Right now there is people who think consciousness is magical space-voodoo
>>72533840
Free will doesn't exist.
We're influentiable, therefore it is an illusion.
That's why Liberalism is popular.
>>72533840
We all swallowed the red pill... we're free now
>>72534552
>Free will doesn't exist.
How does it feel that you were predetermined to spend your life shitposting on a Javanese wood carving forum?
>>72533840
free will ain't a thing, dog
>>72533840
agreed
sentients are nigger tier in the universal equilibrium we should just gas ourselves
>>72535140
>>72534552
Freewill is an illusion. Our lives are just a movie being played out that we believe that we are the director. But really we are the audience member
>>72535401
Exactly. Our brains are made up of the same matter as everything else. Atoms, electrons, bouncing around and vibrating. Chemical reactions. The brain is a chemical soup that just so happens to be complex enough to create consciousness. In reality, we have no more free will than a rock does when it rolls down a hill.
>right now there are people with so much hubris that they think humans know everything
Reminder that "Free will doesn't exist" is an ideology for pseudointellectual teenagers who like to act a lot more educated than they actually are.
Physics has been canonically nondeterministic for decades. The idea that "an infinitely powerful computer could tell you everything about reality at all times" has been proven false, along with the laws of locality.
ITT: fish out of water
>>72535683
seeing that sentient beings are the niggers of the universe doesnt make me an atheist anon
>>72535587
>Exactly. Our brains are made up of the same matter as everything else. Atoms, electrons, bouncing around and vibrating. Chemical reactions. The brain is a chemical soup that just so happens to be complex enough to create consciousness. In reality, we have no more free will than a rock does when it rolls down a hill.
That is too harsh. Besides consciousness there is also intellect, able to evaluate content- even projected to the future. I don't know how much can it influence, but it seems enough to be decisive evolutionary advantage.
>>72535683
>I believe in magic
>there is no such thing as freewill
And? What is your point?
>>72535401
Yeah I wasn't disagreeing with that notion. To push things further, you're not even that audience member, as that would imply there's something akin to soul inside you actively experiencing the reality.
Since we're assuming that consciousness is simply bits of matter interacting with each other, awareness, and even the actual concept of being alive, can't exist. You're not more alive than the chair you're sitting on. The only difference between you and every other inanimate object is the amount of information that is being processed in a biological/chemical sense..
Free will is very real.
I end this thread right here and now.
If you think everything is meaningless then just kill yourself
>>72536480
Lack of free will does not make your life meaningless, just like your inability to influence the direction of a movie you're watching does not make it any less entertaining.
Same goes for lack of meaning. Nihilism does not necessarily lead to cynicism.
Free will exists. There is no god, but consciousness represents maetter breaking free from the causal chain.
Your brain isn't a computer.
>>72536975
> Your brain isn't a computer
>>72536738
>Lack of free will does not make your life meaningless, just like your inability to influence the direction of a movie you're watching does not make it any less entertaining.
What a shitty analogy
free will doesn't exist because you are entirely controlled by the biology of your brain
>>72537228
If you have a minute to spare, please write a better one so I can use that next time.
>>72536975
Nice assertions.
You almost made sense until you threw God out of the window.
>>72536738
What a meaningless philosophical theory
>>72537333
If you want to believe you are a mindless zombie being conducted by some boogie man puppeteer that's fine. Just know by you saying we don't have free will doesn't mean you are breaking free from any chains but binding yourself further.
>>72537228
It's not though. It sounds crude but it sums it up pretty well.
>>72534552
No, we have a mix of free-will and biological determinism.
>>72536480
Came here to post this.
>>72537476
>I have absolutely no control over my actions, thoughts, feelings or direction of my own life. >I can't take responsibility for anything because none of this is my own doing. >I am a zombie being conducted by whatever and my life will never be my own
Pretty stupid.
>>72537312
You are your brain, idiot.
>>72536478
I disagree with this, which doesn't matter since I have no choice but to post it. I thought about misspelling choice with a y for fun, but the universe prevented me from doing so, yet decided to have me type about it.
>>72537609
Nobody said anything about responsibility. You still have to abide by the rules of society and try to make your life the best you can. The point here is that all of the decisions you make are predetermined and there is no other way that they could have happened, not that you should just give up on life or kill yourself.
>>72537745
If you aren't responsible for your own choices there is no responsibility to be taken.
>>72535587
>The brain is a chemical soup that just so happens to be complex enough to create consciousness
Sounds like magic to me t b h.
"Creating consciousness" because it's "complex".
Really though, you determinists have no choice but to report to the gas chambers ASAP.
>>72537745
>try to make your life the best you can.
That doesn't fit in to your philosophical theory
>>72537462
Not by a puppeteer, but rather by biology of the brain itself. This is simply about acknowledging the nature of our being. It should not limit or liberate you in any way; your life will continue just the way it did before this realization. Acknowledging the paradoxality of free will should not be much unlike acknowledging the existence of gravity.
>>72537862
Try asking a scientist how consciousness works, they won't be able to give you a satisfying explanation either.
>>72537745
Predetermined as far as what an individuals morals dictate? I will give you that for sure, but doesn't remove free will.
We can even go against our own will just because we can.
Place a baby in front of a good man and say rape that baby and he won't. Place it in front of an evil man and say rape that baby you'll find he already is.
Because one person by a matter of will has decided to do that is morally wrong. While the other sees nothing wrong with it due to their own will.
