223668
>I DON'T CARE FOR MEMETEXT ON AN ONLINE IMAGEBOARD
>Promptly proceeds to post on said "ONLINE IMAGEBOARD"
Wow. Where do i begin? Might as well not.
Congratulations anon. You won at life. Be careful not to hit the door on the way out.
>>8223684
Geez, man. This rabbit hole goes VERY deep.
What is "true" free willl, though?
>>8223650
This arsehole here tried to derail the troll train. Don't do it. The troll train is barrelling at full speed. Hop on or get ran over.
Free will is an impetus that can't be influenced in any way.
There, a simple definition that anyone can understand so we don't have to argue about it anymore.
>>8223685
And? that doesn't mean I care for it, dumb cunt.
Back to you know where, you sensitive bitch.
>>8223647
You straight up mocked my style bro, so let me just take yours for a test drive .
You said nothing of value to refute my post, and I don't even know what it is you are even trying to refute. Your mad bro, about what? I don't know but it sure as hell ain't my thread maybe its that free will you be lacking. ;)
>>8223689
No limitations.
>>8223694
But i digress.
Free will is
>an impetus that can't be influenced in any way.
on the same way a "hard" rock is a rock that cannot be dented or damaged on any way.
That is false. a rock can be hard without being unbreakable and will can be free without being completely uninfluenciable.
>>8223653
facts,but that's a fairy tale for the fact that someone would have to run that utopia as well and that person would also be one who seemingly uses free will.
>>8223695
I just left your mom's house. You sure she wants a round two?
>>8223702
If it can be influenced, it can be controlled is thus not free.
>>8223699
>I don't know but it sure as hell ain't my thread maybe its that free will you be lacking. ;)
Oh no! a wink emoji! I have been served! It burns!!! Someone release me from this unberable pain!!!!!!!!
Jk. Go back to preschool, lightweight.
>>8222869
we have commodified ourselves into oblivion.
>>8223704
Thus why religion is shit.
>>8223706
Yeah, yesterday she invited me to a scat party with your parents but I had to decline because I don't want because it does want it not right?
>>8223694
>so we don't have to argue about it anymore
It's an interesting topic to discuss, I wonder if the shitposting is coming from a religious perspective attempting to derail the thread?
>>8223707
If a rock can be chipped, is it not considered "hard" anymore?
>>8223718
my cock is considered hard and it has been chipped like an old ps2 by freak aliens from outerspace with dongs as legs
>>8223701
Welp. On that sense then, truly no human being possesses free will, as we are, if only on the most basic sense, limited by our biological traits.
What about partial free will, however? That does seems plausible.
>>8223678
I don't think this is a 'troll' topic for whatever that may mean.
>>8223694
But the there is a far greater issue at play. The freedom to will something, must be influenced by something. That's what we are trying to figure out. Is this influence your own or external and what determines that it is that....
No. There is only causality. However, humans have an innate sense of volition that they are above causality which is within causality.
>>8223718
It's not considered indestructible anymore.
>>8223723
>must be influenced by something.
What makes you think it does?
>>8223710
>emoji
>;)
you must be a millennial
>>8223724
And that sense is the interesting aspect to discuss.
>>8223715
>Yeah, yesterday she invited me to a scat party
Your mom is doing scat parties? Eeeww. Gross, bro. Don't do that. You might get even more brain damage than you already have from fondling feces all day long.
>>8223725
i never said that rock is indestructible to begin with. I said it is "hard", and it still is, regardless of being dented.
Likewise, i claim humans are free, just not completely free and devoid of outside influences.
>>8223722
aka, luck
>>8223718
from an earlier post, it applies to your statement.
>It seems most who advocate for the freedom of will here always resort to expressing their views through some sort of metaphor of nature. Which is great, nature seems to fully present the underlying lack of will in itself but then again we will never know, nature is nature and man is man, these two and their issues can not be compared side by side as they are completely different entities and alien to themselves. Man is simply trying to understand it's alienating nature of itself and its form through contemplation of questions like these. Or who knows maybe we're screwing things up and nature has already got it figured it out.
>>8223735
So would an understanding of probability "increase your luck" by helping you evaluate which decisions are better to make, in addition to an ability to imagine possible outcomes accurately.
>>8223729
Cripes! That must be why i am so thoroughly intolerant of your inexcusable grammar! Damn whippersnappers! Always messing with their "Iphones" and "Samsungs". No respect for their elders anymore, these young'uns
>>8223734
There is no such thing as "partially free". "Partially indestructible" is not the same thing as "very hard", it's nonsensical, just like the concept of "partially free".
