Is anyone else driven crazy by this question?
I chose to post this reply.
Hence I have free will
>>75245882
you were going to anyways, since your mind is predetermined to reply in such a way to free will topics.
We are robots, robots designed to shit post.
>>75245721
If there is no free will and you believe in it you fuckin cannot change your mind.
The core of Christian religion is your free will (ok maybe it is God or God's love but..)
>>75246087
>polish intellectuals
>>75246206
>A fucking toothpaste
>>75245882
That only shows you have will, not that it was free.
>>75245882
you chose to reply because you're very opinionated mind felt compelled to share its views with others because humans are a social species because of an evolutionary adaptation dating back billions of years because organisms must adapt to the environment because that's how they survive because that's how they need to survive because organisms are great energy converters because the universe is in an energetic and chaotic state of persistent change because that's how things are
You're free, as long as you feel free. This whole discussion is just childish play with words. Don't fall for it.
>>75246391
But the human mind also feels compelled to hide things from other humans because there is a risk of upsetting them and we are social species.....
>>75246391
two paralel lines do not exist (especially with 0 width)
yet they teach you about'em in schools
.
.
.
school is a scam!
>>75246484
>You're free, as long as you feel free
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
>>75246087
>The core of Christian religion is your free will
God gave us free will, so we must be sure to use it exactly as he command us to. *tips fedora*
No, because I wouldn't be able to control if even if I didn't have free will, and we probably don't.
>>75245721
We have no free will. Though it doesn't mean your fate is somehow determined.
>>75246528
does not change the fact he said what he said because he felt obliged to share his opinion. this isn't a scenario where he'd need to hide his views
The thing that drives me crazy about it is all these "intellectuals" proclaiming that free will can't exist just because they can't explain it. They can't explain why the human mechanism has desire or emotion and robotic mechanisms don't. The root of being a conscious entity isn't understood mechanically at all - if it was we could build it - yet they're so sure that something doesn't exist that we all know does. We have desires. We have will. We make choices. Everyone knows it and these guys are doing backflips to say it's not there just because it doesn't fit into what they already understand.
Of course we have free will.
>>75246553
So if you feel 100 % like a slave, you're more free than others? Makes totally sense.
>>75246640
>The root of being a conscious entity isn't understood mechanically at all - if it was we could build it
This is the most miserably retarded thing I've read all week.
>>75246593
yes it does
>>75245721
You have free will, but you're going to do what you're going to do anyway.
>>75246593
this
>>75246753
You're a fucking moron then. Show me the conscious robot we've built. I'm ready to check it out.
>>75246597
Sometimes people feel obliged to do two opposite things at the same time. Then what?
>>75246572
> euphoric
> tips phedora
> so rational
> does not believe in free will
> goes to school to learn new things
you hate religious people, don't you? so what if they HAVE TO behave that way? why so full of hate? does not make you like one of them?
just you know, with different outfit, different symbols etc
>>75246640
>We have desires. We have will. We make choices. Everyone knows it and these guys are doing backflips to say it's not there j
Nobody is denying any of that. What they're denying is that it's done FREELY.
>>75246662
It says if you think you are free falsely you are more hopelessly enslaved. If you are a slave and know it, then you have some hope of trying to get free. If you don't know you are enslaved, you have no hope of even trying to get free.
If I have free will I made this post through my own volition. If I don't have free will then I was always meant to make this post. Either way I made the post. I'd rather just except that my shitposting happened than question whether it happened because I wanted it to or not. Regardless it felt like I wanted to shitpost so I did it and to me it doesn't make any difference either way
>Listen to Harris all the time for years
>Working one day and then he starts saying how much he wants Hillary to get in
>Stop in the middle of what I'm doing
>Usual bullshit about Trump being evil Hitler racist
After *everything* that Harris has been though with people deliberately misinterpreting him, pushing bullshit, lying about everybody and everything around him and what Hillary (and more importantly, those who surround/sponsor her) want, to hear him talk like this made me think he's being a total fucking idiot.
>>75245721
determinism huh ?
Well we are dumb enough to have free will according to our capability to reason. You see, if you were way smarter and able to calculate the consequences of your actions and determine the most favorable course of action... why should you do anything else ?
I mean intelligent enough creature to do the above would loose it's individuality and become just a force of nature. As it would do only the things providing best results and thus removing any choice from the picture altogether.
We however are just dumb enough to be spared that and yet smart enough to be capable of some limited calculation on our actions. Thus being on the perfect place for the idea of free will to take place.
And EVEN if this is just an illusion as the initial variables were set at the beginning of the universe, then what ?
We are to act as we DO have free will and do the best we can.
This question will be far more dangerous few generations in the future when AI will become a thing.
So.... buy a beer and get together with your friends.
Not really, even though I've spent dozens of hours learning about it and (I think) seen everything Harris has said on it.
Just one of those questions, like death, that I can't get worked up about because I know I'll never be in control of it.
Not to say it's not interesting and important to how you live your life. If anything, it removes much of the faith people put in others having the agency to change themselves and choose to be better human beings. It reinforces the idea that you are bound to be what you are; that all your potential in life for success and your capacity for change/improvement is already contained in your current being.
Maybe it is the ultimate red pill, but not one I have trouble swallowing.