>>72537609
That's because there is no such thing as substantial "I".
>>72538023
I know, that's why I say it's just a baseless assertion that matter somehow gives rise to consciousness.
>>72537991
Go ahead and explain this paradox. Then prove it by empirical measures.
>>72537930
Yes it does. This is my movie. This is the only conscious experience that I'll ever have that I am aware of. I can't experience the world from any other point of view, and everything I feel and see will be from within this brain. So it is in my interests, predetermined or not, to make this life, my movie, as pleasant as possible.
Free will doesn't exist, but I will still feel all of the agony of becoming an alcoholic derelict if I decide to give up on everything because it doesn't exist.
>>72536975
>all matter everywhere in the universe follows causality
>but not the matter in my head lol
>>72538040
I think therefore I am.
>>72538180
>all matter everywhere in the universe follows causality
That is just your head telling you that
>>72537991
Acknowledgement of gravity is done everyday by everyone and behavior is changed by all in our day to day life because of the knowledge of it
>>72538038
>We can even go against our own will just because we can.
Whether you do this or not has already been determined by your past experiences and current state of consciousness. The whole universe guided you into that decision and you simply couldn't have chosen otherwise, no matter how possible other choices at the time seemed. True randomness doesn't exist, which means that everything has a cause in something that has already happened.
>>72538234
>if i say it, it makes it true!
philosophers, everyone
>>72538234
"I think" is not an inarguable statement.
"Thinking occurs" is more like it.
>>72538373
>philosophers, everyone
try to provide something more certain
>>72538316
gotta work with what i've got
unless you have a better option?
>>72538343
Now go ahead and prove that.
You can't.
>>72538468
nothing is certain, but science seems to work so i use it.
>>72538380
Go ahead then, tell me that I don't think.
>>72538486
>gotta work with what i've got
you also have the perception of making decisions, so you are busted
>>72538173
There is a gap between physical reality and qualitative sensation. While they are related, materialistic approaches do not explain how and why. They just explain what happens on one side of the bridge.
The only way to keep some logical consistency is to postulate that consciousness is something qualitatively different from matter, arising whenever you have a sufficiently advanced information network.
As a property, it must be rooted in something else, maybe it's an underlying property of our physical universe,obeying laws we yet don't understand
The only sensible and intellectually satisfying solution is to hold an emegentist view of consciousness, that is, it emerges out of sufficiently complex information networks.
Addendum: consciousness DOES exist and its existence can be inferred by the double slit experiment. The conscious observer makes reality, or at least to a certain level
>>72538173
If free will doesn't exist you have no say in the matter on whether you'll be come an alcoholic or not though.
>>72538595
yeah but there's evidence that my decisions are based on previous events, so i go with that
>>72538537
thank philosophy for giving sciences good methods
Free will is an illusion.
But people think free will simply means "I choose to lift my arm right now, therefore I am the ultimate source of that choice", which is retarded.
There's a difference between thinking that people can choose something, and realizing that your mind cannot be a neutral agent in a world where the mind itself was created in a cosmic churning and evolutionary process over millions of years.
>>72538571
I agree with you that the process of thinking occurs.
I'm just pointing out that you can't meaningfully explain what is that "I" entity that supposedly does the thinking.
>>72533840
>magical space-voodoo
it kinda is though. what do you exactly mean by that?
>>72538610
correct, but the fear of becoming an alcoholic could be the causal factor that stops him from being an alcoholic
>>72538657
That's called reasoning. Doesn't remove free will.
Touch a stove top once ouch that's hot. And then you don't do it again.
>>72538707
He doesn't mean anything, it's fedora-speak.
>>72538689
no.
philosophy keeps trying to take credit for science after the fact, to make itself seem useful. in reality, science is just applied trial and error
Your destiny was determined at the beginning of the big bang.
Everything is predictable with enough data, nothing happens randomly.
>>72538701
>you can't meaningfully explain what is that "I" entity that supposedly does the thinking
In theory the "I" would be the "internal observer". Meditation helps pulling it out. Something that even Harris the saint patron of fedora tippers seems to acknowledge
>>72533840
Someone told me recently that consciousness doesn't exist. People are stupid.
>>72538781
i meant in a physical sense like billiard balls hitting each other, not an abstract sense like "i remember this so i do that because reasons"
>>72538820
>in reality, science is just applied trial and error
lol no
>>72538701
Either it is indeed myself that is thinking, or something else is causing me to think. Which means it would have to be some sort of supreme intelligent being considering it would be controlling my mind.
That, or I am controlling my mind. You can pick whichever you wish.
>>72538610
Technically I don't, but my brain creates the illusion that I do.
>>72538732
Exactly
>>72538947
lol yes
>hmm i think X might happen if i do Y
>lets see
>well it was close
>lets change some things and try again
science
>>72538820
>in reality, science is just applied trial and error
jesus christ sometimes I think I'm talking to educated people on here and then I come across a thread like this
>>72538887
>In theory the "I" would be the "internal observer"
Well, yet again. It's undeniable that there is such a thing as first-person viewpoint. and "internal observation" aka awareness aka whatever.
However the "internal observer" seems to imply some kind of entity that performs the observation. Which is nowhere to be found t b h
>>72538912
Go ahead and come up with a real life example that wouldn't rely on any sort of former reasoning.
>>72537519
I guess the natural laws dont really exist.