>>8223737
I do not follow. Are you saying i cannot make make analogies using nature as an example?
I hope not, because that makes zilch sense.
>>8223746
I'm 19 , I am part of the millennial generation I just don't partake in consumptive distractions that are mass produced for people. just. like. you....
>>8223431
Not him, but it seems that your issue is you think humans are separate from nature when they are actually the most significant entity within nature in this era. We are as much a part of nature as a river, the trees, and any other living thing.
>>8223752
There is no "you". That's an informal term that doesn't go into proper statements.
>>8223747
Partially free is very much a concept, mind you.
>>8223742
And is this some form of feedback loop, with external input being analysed over time to detect trends and patterns, which can then be used to inform our actions.
>>8223742
I don't know. My brain hurts. We've exceeded my free will.
>>8223752
Seriously, you posted so much stuff i am having trouble understanding what your point is.
>>8223755
Absolutely not, you can make all the analogies you want about anything you want, I just do not see it fit or relevant to compare analogies of nature to the freedom of man's will, for reasons contained in the post I linked you to.
>>8223752
>What do you mean?
That if free will is an illusion, it's still interesting to discuss our ability to make predictions/models to anticipate the future.
>>8223766
Tell me, what use is a concept of free will that can be easily taken away and destroyed? Doesn't that void the whole point?
>>8223767
Well, I think time is non-linear and does loop, in a sort of Groundhog day-way. I don't know if that's a helpful concept.
>>8222930
Winrar. Compatibilism is the right answer.
>>8223772
Rule: If they don't have a trip, they don't get to claim identity on posts.
>>8223756
Are you calling me
>consumptive distractions that are mass produced for people.
Whoah. This shit just got serious. Roll your sleeves, we're setting this straight, right here, right now.
>>8223774
Reasons? These ones, you mean:
>these two and their issues can not be compared side by side as they are completely different entities and alien to themselves.
Actually i have a lot of stuff i disagree with that post. For one, i consider man very much an extension of nature, so to speak.
>>8223778
Point? What point? Free-will has as much of a point as one claims it to have.
>>8223762
I was waiting for you! You see, we have nature in us.. yes, we are nature in our own way but do not confuse ours with theirs! It is only a word but it is addressing two very different things, our human nature and natures nature so to speak.
> We are as much a part of nature as a river, the trees, and any other living thing.
I disagree. In a sense, yes our physical bodies, our persons are part of this nature you speak of, but we are not discussing this subject, we are speaking of the nature of our mind which we posses as humans. And this is what is pretty much being discussed here, does natures nature influence our human nature to the point of barring freedom of will or do we have an internal, more resistant influence that can dictate our choice and ultimately, our freedom!
>>8223784
Why do you think that?
http://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-just-discovered-a-new-nucleus-shape-and-it-could-ruin-our-hopes-of-time-travel
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.01485v1.pdf
>>8223789
I am somehow having even more trouble undestanding you now.
>>8223809
Who is actually hoping for time travel? That would be an absolute disaster.
>>8223730
>>8223752
There is nothing to discuss. The entire notion of law is built on the aspect that people have volition, free will, over nature and are not pure deterministic. We do not have free will but we have the sentiment that we do. And that sentiment lets us make our own life choices as respect those of others.
There is only causality and we are all part of causality.
>>8223765
I am speaking to YOU though.
>>8223772
I do not have a point, no motif, just free thinking , trying to better understand these ideas through others input
>>8223775
Right, yes, but what causes these predictions/models that you speak of?
>>8223801
Man is not an extension of nature its what you said before, it is nature. But we are speaking of the nature of the human will.
>>8223823
All the /sci/ autists I assume?
>>8223809
Accepting that everything is moving forward linearly is too glib for me.
Not much actually changes in the real world except for minor things.
>>8223785
>Compatibilism
Hmm, so that's what it's called.
>>8223825
>The entire notion of law
Law also seems to use a lot of false dichotomies.
>>8223826
>Man is not an extension of nature its what you said before, it is nature. But we are speaking of the nature of the human will.
I just do not get it why i cannot make analogies involving nature to explain the concept of free-will. Care to explain?
>>8223825
>And that sentiment lets us make our own life choices as respect those of others
Could you please explain this in simpler or more complex terms?
What is causality?
>>8223845
I did, about twice but that quite all right I will be happy to elaborate on the subject. I will keep it on simpler terms for I have been posting with no stop for the past hour or so.