>>75246892
It makes a lot of difference in many areas whether people are freely choosing or not. For example our entire legal system is based on the assumption that they are freely choosing.
>>75246772
No, it doesn't. You just don't have any power over it.
>>75246788
>if we empirically understand something, then we can very easily replicate or produce it!!!
You're a fucking retard. According to you, we should be on Mars by now and should have colonized half the universe.
>>75246998
Who exactly is this "you" that doesn't have any power over your body's actions.
>>75245882
you could only choose "post" or "not to post" - that's not free will.
>>75246934
I wasn't asking if people are driven crazy by determinism. I was asking if they're driven crazy by not knowing if determinism is true or not. You seem to be convinced it is.
>>75245721
nope, doesn't exist
>>75246883
>then you have some hope of trying to get free
If you believe there's no free will, then you can't have hope for a free will.
The word "free" itsel has no meaning. Free from what?
"Free will" is a feeling and it exists, therefore free will is something real.
>>75247050
You fucking inbred retarded knuckle dragging cretin, I wish you would kill yourself for real. You added "easily" because it's the only way your moronic argument can work. It's not a question of easy, it's a question of literally not knowing AT ALL what that mechanism looks like. Not only can we not build it, we don't even know what it is. Now go and slit your wrists and make the world a better place. It would be a great choice for you to make.
>>75247144
How do you know? And what is it that so many smart people who say it does exist are missing?
Thinking about free will is a complete waste of time, as was writing this post.
>>75246977
Fair point, and like I said I was shitposting but I'll try and expand my argument beyond just memes. The legal system is meant to dispense justice to those wronged, and whether you chose to wrong someone or not you did indeed wrong someone when you committed that crime. If you were always meant to commit that crime then you were always meant to face it's punishment. A punishment isn't suddenly unjust because you didn't technically make the choice on your own. You still felt as though it was your choice to make. Determinism isn't just people are meant to make decisions and then they make them. We rationalize our decisions and thus we rationalize the determinism that governs our lives if free will does in fact not exist. Like I said I made up my mind to do something. Whether I was meant to do it or it was of my own free will I still felt like it was my own decision so justice must be dispensed whether or not we live in a deterministic universe
>>75247110
your definition of free will is weird.
It seems like to you only god has free will but we are certainly not gods
>>75247153
You could believe there's no free will but hope for it. The word free does have a meaning.
Free will is NOT a feeling. You really have not studied this issue at all. Please read up on what free will means and what the word "free" in it means, perhaps on wikipedia at least.
>>75245721
Free will doesn't exist (factually), but life is still enjoyable so I keep living regardless
>>7524715
>this entire post
dah someone lost an argument
>>75247157
>You fucking inbred retarded knuckle dragging cretin
>I wish you would kill yourself for real
>Now go and slit your wrists and make the world a better place
>>75247279
meant for
>>75247157
>>75247228
Even if what you're saying was true we'd still have a problem because our legal system currently does have different penalties based on whether you chose to do wrong or not. If you are saying it doesn't matter if you chose, then we have to change the legal system to make sense that way. So no matter how you slice it, if determinism is true our legal system doesn't make sense.
>>75247067
Who said you don't have power over your body's actions? Question is about whether or not there is a free will, not free movement.
What does free will even mean?
>>75247331
>people who are angry are always wrong
>>75245721
No, because I'm not a faggot.
> so they finally started making games when you can make choices and observe their consequences
> you can change wallpaper on your PC desktop
> [more more]
NO YOU FUCKING CANT YOU BIGOT, SHITLORD!!!
MUH SCIENCE TELLS ME DAT!
>>75245721
The answer is easy. Yes we technically don't have free will because everything we ever do is determined by the chemical reactions in our brain and would play out the exact same if you replayed time. But in this case free will is now a useless concept, if noone or anything has it then the words are useless so instead free will means the illusion of free will, I have the illusion of choice in all my actions and this illusion of choice is what is labelled free will
>>75247378
I guess I just find it interesting that we think of ourselves as a "you" but that implies there's a figure at work beyond just the mechanism of the human body.
>>75247411
Not only are you a mad little faggot, but your rebuttal has nothing to day with what I said in >>75247050
I used to drive myself nuts with this and eventually decided it doesn't really matter either way. Even if you believe in free will it still comes down to the interaction between what's inherently 'you' and the outside world. Whether you call it a soul or your genetic traits or whatever it still amounts to the same thing.
>>75247166
there is nothing at the physical level that suggests we have any inkling of will removed from reality. dualism is a failed concept because it only partially works by extracting conscious from physical reality (putting it in the same realm as god, not governed by our rules). attempts to explain free will on a physical level fail (people have suggested quantum actions as the source for free will, but quantum actions are random, so how can they be determined by our "will").
the issue is that many smart people, like many dumb people, like people in general, have difficulty in grasping the completely counter-intuitive. "surely I can think for myself and am wholly determined by my own free will, I'm not controlled by forces" is a cosy argument in the same way that "of course something designed us, how else would everything be so organised and structured, due to chance"
I argue against free will, but not will. Everyone has will, but claiming that is determined (at least in part) by something external to reality is nothing more than belief.
People will suggest that "then we can't blame anyone for their crimes", which is untrue. Will still exists (it just isn't free) and is essential for a functioning society. Society only exists because the concept of will and culpability are necessary for its function, punishment serves as the cause for the deterrence of crime effect on others. It's a necessary element for society.