>>72539052
please explain the difference between science and trial and error other than the degree of rigor
>>72533840
>>72534704
>>72535587
>>72536146
SUICIDE WATCH, NIGGA.
K I LL YOURS E L F.
>>72538978
Not him, but clearly your brain is causing your thoughts.
I mean, have you ever tried to *not* think thoughts before? Good luck, and let me know when you've managed to stop your mind from constructing thoughts out of thin air.
It was always kind of strange to me that atheists in particular denied determinism.
People make the biggish leap (guess it's not that big of a deal) of rejecting God, but then they form an emotional attachment on the concept of free will.
I get it. Feeling you control your own destiny feels good. You also get to criticize others for not doing what you'd like. But obviously free will is bullshit. There's really no explanation I've heard for it that sounds sensible.
>>72538978
Um, no? Why does there has to be some kind of entity that "does" the thinking in the first place? For example, when a nuclear reaction occurs inside a star, is there someone who "does" the reaction? No, it just happens. Why can't the same be true with thought process?
>>72539106
>shit happens
>i react one way
>neurons change
>shit happens again
>i react a different way
wow that was hard
If free will doesn't exist than there is absolutely nothing stopping you from closing 4chan and doing something productive with your life today.
What does /pol/ think of this argument:
You have a minute to choose a random city you know. Now, I can probably name at least one city that you did not think of. You picked your city just because it was one of a few that your brain recalled. Thus the outcome decides merely on what your brain recalls and therefore free will doesn't exist.
I can sort of understand how this works, as your actions/choices are limited to what happens in your brain, but it still neglects choosing one city from a list of multiple ones that you probably thought of.
>>72539184
Yes that is what I am trying to tell him.
>>72535778
>Physics has been canonically nondeterministic for decades.
When people talk about determinism they don't necessarily mean that every event of cause and effect can be accounted for or predicted.
They just mean free will is bullshit. In other words, you can have chaos/randomness at the quantum level or whatever, but that doesn't mean humans have free will.
>>72539217
The only real argument in favor of existence of free will is that we have a very strong intuition that it does, and apparently no matter what we believe, we can't help but behave as if it exists. That makes it something worth considering at least.
>>72539262
here's a better argument
>causality exists
>>72533840
As far as I can see, there is free will, but not the kind most people intuitively believe in.
Our feelings and thoughts seem to be completely automatic/reactive, they come and go on their own. Freedom lies in meta-awareness, where you can observe the totality of your subjective experience and make a choice whether to engage with it or not.
>>72536480
We need to assume knowledge is possible, or else we would all have self-defeating positions.
>>72538496
>>72538145
Obviously your latter request is something that would be pretty hard to deliver over the internet, but I can try to give you a glimpse of my perspective and approach to this subject:
A child is offered three different candies: blue, yellow and red. He entertains the idea of taking the blue one, since he has not tasted that color yet. But on the other hand, yellow is his favorite taste of the colors he has already sampled, while the taste of red he can't seem to recall.
Which one does he choose? One could rightfully argue that what ever he feels like the most at the moment. If our kid is feeling adventurous, it would be reasonable to assume that he is going to take the blue one, a new experience. But whether he ends up choosing this or another color, the chosen option is completely dependent on his current state of mind, experience of reality, and an endless amount of external influence, such as recommendations from friends or past experiences with a certain colored candy.
Let's assume he chose the red one. He, of course, THINKS that he could've choose otherwise, but in reality red is the only color he could've chosen given his circumstances. Does this make it more understandable why I question free will?
Another great mind game is to assume that another universe was created with the EXACT same parameters than our universe was. Would everything happen identically? Or, is there some hidden form of randomness in the nature of reality that would cause everything to unfold differently?
>>72539063
You are referring to a soul; the basis of every religion for thousands of years.
If the soul exists then my view of free will changes immediately to a positive one. Until then, we are on rails I am afraid.
>>72539245
That's not an example and relies on reasoning.
You wouldn't be able to know it happened differently without reasoning.
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/143217546751/science-proves-science-is-an-illusion
>When I was in my twenties, I started seeing reality as probability and illusion. In my imaginary world – which is the only world I perceive – when you get an important email, for example, the message in the email is variable until the moment you read it. The email doesn’t become “real” to your mind until you observe its contents.
>Yes, that is actually how I observe the world and how I interact with it. I literally assume nothing is real until observed, and even then it only becomes the backstory to my movie that isn’t real either. And yet my world works just as well as yours, if not better.
>For example, you probably thought you could not become a famous cartoonist and writer because you have no special artistic talent and you have never taken college classes in writing. That described my starting point too, and it would stop a rational person from even attempting the career I have now. But unlike rational people, I don’t see the world as an objective truth. I see it as a movie I am writing as I go. So I wrote some scenes in which I get rich and famous and develop six-pack abs.
when did Scott Adams start posting on /pol/?
>>72536480
killing myself is meaningless too, and it would be unpleasant
so i stay alive
>>72539228
Something is causing the thinking. It's myself or something else.
You pick.
>>72539450
>the basis of every religion for thousands of years.
Not every religion, really.
>>72533840
Can't be bothered explaining it
>>72539063
>Which is nowhere to be found t b h
Aristoteles used to say "The whole is greater than the sum of the parts". Must be something arising (manifesting ?) from the interaction of information networks, as such i don't think it can be pinpointed exactly unless we don't find the underlying laws by which a network exhibits "self awareness". Here is an interesting read regarding this concept
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_information_theory
As per me, i plan on discovering who i am with huge doses of LSD. Apparently when on acid your neurons start firing at random, thus "cutting you off" from reality.