An animal. A rock. A stream, river, tree, brush of plant life. A human, a monkey, a rat.
Of these, it is established that the human has the capacity to think.... not all do and not all for the same purpose, but it is there.
All of them are related in some way to the nature you speak, to the nature we know and understand quite subjectively. But, unlike all the other member of this nature, humans by far have their own entity of nature. As does the sky, perhaps, but I do not know and quite plainly do not care.
It is this common home that we share in nature and this common experience that makes us a part of it. Although, our own personal entity, or our thoughts, our freedom, the freedom of will if there is such a thing, is an entirety different nature of its own, one that does not relate to the bigger picture of things.
In short, comparing the whole of nature to the nature of humanities complexities is like comparing life with death.
>>8223826
>Right, yes, but what causes these predictions/models that you speak of?
I'm not sure, but human life is obviously a necessity.
>>8223879
Okay, so i will try to be as brief as possible in summarizing our exchanges:
I made an analogy involving nature (VERY subjectively, mind you)
In response, you say nature cannot be used on comparisons to humans because
>the freedom of will, if there is such a thing, is an entirety different nature of its own, one that does not relate to the bigger picture of things.
If you cannot explain the above in detail, i am left none the wiser. In all due honesty, you don't want to explain all this boorishness, do you? Neither do i, so let's just leave drop the ordeal here and move on.
My point is humans may posses a non-absolute, imperfect form of freedom of will.
>>8223890
So in essence.... SURVIVAL! A instinct driven influence to do things that will keep you going. But what about more? Is survival the only thing that keeps life on the a thread? I hope not, and I believe not for our questions and comments her prove otherwise. Who, though is asking these questions, making these comments, these predictions and models that don't rest on survival ? Instinct? probably not. The freedom of will? Yes? No? What influenced that spark, that thought that you are so ever yearning to address....
>>8223903
So.... if i were to say, explain the quote in detail, I would be doing nothing more then rewording what I have stated for the past three posts on explaining to you exactly what I have explained for the past three posts.
Is it that you must persist in rejecting an idea that refutes your own? Stubbornness? No, I don't believe so, perhaps you truly do not understand what it is I have said.
>My point is humans may posses a non-absolute, imperfect form of freedom of will.
There cannot be freedom of will if the faculty is imperfect. That would be like a lottery, and we all know how genuine those are.
There is, or there is not.
>>8223936
>The freedom of will? Yes? No?
I'm not certain whether what I think falls under compatibilism or not, I'm just throwing out ideas and attempting to refine my own thinking. I think I may have confused who was who earlier in the thread.
>these predictions and models that don't rest on survival?
I think we have these capabilities due to evolution, and that they have assisted the survival of our ancestors, but this doesn't imply that how we use them will always be for survival, or that it will be used in a "good" way, either intentionally or through ignorance.
>>8223936
Oh, boy. Here we go again.
I will try to make this simple and quick then:
>There cannot be freedom of will if the faculty is imperfect.
Actually, yeas, there can be. I will further elaborate...
>There is, or there is not.
So there is no mid-term between anything? Refer to the whole hard-rock ordeal: A rock does not have to be either indestructible or destructible by a minimal ammount of force: A rock can be "hard", ergo, the mid-term.
But perhaps you believe that comparison cannot be tied into the concept of free-will, because either someone is "free" or not, there being no mid-terms.
I strongly disagree. For that to be truth, there could be only to states of will:
Completely bound
or
Completely unbound
For someone to be completely unbound, it must not be subject to ANY outside influences (e.g hunger). For someone to be completely bound, they must be subject to ALL outside influences (including hunger).
With that in mind, i am subject to the influence of hunger, so i am not completely unbound.
Also, the wanking of some horse's genitals over vietnam holds no influence over me, so i am not completely bound.
If i am neither completely bound nor completely bound, then there must necessarily be a third state. What is that third state? Hell, i do not know.
For all effects, i am calling it "partial free-will", to signify the state i find myself in: Neither completely bound nor completely unbound.
Regardless, it doesn't make sense to act as if we don't have free will.
>>8223969
*by "throwing out" I mean suggesting it for anyone to comment on.
>>8223984
>dude let's just pretend i am right okay? like come on
>it doesn't actually matter either way lol, like it doesn't matter if im right or not but lets still just pretend i won for simplicity's sake
this is what free will memers actually believe
>>8224041
I'm not a free will memer, hence why Spinoza's in the pic
I'm just saying that having a deterministic worldview doesn't really stop you from having the phenomenological experience of free will, just as some behaviourists' unbelief in consciousness didn't stop them from experiencing what we call consciousness.