>>75247499
I don't give a fuck you little queer. No one is talking about mars, you're a simpleton who can't understand what I'm saying so you misrepresent it intentionally and throw in name calling. If you were here I would literally kick your ass. Cunt.
>>75245721
I'm not sure free will or determinism can explain anything. You are free to do as you want, but what you want is predetermined and you work with a limited selection of factors and evidence with which to make your decisions. Even if there was only one choice you "would have" made, every choice you've made has been informed by your limited understanding and perception anyway.
Free will and determinism are both factually inaccurate but the spirit of determinism is probably closer to how things really are, withholding randomness.
>>75247460
You is just a word that has two meaning, you as in that person there, or you as in those people. There are no hidden meanings behind it. In Ireland most people even say "ye" (pronounced yee) to denote multiple people
>>75247243
>You really have not studied this issue at all.
There's your problem. You still believe "free" has a special meaning. Think twice about it and you will realize it will just lead to contradictions.
>Free will is NOT a feeling.
I guess you're the one who hasn't studied this at all. Start with literature how the brain distinguishes free and forced movement and how this free feeling can be stimulated with brain stimulation.
>>75247166
I should point out that much in the same way as god, I'm ok with people believing in free will, as long as they admit that it is on the same terms as god (based on belief and not evidence).
But your question was if I (collectively) am driven mad by the question. I'm not anymore, but I once was until I came to terms with it.
>>75247432
If the answer is easy why are so many very intelligent people saying we don't have the answer? I mean people who study this for their whole careers?
>>75247359
I get you and I'd concede that point. The fact that (for example) different degrees of murder exist implies that different levels of intent exist. But maybe that isn't so much a flaw but a recognition that determinism works in different ways. Let's say I accidentally killed someone. In a universe with free will, it would be just to give me a lighter sentence than someone who willfully planned out a murder for months. But why would that not be just in the case in a deterministic universe as well? Simply because I didn't chose to accidentally kill? I still accidentally killed someone and the victim still requires justice. In the end I guess it's a wash. I totally get your point and you're probably more right in this case than I am, but I can't change whether the universe is free or determined so I'm just fated to live in it how it is. Maybe that's what truly makes it a deterministic universe who knows.
>>75245721
Of course not. If you look at it scientifically it is obvious quantum fluctuations are the only place for free will to crop up.
>>75247383
it's a socialist meme to give you the illusion that you're somehow in charge of your life but in reality you're just a goy slave for the demiurge
>>75247567
When I said smart people still debate this, I didn't mean everyday people even . I mean people who really study this who absolutely know the things you mentioned. They are not confused about the issues involved. They know all that and still say the problem is not solved.
>>75247118
even if determinism was true, we will still live our lives as if it wasn't.
we will have no other choice :^)
>>75247603
>>75247829
*would
>>75247658
all I can do is facepalm. You simply have no idea what we're talking about with "free" when it comes to free will.
The question with free will is whether it's actually free, not whether we feel like it's free.
>>75247901
>whether it's actually free
Again, "free" has no Special meaning, you can't define what "actually free" even means.
If this is too complicated, than Keep on facepalming.
>>75247708
The answer isn't easy, but if you read the literature you will realize at a certain point it boils down to who has the stronger argument, and determinism by far has the strongest argument because it is based entirely on reality and the known.
>>75247823
Determinism isn't, dualism is. So far, every argument put forth by dualism/indeterminism has been dissected and disproven by determinism. Dennett is pretty good for some of this stuff, you should see some of his discussions or counter-points for indeterminists.
My point is they may be very smart, and their arguments very articulate, but that doesn't mean their argument is the strongest one. A debate can be uneven.
>>75247742
see >>75247567
>>75247829
Really? There seem to be people even in this thread who say they are determinists and live as determinists.
>>75247708
Because intelligent people more so than anyone else like to argue over semantics. Free will technically does not exist, but the illusion of free will is so strong that we should just define free will as the illusion of choice. It literally changes nothing in the world
>>75247994
Yes we DO define what free means when it comes to free will. The fact you don't know that definition tells me you aren't even willing to do a 2 minutes google search and read up on it.
>Free will doesn’t exist goyim, so you should be totally ok with the way things are, you can’t change anything, hehehe
Seems legit
>>75248133
I try to look at it in a more positive light. If it doesn't exist then maybe I'm meant to make the change I want to see in the world
>>75248019
just edgy fags. they substitute "no one wants to give me a job" for "the universe has a plan, what will happen is not up to me"
>>75248333
I think just as many determinists are successful people who believe it must be fate that they are doing great.
>>75248222
Who gives a fuck about the semantic technicality, it literally changes nothing. Its the exact same as the fact that we never actually touch anything. If you shake my hand we don't actually touch at all, there's no contact between the atoms. Does this fact mean you are going to change the way you touch things? Are you going to change the way you act? Will sucking a dick no longer make you gay because technically you didn't touch anything? Does cleaning your ass with your hand suddenly become hygienic because technically you aren't touching the shit? Its all semantic bullshit argued by "intellectuals" for intellectual masturbation
>>75246572
and people choose not to
there in lies the aspect of free will. God told us what he wants, and we do what we will according to his will. because he knows what we'll do before we do it. God is infinite beyond our physical consciousness and thought. no-one is going to be able to understand that without some sort of faith to accept that even though we DO do whatever we want, things around us are always according to His will.