Oh and apparently you retain your self awareness to a certain extent even when brain dead
>http://www.nderf.org/NDERF/Research/vonlommel_skeptic_response.htm
>>72537833
There is no such thing as responsibility or merit. Still, that doesn't mean thinking about these issues will not arise, as we intuitively believe we have free will and punishing/rewarding bad/good behavior is worthwhile. No wonder it evolved then.
>>72539535
>Something is causing the thinking. It's myself or something else.
Maybe previous thoughts and their after-effects give rise to new thoughts? Simple casual chain.
>>72539405
Randomness != free will though.
>>72539462
the fuck are you talking about "reasoning" for
how is it relevant
regardless examples can go on forever, so just address this instead:
>causality is real
>free will exists
pick one
>>72539645
Randomness is required for free will. Otherwise everything that happens gets reduced to the law of cause and effect, doesn't it?
>>72539593
>Must be something arising (manifesting ?) from the interaction of information networks
Well, that's one theory. But considering we have no clue how that could possibly happen, doesn't seem to be more compelling than others.
>>72539620
Let's make an example
>serotonine causes happiness
>serotonine is a molecule inducing specific neuron firing sequences, that is, electric impulses
>electric impulses are happiness
>who is happy?
>what's the relationship between happiness and electrical impulses?
>or maybe it's the electricity that is happy?
It's called hard problem of consciousness, and it's the wall against which fedora tippers eventually end up crashing against, just to backpedal by saying that consciousness doesn't exist
>>72533840
>free will is impossible
>I don't understand quantum physics
>>72539728
you're overthinking the opposition
"free will" is just code for souls
>>72538599
>consciousness DOES exist and its existence can be inferred by the double slit experiment. The conscious observer makes reality, or at least to a certain level
I don't think you understand the experiment. A lot of people use it to justify their point.
>>72539784
>le ebin quantum meme
random != free
>>72539770
I agree that physicalism does not offer a satisfactory answer.
>>72539405
As for your first thing, that is simply conjecture. What happens when the child picks no candy? That is a very possible situation.
As for the latter, considering the laws which seem to bind our Universe, if it had exactly the same parameters it would happen the exact same way.
That's what science would lead us to believe anyway.
>>72539620
This is actually how the brain works. The brain is analogue, not digital. This is how people remember things by connecting them to other memories.
One thing I think most of you miss is that we mostly explain behavior backwards. The monologues you see in novels, where characters seem to deeply ponder about every meaningless decision they make never happens in our heads. In fact, in most cases, we simply act and then our interpretative brain proceeds to make a plausible reason to why we did what we did. What feels like free will is our ability to rationalize what we did. Look up on Gazzaniga and confabulation.
>>72539620
Goes back to the first though.
It can't lead to infinite regression so that doesn't work.
>>72539805
I have read Feynman's objection, you can in theory have the same effect by using an indirect measurement device instead of a conscious observer
Sloppy example,my apologies.
>>72539950
>The monologues you see in novels, where characters seem to deeply ponder about every meaningless decision they make never happens in our heads
Really? Happens to me all the time.
>>72539679
Both.
>>72539784
Indeterminism in a way is even worse than determinism, because you still don't control anything but you can't even tell what's going to happen.
Still, even if behavior has a random component, it is possible to acquire knowledge about it. You can try to find which probability distributions are behind it as thus reduce randomness to a few parameters.
>>72540057
>It can't lead to infinite regression
Maybe the first thought was caused by something that's not a thought.
Or maybe the regression is actually infinite.
>>72540057
jokes on you, it actually *is* infinite regression
>>72539950
As a former gambling addict I can very much relate to this statement. It was a very shitty experience and I wouldn't wish it on anyone else but it helped me learn a lot about myself and the functioning of the human brain in general. It is actually the main reason I became so interested in causality and free will.
>>72540077
so free will is causal?
then in what sense is it free?
>>72540175
>>72540185
Can't be because we haven't always existed. Therefore can't be infinite.
>>72539892
You're right. Not choosing any candy is just as possible scenario as any else, completely dependent on the subjective reality of the child coming to the conclusion.
To push the deterministic universe further, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that humans would follow that same deterministic pattern as everything else? It wouldn't make sense if the universe happened the exact same way and the humans in it took a totally novel course of actions through eons.
>>72540278
>Can't be because we haven't always existed.
"we"?
Anyway, why not?
>>72540278
>the universe begins and ends with my lifespan
lmao
>>72540076
So each visit to the supermarket must require you 10h, no? Look up on Antonio Damasio's work, where he found that people with injuries on certain parts of the brain responsible for emotion cannot make choices, as they don't have an emotional force nudging them in a particular direction. Instead, they try to perform a deep cost-benefit analysis and get stuck in the complexity of the problem.
>>72540270
It is causal only in there are driving factors which can influence the choices we allow ourselves to make, or don't allow ourselves to make.
>>72533840
Oh no! Not /badphilosophy/ general again....
>>72540432
>So each visit to the supermarket must require you 10h, no?
No, I think faster.
>>72533840
This is old news OP.
>https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23367-brain-imaging-spots-our-abstract-choices-before-we-do/
>http://www.wired.com/2008/04/mind-decision/
I could go full tinfoil on you guys and start talking about the universe potentially being a hologram and all of that but I don't want to deal with the arguing it causes, not in the mood. Look the information up if you're interested in the subject.