So whether or not we have free will it's how we perceive it that matters, from an ethical perspective. You can continue to wank on about whether or not our perception of free will is real or not, but that doesn't actually remove the perception.
>>8224059
But hey, jokes on me for engaging with such a shitty strawman, right?
I don't understand the fascination with this question.
You make decisions in your life regardless of whether or not free will exists. It might not be explicitly "you" (the agent) making the decision, but you'll never know any different because you've only ever experienced a single mode of experience (free will, or lack there of). If you only ever experienced involuntary actions your whole life, how would you know what a voluntary action feels like, and vice versa?
Why bother arguing about which one is correct, when both outcomes are the same?
causality fags get out
>>8224223
a priori fuckface. Just because we view the world subjectively doesn't mean that the world isn't objective.
>If you observe that ever since Hume and Kant (mainly Kant, because Hume was merely the Bertrand Russell of his time) philosophy has been striving to prove that man’s mind is impotent, that there’s no such thing as reality and we wouldn’t be able to perceive it if there were—you will realize the magnitude of the treason involved.
>Hume was merely the Bertrand Russell of his time
That fucking bants from Ayn Rand.
> Implying you can disprove free will using le chemicals meme
>this thread
>>8223640
What you posted has little to do with what I imagined the OP meant by free will.
You have the choice to do the opposite of what you said. That's free will. Just because if you don't you will fail doesn't mean free will doesn't exist. It just shows that free will is overrated.
As for me I beleive it does exist but in a much more limited sense. I dont think the term is well defined enough either.
We have free will to choose the actions we want to from the ideas presented to our conciousness due to genetics and experiences/nurture. We are also more likely to choose certain ones due to our genetics and upbringing but that doesn't mean we arent able to choose otherwise. I think meditation and mindfulness helps with this.
Either it exists in a very limited sense or doesn't exist at all. It's all down to our understanding of how our mind and body works and it is a question we will likely know when we fully understand how the brain works.
>>8225364
Read free will by sam harris if you want more info regarding this.
I think he gets some things wrong in the book and misses some areas too but overall I think hes pretty close to what free will actually is and if we 'have' it.
Which do you find more personally offensive?
The idea that you do have free will or the idea that you don't?
>>8222869
>Do you believe in free will?
Yes
>why?
The mind is most likely immaterial and aristotelian metaphysics are the best basis for everything meaning the world is not mechanicistic.
>>8222869
What's free will?
>MAN CAN DO WHAT HE WILLS, BUT HE CANNOT WILL WHAT HE WILLS
>>8222869
No, as far as I can tell, there's no room for free will. What I mean is that, when explaining human thought and behavior, you can account for everything without free will ever entering the equation. What could free will possibly be? How could a person possibly be free to will what they want? You're free to act according to your will (though even that seems like it could be an illusory freedom), but you never have the freedom to choose your will. To have free will would mean that some part of you is not enmeshed in the universe the way everything else is, that your will is somehow unbound to the same laws as everything else. I simply can't believe that.
If one relents that decisions are made by referring to previous experience, then it's impossible to state that free will isn't at least compromised
>>8225378
A movie about a killer whale.
>>8222869
It's not a question of belief. It's a question of whether consciousness is transpersonal and matter it's vessel, or consciousness is entirely an emergent property whose contents and properties are entirely material. There's no way to discuss this on anything other than theoretical grounds, and "Belief" either way is just a waste of your time.
>>8222869
No. I believe in cause-effect relationships in every action and I see consciousness as a function of our physicality, so every action made by a conscious being can be broken down to cause and effect at the subatomic level. I don't see how a free will could exist in such a system.
>>8225630
>Can be broken down to
No. It can't. It never has been. It can however be assumed to be attributable to cause and effect at the subatomic level because that seems likely.
>>8223895
Just give a proper response or stay away. Despicable sack of shit.
>>8222989
Can't go wrong with Epictetus' Discourses, or Seneca even. Also consider Hegel if you're a "philosophy babby" and you're interested in Kierk, reading Hegel and sort of getting a background on what issues Kierk is responding to in his works will definitely allow you a deeper and more satisfying understanding.
>>8223553
and how would a person behave if they did have free will?
I also think that free will is a necessary belief to hold, regardless of its truth. Sincere belief that we aren't in the pilot's seat only leads to depression, meaninglessness, and cynicism.