>inb4 God let's harm and pain happen
people let it happen, we would never been in this mess we are today if it weren't for original sin.
>>75248333
Determinists aren't necessarily Fatalists.
>>75248445
Semantics don't matter but the way you look at things makes a difference in whether you live a positive or negative life. You're clearly living for the latter. Try and find a little joy in life, even if that means fucking killing yourself right fucking now you faggot cunt
>>75248406
what was Haris' argument against determinism in the book? I read it a long time ago
>>75246899
Felt exactly the same
>>75246899
it's always disappointing, but you come to terms with it. sam harris is a man like every other, not a god or king.
bill maher has one of the stupidest anti-vac positions i've seen, for someone so well connected and prolix, but I can still dig his other points and accept that he has faults as well
>>75248606
As I said before whether or whether we technically have free will is completely irrelevant because the illusion of free will is too strong. Our individually ability to make choices exists and the fact that these choices come from chemical reactions in our brain does not change anything. Whether its "you" deciding to eat that sandwich or whether its your brain "forcing" you doesn't matter at all. Either way the illusion of choice to eat the sandwich is substantial enough to define the illusion of choice as free will
>>75248052
Wiki:
>Free will is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action.
This is not a definition and doesn't mean anything. Again, "free" means nothing.
Let's say the world is only deterministic. Then according to many you have no "free will".
So free will must be the ability to show behaviour, that is not predicted by natural laws. I guess with "free" you mean "free from laws of nature". But is this "free"? How do you choose your behaviour? You follow your feelings - but you can't choose your feelings,so they are not what makes you free. You follow your logic - but logic is deterministic. So logic doesn't make you free. You could show random behaviour. But randomness isn't free at all.
This is why "free" has no meaning. You either follow organized rules (will) or randomness - and both things aren't "free". This is because "free" itself has no meaning at all and is a Feeling.
>>75248985
In my posts against OP I basically argued the same. That's why I said I try and stay positive about it because in the end it doesn't fucking matter whether it's real or not. The illusion is enough to keep me going and if it ends up being deterministic then I was meant to be a positive person trying to make change. In the end that's what I'll try and do, but whether it's free will or some bullshit fate guiding me it sure as hell feels like free will. You're still a faggot Paddy.
>>75248455
>people let it happen
How do people "let" tsunamis and earthquakes happen?
>>75246836
Who cares if everything is done with "insert word here". If its not " insert word here" the only difference is that we will have to create a new word so then its done by "insert different word here". Its just semantic bullshit like when people say they're using Linux and then those who say "actually Linux isn't an operation yourself what your actually using is gnu/ bullshit semantic crap that noone cares about".
>>75249126
You just gave a definition of free then spent the rest of your post claiming there is no definition. You are arguing that free will doesn't exist. That's fine, but it doesn't mean there is no definition of free. You had to define it before you could claim it didn't exist.
>>75246040
bleep bloop
>>75249355
It matters for reasons we talked about in the thread. Just one example is the legal system. Not the existence, but some policies don't make sense if we don't have free will vs. if we do.
>>75245721
No matter what you decide, it doesn't matter.
Either free will exists, or a determinist world resembles one where it does, so well that it practically does.
Think of it this way, too. In a deterministic world, information, culture, science, religion, relationships, society, pretty much everything - it all just doesn't actually exist, but is a procedural byproduct of us, autonomous, moist robots.
Everything occurs to certain rules, but we'll never truly, really find out, as the limit of knowledge is all that was revealed by the deterministic world this way.
By way of analogy, try to build software to run on a PC that simulates that PC. Or software to model our universe as it exists, in all of its levels of complexity.
You'll quickly find that there are swift limits to a system being able to think outside the box.
Not that it matters, since your reaction already been determined.
Or does it?
Who knows?
>>75249355
Operation yourself = operating system
Fucking phone auto corrects
>>75249434
And what would those policies be?
>tfw I'm not gay since destiny decided I would check out Sarina Valentina
>>75248445
Good point
>>75245721
this is not even a question anymore it's just a matter of semantics
>>75249533
Anything that is mainly punitive instead of deterrence or rehabilitative no longer makes any sense.
By the way the US supreme court has openly said our legal system depends on a belief in free will.
>>75245721
Here we have the two most common contradictions of the argument of "Will".
>>75245882
>>75246010
It is easy for one to say, I made a decision because I simply decided upon doing so. It's even easier for one to say that such a decision was already made before it was ever processed by the mind. This comment is made after the statement: "I chose to post this reply.
Hence I have free will"
The belief that we have no free will is a belief that says the human brain does not control your thoughts, body, and actions. But instead these decisions are made before even being processed by the individual.
>>75246391
>le science man argument
The question of free will is far more complicated. Your argument relies on the assumption that the universe is a causal system. I have not yet seen a good argument in favor of the causality of the universe. Not only that but our concept of time breaks down under certain conditions, such as moving at very high speeds.
You can't perceive the current moment due to the electronic limitations of the human mind. There is no way for a human to predict the future with perfect accuracy unless the present is known with perfect accuracy. At least this is assuming that "consciousness" is the perception of the traversal of 3D states "lined up" in an upper dimension. If we lack free will then we are simply on a set "track" of 3D states observed from our perspective (human sensory functions). Relative to the human consciousness, I currently think that we do have free will.