>>72540466
no no no.
causality is actually a very strict thing
i'm not saying events are ~partially~ caused by previous events, i'm saying they are ~entirely~ caused by previous events
stop talking in wishy washy terms like "influence" and "factors"
>>72540281
But we do. Not all humans act the same.
>>72540398
>>72540409
Humans.
>>72540581
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics
Gotchu senpai
>>72540506
philosophy is by definition bad, we're talking about science here
>inb4 the usual "b-but science IS philosophy" garbage
go back to bed sven, jamal awaits
>>72540611
Maybe the process was occuring even before humans existed, and human thought is simply a latest manifestation of it.
>>72540589
Factors matter greatly.
That's what causes experiments to produce different results.
>>72540611
>humans can only be influenced by other humans
lmao 4 ever
Another important note. Philosophers in general adopt compatibilism because they use a different definition of free will than most determinists. For them, if you act according to your preferences, you have free will. Then, they often say that preferences are determined.
Not believing in freewill is the ultimate blue pill.
It's accepting slavery, dispute knowing that you are not a slave.
It's accepting that your whole life is preprogrammed so you should just enjoy the ride.
No girlfriend or wife, ok I don't have to do anything, it is ether programmed or not. I don't choose, the world chooses for me. That's truly, truly sad.
Consciousness is formed through language. Language as a part of the social contract limits free will. Your ways of communication reflect the needs and wants of your society. As long as you live in a functioning society, free will really cannot exist. You willingly give up freedom for security, guarantee of order. The only way you utilize any agency, is by choosing to stay alive or dead.
>>72540723
>philosophy is by definition bad
That's a philosophical statement btw.
>>72540747
Then that would mean some sort of intelligent being exists.
>>72540766
address the point, stop nitpicking like a jew
>things are caused entirely by previous events
>free will is real
pick one
>>72540581
You don't even need that study to prove the thesis wrong.
Because you don't know where choices come from, even if there's zero delay.
I mean ask yourself, if you suddenly wanted to drink hot chocolate, and went and made one, where the fuck did that come from? It came from your brain, and to say that the act of your brain created wants and desires is "free will" is retarded.
>>72540775
No. That's not what I said.
I was saying humans did not always existed and so it cannot be an infinite regression you dunce.
>>72540546
That sure looks like rationalization to me.
>>72540859
creating*
>>72540839
Why, maybe the first "human thought" was caused by something that wasn't a thought of an "intelligent being".
>>72540811
so if someone comes up and asks you to play soccer, and you say no, are you playing soccer?
quitting is part of the game, after all.
philosophers have some jew-tier debate tactics
>>72540800
>the conclusions are uncomfortable
>Therefore it isn't true
This is why free will proponents start to sound like religious people.
>>72540143
The only interesting question is whether or not we can decide what we want. I think that it's literally impossible to decide what you want in life - it's predetermined by your genetics.
Then again, everyone wants wealth and lots of sex, but there's just a minority of people who actually actively pursue those things, which concludes that one of the most important variables between humans is their own belief in their own ability to achieve what they want.
At some point, many people simply give up on the things they want the most because they simply don't believe that they have the abilities to acquire them, and so they settle for less and learn to adapt to their perceived genetic cognitive or physical limit, which of course - exists, and so settling for less has a logical evolutionary benefit, because otherwise everyone would pretty much be miserable.
My point is basically that our will is what determines our future course, and the lack of it sets us on a path of almost certain and purely deterministic path - the question is simply, is our will purely deterministic as well?
>>72540900
why can't the regression precede the existence of humans?
>>72540857
Prove that things are caused solely from previous events.
Prove it empirically.
Consciousness, free will and souls are all a load of meaningless bullshit.
Not only do none of these things exist, but the first two aren't even meaningful concepts. I guess souls are at least a good concept for making edgy computer games.
>>72540917
Dunno what you are trying to say. I Do quite a lot of thinking every time I buy something, considering whether or not I really want it or need it.
Of course one can always say that any such thoughts are just a conscious rationalization of some invisible master process, but it's not really a falsifiable statement.
Something else that is usually lost or overlooked in these arguments is that the mind is influenced to an extraordinary degree by the needs, desires and complaints of the body at any given time. This often happens on a subconscious level and you will react to these signals without even realizing it. Is this free will?
Since the body is mostly affected by environmental and random factors which are not related to the mind at all, these thought processes might aswell be beamed into your mind from space.
>>72540936
Thoughts are abstract concepts that are only capable of being formed because of our higher intelligence.
It really doesn't matter you can't prove it by any demonstration either way.
ITT: People comparing different definitions and wondering why they don't match.
Free will doesn't exist in a purely material universe, but since predicting future actions in a deterministic manner is practically impossible the question is moot. There is no perceptible difference between the illusion of free will and true free will, so commonly we think the concepts are the same and say we have free will.
>>72540965
>so if someone comes up and asks you to play soccer, and you say no, are you playing soccer?
No, because soccer and philosophy are different things, and what applies to soccer does not apply to philosophy.
You are doing (bad) philosophy right now btw.
>>72540800
Nobody said any of those things and they do not follow from anything that has been stated in this thread.
>>72541016
This post is literally a very condensed version of one of Schopenhauer's pages on free will in the World as Will and Representation.
His conclusion is that "Man can do what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills".
>>72541074
>Consciousness, free will and souls are all a load of meaningless bullshit.
>Not only do none of these things exist, but the first two aren't even meaningful concepts. I guess souls are at least a good concept for making edgy computer games.
>>72541020
Because you need humans to have what we are referring to as "thought"
>>72540859
Not sure if it was one of the articles linked or not (read it years ago) but one of the studies was reading brain activity before showing the patient either a pleasant picture or an unsettling one. The results showed a 7-10 second delay where the brain's response areas knew what the reaction would be before the patient looked at the picture. Anyway like I said I'm not going to argue, be a retarded cuck if you want to it doesn't matter to me.
>>72533840
Right now people think consciousness is a magical gift from a divine being.
>>72541156
>Thoughts are abstract concepts
I don't think thoughts are concepts. A concept is something thoughts can be about, but thoughts themselves are just that - thoughts. Phenomena. Brute subjective facts, if you wish.
> that are only capable of being formed because of our higher intelligence
Or maybe the occurrence of complicated chains and patterns of thoughts is something that may be usefully described using the concept of "intelligence" that does not in fact refer to a substantial entity.
>>72541196
>Free will doesn't exist in a purely material universe
I haven't really seen a convincing explanation of how free will is possible if we hold that something like idealism is true either.
>>72541007
It isn't true, the you, that identifies as you. Is not matter ie the cells, it is the energy that passes between the cells. Energy as pointed out via atomic decay, in not wholly determinate.
>>72541016
It has been hypothesized in evolutionary psychology that self-esteem and self-efficacy are just gauges of how well positioned your are in your social group. Therefore, it serves as a signal for social standing. The signal is not perfect, as is the case of all signals, as it is possible, yet hard, to fake.
If this hypothesis is true, then you can even reduce a great deal of your will to genetics. If you think you can fake confidence, then that person possesses a valuable skill, which you might also reduce to the interaction between genetics and the environment.
>>72535401
You think you don't have free will but you do.
>>72541156
Animals think. Not to any kind of depth that we do, but they most certainly think - even scheme. Dogs, for example, are actually quite skilled manipulators.
>>72541533
This post is literally blabber, and sounds like Deepak Chopra tier woo-woo.
>>72541518
If we go outside the material universe, causality is not proven to be valid. It's more of a "well we don't know how it would be like so let's not jump to conclusions" justification for allowing true free will.
>>72541862
>If we go outside the material universe, causality is not proven to be valid.
It's not proven to be valid in material universe either, strictly speaking,
>>72541098
Statements on the nature of consciousness are usually not falsifiable because we do not observe it nor we can derive implications that are true solely in the case where the statement is true.
Still, think of how you would program a computer to have preferences and shop. The computer would do this the hard way by taking every possible combination of goods it can buy (which is a ridiculously high number if you take discrete quantities). You don't do that. You can decide in a fraction of a second that you want a particular good, something which require millions of calculations in a computer. Then, if I ask you why you did it, you easily come up with a reason, making me and yourself believe that that was the reason you did it all along. It is when you see people fail badly when explaining their own behavior (e.g. genuinely believing they didn't conform to others) that you start doubting that explanation.
>>72542090
Well obviously no one (except some liberal economists, apparently) thinks humans are wholly rational beings.
I was just responding to your statement that descriptions of inner monologues in novels do not reflect real thought process. In my opinion, they often do.
>>72541982
True, but at least we have a "best effort" approach that it is likely true. I doubt you can have meaningful conclusions without assuming at least a few things
>>72533840
Prove that it's not
>>72541565
I think that every person's will power is the most powerful tool in their ability to affect their fate, and it's remarkable how dynamic the will really is - the environment has a huge effect on the will, your own inner voice and sometimes consequently your own beliefs about yourself - can drastically improve your chances of influencing your future, and the level of your will power is constantly changing, as if it needs to be kindled by some form of "energy". Something about will power seems almost supernatural, as if the force is coming from some place beyond your deterministic brain, but i'm just digressing at this point.
>>72542326
But my example is not to show humans are not rational, but to show how inner monologues are just stories about what we did, not the fundamental cause of behavior.
>>72542669
But willpower does not come from heaven. It is a result of the interaction between previous experiences and genetics. Depressive behavior or "lack of willpower" might just be learned helplessness, where your environment was so bad you learned not to even try.
>>72541676
Oh dear, you haven't thought about this much have you.
Energy is the base of everything, e=mc 2, two photons = 2 fermions, what are you actually examining when you scan an active brain.
Still if you want to believe your a robot, far be it for me to discourage you.
>>72542907
Never mind that part about it being supernatural, i just wanted to see your response. Would you agree that visualization is deeply intertwined with what we call will-power?
In almost all the occult texts i've written, visualization of what you want, and every step that could logically lead to that vision manifesting itself in reality, is a crucial part of actually having your will realized.
I would hypothesize that if you want something, and you can't visualize it in your mind and feel congruent with that vision and actually believing that the vision can manifest in reality in the future - then it will most likely not happen.
You gotta see every every step which leads to your vision unfold in a logical sequence, and figuring out how you can make every step actually happen, before it can really happen - and so the ability to visualize is a huge component in ones ability to achieve long term goals.
>>72543433
occult texts that i've read*
>>72539352
Further, I don't get how chaos and randomness gives an entity "free will." Whenever you make a decision, you do it because you think or perceive that it will benefit some aspect of you.
you have no free will is one of the biggest tools of the devil
if only randomness gives free will , only people with personality disorders have free will. And freewill does exist.
checkmate non free will believers
>>72544013
They don't have free will either lol
If we rewound time to five years ago would any of your choices be different?