Ultimately I think the problem is that there is currently no known experiment to make a determination one or way another. There is also no known way to determine whether or not the experience of being conscious is the same for every human.
Your argument is taken from the viewpoint of a "god" who is "looking down" on a timeline that already happened. From that perspective, it would seem that everything is predetermined. However, just because there is now a 100% chance that I ate toast this morning with my breakfast, at which point (from my perspective) in time before eating the toast would I be able to predict it? At this point we would be getting into Zeno's Arrow. If time is continuous then it seems impossible to make a prediction. It is even worse if there exists a quantum of time, because then you are locked in to the exact same moment as the rest of the universe, and at this point it no longer even matters if the universe is causal because you can never observe its current state anyway.
>>75249752
>The belief that we have no free will is a belief that says the human brain does not control your thoughts, body, and actions
It's a belief that the conscious mind doesn't control it. Not that the brain doesn't.
>>75249645
The illusion of free will basically is free will though and shouldn't change anything whether or not technically its true.
Let's say someone is afraid to seel drugs because they might go to prison in 2 scenarios:
a) technically we have free will
b) technically we have no free will
In situation a) the incentive not to do the crime is fear of the prison, the person chose not to sell drugs because of the punishment.
In situation b) the incentive not to do the crime is fear of the prison, the chemical reactions in the persons brain chose not to sell drugs because of the punishment.
Whether its your actual free will or just chemicals in your brain reacting to the environment changes nothing about any scenario
>>75245721
You just started a thread about free will without defining it first.
Discussions about semantics and not the subject itself are going to be found in this thread.
>>75249882
So essentially the belief is that the brain may have stimulated predetermined reactions, while the conscious mind does not?
>>75249963
No the illusion is not. What do you not get about this. The illusion is an illusion because it's not the same as the real thing. If it was it wouldn't be an illusion.
Both of your examples are deterrence motives. I said it's ones that are purely punitive that would not make sense without free will. Deterrence motives like you said would make perfect sense.
>>75249377
Not following natural laws can't be an ultimate definition of free will, because there could still be something super-natural that leads you. I just assumed it's your definition, because many who don't think much about it define it this way.
I didn't argue it doesn't exist, I argued that there's no thing you can even define as "free", no matter if you believe in natural laws or not.
Something leads you to a behaviour (natural or not) or it's pure randomness. If you can't define it then searching for it is going in circels and a play with words (but philosophy loves this).
You could only say freedom is to be "free from X" (like being free from natural laws), but then you it give it your personal special meaning which can't be used for an universal proof.
>>75250084
It's defined in the book but you're right a definition is important. I am too lazy right now but would be good if someone can go look up the definition from the book.
>>75250249
You started the discussion but you aren't willing to put forth evidence to support your claim?
>>75250174
Yes. Determinists are materialists. They believe everything is coming from the brain. The question is only whether we have conscious control that can override and do otherwise than something determined (or only feel like we do)
>>75250188
Tell me a situation that would play out differently, a specific situation. Sending someone to prison is punitive. Whether you punish someone to deter others or to just make them pay for their crime makes no difference with regards to free will
>>75250295
I didn't make any claim. I asked if people are driven crazy by the question. So what evidence can I give for a question like that?
>>75250347
We can do studies to see if a certain punishment deters other people from committing the same crime. If it does, then it makes sense to have it as a deterrent. If it doesn't, there are times people will say "Well we should still use that punishment just to make the person pay for what they did." That would no longer make sense. We would only want to use punishments based on how well they deter others. See? And in deciding which punishment out of many to use we would pick the one that has the most deterrence, not the one we think 'serves the person right."
>>75250315
Is there evidence of another form of conscious control that can "override" the decision making factor? I suppose the only thing I can remotely think of is the fight or flight response.
Are you saying that the brain is pre-wired to make decisions before encountering them?
You can choose a path thats clear.
I will choose freewill
>>75250464
Valid point. I assumed that you believed that there was no such thing as free will due to what you have posted thus far.
What do you think? Do we have free will or not?
>>75245721
>reading jew books
>>75245721
THIS QUESTION IS POSTMODERN DEGENERACY INCARNATE DELETE THIS REEEEE
Seriously though, even our atheist cuck friends are engaging with it by simply redefining all the terms used and then going "lol of course we have/don't have it".
If you are asking yourself this question or someone asks it of you, don't treat it like it makes any sense.
free will does not exist as your every action is based upon your past experiences and knowledge as well as your genes, none of which you had any say in and thus did not decide for yourself
for example, if i were not to have known this, i would merely have ignored this thread as i had nothing to input, but instead i explained it to you
and i felt the need to bring up that my example is yet another example, and so is this
>>75250649
I'm not saying anything. I'm only telling you what determinists say.
>>75250700
Someone give this man a medal.
>>75245721
It can't be proven either way due to liberal logic, so debating is pointless. This is all just speculation, even if we found a way to test it, people would say it was predestined to happen that way. You have to believe you are wrong about free will existing to prove it exists. And if no one believes it exists, no one believes it exists. It is contradictory loop.
>>75250732
If I knew the answer I wouldn't have posted a thread asking if this question drives people crazy. I'd be worrying about some other question that I hadn't already figured out.