If so why?
>>72542467
when people die they don't come back
>>72538707
the concept of a separate and eternal soul
>>72544820
by the choices you make in life your life would be diffrent because life is random
>>72538816
>le hat meme
>>72545175
Yes.
But the randomness is neither created or manipulated by our brains.
The outcome would be different if we went back 5 years. But we'd still just be sitting along for the ride
>>72545563
>The outcome would be different if we went back 5 years.
Why?
>>72545175
I could go out and have the chanche to meet the woman of my dreams, or i could stay on 4 chan and shitpost . this choice is created by my brains
Core consciousness is part of the astral body. The "soul" is simply the sum of all lifetime experiences, which is how you are uniquely differentiated from any one being. Your POV is always unique. There is nothing that can refute that consciousness uses the brain to conduct the metaphysical into the physical.
>>72541533
If the only reason you don't make the same choice in identical conditions is because of the random spin of electrons, you still don't have free will. That's like saying a coin has free will because it has a 50% probability of landing on heads. The coin doesn't CHOOSE to land on heads. Idiot.
>>72545701
Randomness exist on the quantum level(As far as we know by date, it is random).
So if you took two exact copies of earth and ran them in a simulation, things would proceed differently
>>72539164
OPPOSITION WHO?
NIGGA REVEAL YOURSELF
>>72533840
One thing that is important to note is that while free will doesn't exist, you still have the ability to change your life and make decisions.
It's just that given all of the inputs that's the decision you will always make given your mind state at that moment.
While it may mean predetermined it does not mean static.
Free will is completely real we decided to leave our full awareness and totality of sensations in order to incarnate as a human. We are a fragment of consciousness in matter, matter is aged consciousness. If we don't transcend physicality with prayer, yoga, sex, entheogens we will revert into large monuments of matter only to be manipulated by a conscious being with free will. Adapt or die.
>>72533840
More important than the actual existence of free will is the belief in free will.
The jew would cut this out of humanity, to subvert and enslave us all fully. To the point where everyone believes their own actions are a function of state/media influence only. The jew is a crafty parasite, it is attempting to hijack our minds through pseudo-intellectual trickery. Like the parasites which hijack the brains of ants in south America, the jew will use whatever tool necessary to try and hijack the brains of the rest of humanity.
You must view jews as the parasite they are. They aren't like the rest of humanity, their very existence necessitates shilling and lies simply to survive the wrath of their supposed prey.
>>72546021
Yeah but even those quantum probabilities are being rewound and would just play out again.
If you watched a guy throw a million dice and went back in time, you'd watch him throw the exact same results again provided you don't intervene.
Free will not existing is just an excuse people use so they won't feel as bad about being a piece of shit.
Been there, done that. Now I just accept that I'm a piece of shit because of myself.
>>72546331
haha
>when you work in the field and you see all these reddit-tier legends
you guys are either baiting or just plain retarded and pretending to know shit.
I'm not even gonna bother, great brainstorming guys, keep it up.
>>72533840
Fact of the matter is that reality is a paradox. No arithmetic can be self consistent.
"The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence. To understand the true nature of the universe, one must think it terms of energy, frequency and vibration." - Nikola Tesla
>>72546426
Fucking Dutchfags.
>>72534552
I see no issue with punishing people whose inferior genes predetermine them to make bad decisions, though
To me it's irrelevant whether free will exists, the current system of reward and punishment is still totally applicable either way
>>72546242
Harris says the idea of free will is incoherent and "cannot be mapped on to any conceivable reality." Humans are not free and no sense can be given to the concept that we might be.[74] According to Harris, science "reveals you to be a biochemical puppet."[75] People's thoughts and intentions, Harris says, "emerge from background causes of which we are unaware and over which we exert no conscious control." Every choice we make is made as a result of preceding causes. These choices we make are determined by those causes, and are therefore not really choices at all. Harris also draws a distinction between conscious and unconscious reactions to the world. Even without free will, consciousness has an important role to play in the choices we make. Harris argues that this realization about the human mind does not undermine morality or diminish the importance of social and political freedom, but it can and should change the way we think about some of the most important questions in life.
Commenting on Harris's book Free Will (2012), Daniel Dennett disagrees with Harris' position on compatibilism, and asks if Harris is directing his arguments against an unreasonably absolute or "perfect freedom" version of compatibilism, which Dennett would describe
>Sam" Harris (born April 9, 1967) is an American author, philosopher, and ..... Harris, who was raised by a secular Jewish mother
everytime
>>72533840
>arguing free will vs determinism on 4chan
>arguing free will vs determinism anywhere for any reason
the shigs
the digs
>>72546063
I think once you come to the realization that "free will" is not as free as it sounds you stand at a tipping point of what to make of yourself.
Either you are a defeatist and just give up, going with the flow, or you take ownership of the idea and conquer both nature and nurture and steer the ship of your life in preferable directions.
>>72546921
Indeed. They can't help it, it's their nature. They absolutely must be eradicated for the good of all life. Parasites are the single most dangerous form of life on this planet.
>>72547096
A noble idea, but whether that's achievable is another matter.
Then again, perhaps trying is what matters. What you believe is a part of the equation, so you might as well believe something grand.
>>72546664
>one must think it terms of energy, frequency and vibration
IOW mathematical patterns
reality is mathematical memes. a room of of mirrors made of platonic archetypes and twisted by chaos.
>>72534552
our souls is what gives us free will silly
>>72548221
Consciousness can even alter reality at the quantum level. Look up the quantum double slit experiment
>>72548618
There is no way to show the direct link just as in any other phenomena too. This is a logical fallacy to think that because observation created collapse and because observation comes from a conscious being then consciousness causes collapse. I do agree tho that observer and consciousness are closely tied in ways that are more profound than just the physics side of things.
>>72543616
Yeah, like... My thoughts being randomized to a degree doesn't make me more in control. It makes me less in control.
>>72546247
You would alter the result by observing it.
>>72548923
http://in5d.com/10-scientific-studies-that-prove-consciousness-can-alter-our-physical-material-world/
Here's a cool link if you're interested.
>>72548992
Not true. Random != unpredictability. Random could be a 10000000 bit number where only its least significant bit could change randomly confined to some distribution. You could never notice the difference randomness made on your choices except when chaos comes into play.
Alright philosophy fags what's stopping me from doing whatever I want to do now
>>72548923
This gif makes me want to get a couple of Goldies.
>>72549308
Ya, I'm saying that they are leaping to conclusions with the double slit example. Not outright dismissing the possibilities.
>>72549396
Fear of the government and social norms
>>72549473
Possible, but there are other experiments.
>>72539805
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the double slit experiment proved that light and matter exists as a particle and a wave at the same time, and observation can have an effect on this.
>>72549589
That's the will of others being imposed on me though, doesn't mean I completely lack free will. If I REALLY wanted to walk down the street now naked I could desu.
>>72549396
The almost entirely deterministic chemical and electrical interactions in your brain.
Free will does or does not exist. Cats 1 humans 0
>>72539370
It doesn't though, learn some quantum mechanics bruh.
>>72549722
Chemical interactions are not deterministic.
>hurr what is a wave function
>>72549618
I think what they're trying to infer is awareness has a probabilistic spreading effect on reality. When you observe a single electron, it acts as matter, but when you spread this over time and observe a set of events, then they behaved liked light waves.
>>72549674
Whether you do or don't is irrelevant, whatever happens was always going to happen.
Your genetics, each event, all the atoms in the universe are all just playing out, like pouring sand.
A grain of sand could flick left or right, but in the end it was always going to be knocked in whichever direction it finally moves in.
>>72550449
>whatever happens was always going to happen
You do realize that the "time has no meaning" assertion does not disprove free will, right? You are currently experience a slowed down linear progression of time in our Universe. You exist in the moment. And relative to our limited human perspective, the moment is all that truly exists. You still have the ability to alter your subjective reality as you go.
If the human condition is reducible to behaviorism, how do you explain suicide? What about completely novel behaviors or linguistic or artistic expressions? How can people quit using drugs?
Of course behaviorists have convoluted and inconsistent theories to explain these behaviors. Muh learned helplessness. Muh behavioral extinction burst. Muh extinction induced variability.
If only there was a more parsimonious theory that was consist with both objective and subjective experience. What hidden variable modulates the correlation between self-efficacy and achievement?
Oh I see. It's has more to do with evolution. We only work to serve our genes. Free will is not evolutionary advantageous and no childless male would ever die for serving their country or anything like that.
Get real faggots. You are in control of your mind and body, and you are responsible for your shitty, meaningless lives. Take accountability for your choices.
>>72551849
>You are in control of your mind and body, and you are responsible for your shitty, meaningless lives
A tired strawman.
>>72546452
>in the field
You're Romanian, of course you work in a field.
>>72551849
its useless anon 10 days from now you are going to kill someone and be in prison for the rest of your life. Non free will fags actualy belief this
>>72549332
>Not true
Care to actually elaborate why you disbelieve what I said instead of talking about how slight randomness can be?
>>72549396
What you want isn't decided by you for one thing
What you want is entirely determined by how your environment shaped/shapes you along with the physical properties of you, which are also out of your control, like your biological make up, neurochemistry, atomic composition.
You may think to yourself
>I want to drink some guinness
But that thought would have emerged into your consciousness from a darkness which you cannot witness. You cannot choose what gets thought. And if you think to yourself desperately... Trying to grab control:
>I want to think about whiskey now instead
You would again not have summoned those thoughts into your consciousness, somewhere underneath, your brain would have produced those thoughts for you.
Same with every single thought you have.
>>72554433
Are "you" and "your brain" separate entities now? Am I not just a projection of my brain? Without my brain, there is no me.
>>72553628
underrated
>>72554756
Your consciousness is a projection of your brain. Think of your brain as the theatre projector and your consciousness as the movie being displayed on the screen.
>>72551849
>Get real faggots. You are your mind, and you are responsible for your shitty, meaningless lives. Take accountability for your choices.
FTFY
This is philosophy. No one in this discussion should be using a lack of belief in free will to try and discount their personal responsibility.
>>72554756
>Separate entities?
Nope.
>Just a projection
Yup.
>No brain, no me
Yup.
The entire experience of being conscious, reacting to and formulating thoughts, seems to be bound directly to physical processes happening underneath the layer which your consciousness operates.
If you don't care about the layers of computation within your brain, then you can just say that YOU are the entire brain and YOU are in control of all of it... even when you're not consciously orchestrating all of it.