>>75250775
But you also could have known all this and still not answered the thread. Yet you chose to answer it. The question is did you really have a choice?
>>75250249
I cannot help you with that, but I am pretty sure Harris view of the topic can be summarized Schopenhauer's famous quote.
>>75250952
"Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills"
Yes Harris mentions that either in the book or in talks on it.
>>75246572
>it's pure coincidence that true name of apple was "fruit of the knowledge of good and evil"
Do reszty dojdziesz sam (mała podpowiedź: Jeśli nie wiesz że grzeszysz to nie grzeszysz)
>>75250907
i did not have a choice, just as i had no choice but to reply to your post, as this is what my previous experiences and my biology has determined for me to do if i were to encounter this exact situation at this exact moment
it is of course intricate and not easily explainable, particularly since we do not know anything about how the human brain functions, but it does not make it any less real, i had no choice in the matter
>Whiny little children ask about free will.
>Dr Who happens to be passing your point in time to catch your thread.
>You tell them that in meditation when you clear your mind. Your consciousness no longer exists in a single point of time and you have the ability to alter your past and future.
>The children look at you baffled.
>You make them look at your post number.
>You leave your children in the hopes that your children will one day join you on the tardis.
>>75245882
Track your 'will' from initial thought to final action and you'll see nothing but a system of causation.
ITT People casually use 'you' as if personality transcends a ghost in the machine and then get flabbergasted when that 'you' is able to make 'choices', which is clearly impossible because it's just an abstraction of brain chemistry, but is also clearly possible because it's a person and human thought uses concepts like 'choice' and 'I DECIDE', which matter for our personal narratives and justice and shit.
>>75245721
Ugh. Sorry OP I'm actually very interested in untangling this question but people can't seem to shake their intuition, ya know? I guess I'm one of those triggered people.
>>75245721
I exercise my free will, by ignoring this thread.
>>75245721
It's not a "question," it's idiocy.
>>75245721
Good book and a good topic.
There's lots of threads to pull, but I'll try to outline a paradigm I see as consistent and see what you all think.
If we take Harris as correct, it would make sense to think of reality and our past and future as fixed, or single timeline. We can understand the feeling of choice if we recognize man's limited knowledge of the context of their choices. Suppose you were omniscient, and the world is deterministic. You would have full knowledge of yourself, and full knowledge of the external world. In such a situation, the idea of choice would disappear. Things like this are reflected in our everyday language, with phrases like "I didn't have a choice." We feel that loss of options when our knowledge sufficiently informs the situation. Uncertainty, then, creates the illusion of options. Since we are not omniscient, we make the best educated guesses we can, and act accordingly. If asked to justify our choices later, we can usually create a narrative, but this doesn't give us freedom in any real sense. If you feel that you have choices available to you, you either don't have sufficient knowledge about what you want, or you don't know enough about how to get it.
If this seems dense or ivory tower, there's a few matrix quotes that I feel capture the mindset rather well. The Oracle, despite being portrayed in the movie as a chaotic agent and proponent of choice, seems rather deterministic in her advice, which would make sense given the external omniscience the 'eyes of the oracle' granted.
The Oracle: You have the sight now, Neo. You are looking at the world without time.
Neo: Then why can't I see what happens to her?
The Oracle: We can never see past the choices we don't understand.
Neo: Are you saying I have to choose whether Trinity lives or dies?
The Oracle: No, you've already made the choice. Now you have to understand it.
>>75252068
too long for the 2nd quote
Neo: But if you already know, how can I make a choice?
The Oracle: Because you didn't come here to make the choice, you've already made it. You're here to try to understand *why* you made it.
>>75250577
That has nothing to so with the technicality of free will
>>75245721
>Sam Harris
Shmuel Horowitz is a kike, not a philosopher or a theologian.
>>75245721
You have free will all the time except for the moment between your birth and your death.
>>75245721
>being unironically atheist
>>75247228
What is the source of this comic?
>>75245721
most misunderstood question ever desu
>>75252068
>>75252177
> you you you you you you you you you you
How come it does not bother you that the question only makes sense when natural mechanical determinism comes into contact with human thought and its abstraction?
So Neo and the Oracle are both pretty much programs having this conversation inside the matrix, and Neo is having some fairly mild issues with the *existence* of an oracle. Since Neo is supposed to also be an actual human being, none of what the oracle says makes any fucking sense. This poor guy is getting run over by vague arguments because the movie decided that having an oracle that can prove her predictive power should also make him doubt his own role in things.
You know, actually, I'm mostly curious how you figure that 'choices' are somehow 'real' even though they are just thoughts we use to make sense of things.
>>75245721
bitches and goes dont know about Arthur Schopenhauer, who already anwsered the question
>>75246593
So your fate is determined by people who willfully manipulate people who disbelieve free will.
>>75245721
Sam Harris claims here's no free will.
Causes further depression in european descendants and despair using pseudo intellectualism as his tool.
>jewish
Every Time. Stop being a good goy and buying into jewish tricks.
You are given a choice, not free will.
>>75245721
That what we call free will is driven by causation in completely irrelevant. Human beings are obviously able to rearrange the causes of the free will.
All this shit is a leftist meme to destroy freedom.
>>75253072
What causes humans to rearrange the causes of the free will?
>>75245721
This is just fucking semantics and proto greek bullshit phillosophy. We can eternally argue about it.
As a human bean you behave as a human, your mind works certain way so your will isnt free. You are slave to the laws of physics and chemistry, therefore you cant possess ultimatly free will. But who fucking cares? You can choose from multiple options. Why care about the freedom in sonethibg you cant change?
>>75253213
I think he means the somewhat ironic fact that we're quite "free" to make anything of this question that we want. So, fuck leftism.
>>75253386
>>75253436
Seems like you guys are saying that we have a will, but not free will.
We don't have free will but we experience life and he world as though we did, so it's irrelevant. all that matters is that we live authentically and project ourselves toward ends that will allow us to die with dignity
>>75253623
Think about it as playing Rpg you have choice, but limited
>>75246206
>>75246206
at least the polish dont walk around in skirts
>>75246010
Likelihood is not certainty. People act irrationally and out of character from time to time with little or no reason. Don't let chaos scare you
>>75247432
But you dont know this, you cant go back in time and where you would have a desire for something you would have now a desire for something else. you cannot check this until we have timetravel
>>75253717
""""""""""""""choice""""""""""""""
>>75253623
Well I'm actually trying my hardest to engage with this question while maintaining the position that it's human-centered egotripping to even ask this.
We have will but not 'free' will? I have to ask: do you think humans would only be 'free' if their personality/character/soul were unfettered by basic things like chemistry and physics? Or even reality itself?
My position is that the question is retarded. It's asking for a classification of something into two (or a few) human categories based on nothing related to reality. If you try to approach the question treating humans as input/output machines without any regard for the existence of abstract concepts like 'choice' the confusion vanishes. We're all part of the same reality, but individual brains are comfortable to think of as individual agents.
Maybe I'm actually counter-curious what the people asking this question hope to settle with it. If we're talking things like justice and coercion or possibly damage/drugs-related changing of brain chemistry, then all of this is relevant to the matter of 'responsibility'.
Consider this: if there were no quantum theory and all matter/energy behaved according to fairly simple laws that no human could ever fully grasp in real time, how would this change anything about you as a person? Anything at all?
>>75254265
The question of free will is fundamentally interlinked with the brain of humans. Saying this question is unrelated to the truth of reality is kinda absurd.
>>75254265
Actually before some smartass points it out: I realize that there are a lot of very serious efforts to formalize the notion of 'free' as well as 'will'. I always applaud these efforts although I think they're an attention-grab if they don't specifically use ANY OTHER WORD but those two. This isn't anything like asking whether or not the sky is blue.
>>75254629
The questions itself is not related to reality at all. Why would you say that that is absurd? Do you see this thread full of people struggling to find a common ground about what a 'will' is? Let alone what 'free' means?
Really man I'm not trying to dismiss the question as retarded because it might be unimportant. It's clearly important, as evidenced by the thousands of years of history we have with it. What I'm saying is the form of the question "Does Free Will Exist?" tends to be an appeal to intuition until long technical essays are written that hopefully make those terms more 'real'.
But anyway, to make it more real, what are you hoping to settle with this question? Why do you figure it should be phrased as a yes/no type of thing? Why do you feel like you have a grasp of what 'free' and 'will' mean, despite those concepts probably being more complicated than your average space shuttle? I'm really not trying to derail.
>>75245721
>our brain is working like anything else, on the basis of scientific principles, set conditions produce a set outcome and only that set outcome, therefore, there is not "magic" in our choises, much like a computer, we only react acording to the initial input we where exposed to fom birth, choise is what we call the ignorence of what drives us, freedom is the ability for us to do as we tend to.
>>75254840
>The questions itself is not related to reality at all.
I was referring to human behavior, which obviously is a active subject matter in science.
The term 'will' might be difficult to define, but I think one can agree that 'free' means 'without any constraint'. In this case being under at least one form of constraint would be the opposite of 'free'.
I believe we can make logical statements according to exact definition of words, but this becomes a problem when a single term can mean different things. This is why this debate isn't settled yet, because 'free will' is given various meanings.
What is wrong with seeking yes/no answers?
>>75255468
sorry for length
> I was referring to human behavior, which obviously is a active subject matter in science.
Human behavior is absolutely a scientificallly interesting field. But surely you are not so bold as to parlay a particularly phrased problem to 'legitimate' status using the field it's in? My whole problem with the question is that it's insoluable as a scientific question until the terms used are formalized to such an extent that the confusion disappears almost completely, although interesting arguments and theories are still the result. It's a nice way to pique interest, I'll concede.
> The term 'will' might be difficult to define, but I think one can agree that 'free' means 'without any constraint'. In this case being under at least one form of constraint would be the opposite of 'free'.
Well if that's the case then I would reply that we are all part of reality, so 'without any constraint' we are certaintly not. However, that what makes up a personality is as tricky to pin down as anything we have come up with. Brain chemistry affects personality, drugs affects personality, damage affect personality. We can try to talk of a single brain as an input/output machine but even then we can't pin down what exactly is (you). So I fear that even in this admittedly general formulation you are skipping over determining what is the possibly yes/no unfettered agent roaming reality.
>>75255468
>>75256427
(cont.)
> I believe we can make logical statements according to exact definition of words, but this becomes a problem when a single term can mean different things. This is why this debate isn't settled yet, because 'free will' is given various meanings.
I agree that we are at liberty define words as we see fit, and then go to work with logic to make deductions about them. But of course when we are able to choose the meaning of 'free will' the debate can never be settled. Everybody's making their own observations about reality or the relations between concepts. As a discussion Rorschach test the question is interesting, but that's where its scientific relevance stops until further clarified. I think we might be disagreeing about what the purpose of a question is?
> What is wrong with seeking yes/no answers?
Well there isn't anything wrong with this as long as the question was interesting to begin with. In this case I feel like the question comes from an intuitive confusion we feel about our role in reality. It is informed mostly by a sense of contrast between our thoughts and our physical presence, and the result is that we try to formalize (you) as an agent. If (you) is a collection of neurons then we have no choice in the matter, but if (you) is a collection of thoughts manifested in those neurons and only perceived by (you), then maybe?
At any rate it's clear that I (possibly like OP) have a problem with the Rorschachy nature of the question, so I think we should try to leave it behind in its yes/no form and try to focus on the problem of imagining (you) as a ghost in the machine. This also happens to be the only part that's interesting for the justice system, since temporary insanity and mind-altering drugs are extremely relevant to court proceedings.
No, I've solved this to my satisfaction. Most people have the capacity for free will but don't exercise it because it's so much easier the other way.
>>75245721
Yes, op, why did you ask it?
>>75252814
I wasn't trying to say that choices weren't real, I was trying to say that they're not free. That's Harris' argument, and the Oracle quotes align with that worldview.
Which question were you referring to with regard to natural mechanical determinism?
>>75256427
>but even then we can't pin down what exactly is (you)
My body is me, my brain is me, my consciousness is me. It's hard to pin down because (you) is a very ambiguous term.
>I think we might be disagreeing about what the purpose of a question is?
Obviously this is a personal thing, but questions should be used to decrease the distance from current hypothesis and the truth.
>Well there isn't anything wrong with this as long as the question was interesting to begin with
You need to know the answer to basic yes/no questions in order to do anything.
Does drinking water still my thirst? Does lifting this weight eight times make my muscle grow? etc... Questions are interesting depending on ones goal.
>but if (you) is a collection of thoughts manifested in those neurons and only perceived by (you), then maybe?
In both cases there are choices.
Laws shouldn't affect you how you view a topic. Some laws can be illogical while you know better.
There is no free will, strong a strong illusion that there is.
>>75257712
> My body is me, my brain is me, my consciousness is me. It's hard to pin down because (you) is a very ambiguous term.
Exactly, although I'm particularly interested in how you view this 'consciousness'. Do you think a star is a well-defined object or just a conveniently delineated blob of gas? And at any rate, if the term is so ambigious, how come we keep asking this elementary school question of ourselves and others, almost obsessively searching for an answer? I suspect that we would agree on most points but I think the question is tainted by intuition, emotion, and a disregard for abstract/natural objects.
> Obviously this is a personal thing, but questions should be used to decrease the distance from current hypothesis and the truth.
Interesting. That is certainly a nice goal to have, but I think that my faith in words and concepts to describe reality is rather a bit more limited. Our quest for 'truth' in that sense is bound by our ability to cut reality at the joints, such as with (you) and 'free will'. It's one thing to get from hypothesis to truth when talking about the sky being blue, quite another when it's whether or not feminism is empowering. In other words, there's no such thing as any of them, and even rather obvious things like the sky or 'your body' can be pushed to definitional extremes with only a little effort. This makes question entirely dependent on the concepts used, and so no question is a priori sensible or useful. Some people write entirely logical essays about fictional entities.
>>75257712>
>75258471
> You need to know the answer to basic yes/no questions in order to do anything.
This does not justify all future yes/no questions, and neither was I decrying all yes/no questions #notallyesnoquestions. I'm very glad you mention goals though, because 'water' and 'thirst' are much easier to point to than our existential crises phrased in the english language.
> In both cases there are choices.
I really don't see how 'without any constraint' makes any sense. Choices we might have depending on what you view those as, but as mechanical systems we are just plugged into reality. Very dull.
> Laws shouldn't affect you how you view a topic. Some laws can be illogical while you know better.
Well, I don't think any topic has any particular correct view one should strive for. Rather we're just building a bunch of hopefully organized concepts and theories. Like you said a few lines earlier, the goal is what matters. I'm arguing why I don't like the question and think we should abandon it. I'm getting the feeling you interpret that as me ignoring a part of reality, which does not seem fair. I just think the question is naive.
>>75257673
me: I'm mostly curious how you figure that 'choices' are somehow 'real'
you: I wasn't trying to say that choices weren't real
I think we may have lost something in translation there.
My problem with this debate is that you and Sam Harris talk of 'choice' as something a certain kind of free agent (you) may or may not have. He basically argues at length that whichever way we define thoughts as manifesting in the physical system of the brain, it's clear they are not 'free' from outside influence or the laws of nature. Because there's no magical dimensional barrier between 'consciousness' and where it's manifesting in. This seems to settle the debate almost by definition... but how?
The problem with this argument is that I think the original question comes from people who view themselves, i.e. (you), as thoughts that might be constrained by many things (like stupidity or alcohol or alzheimers or god or the laws of physics or...) but nevertheless constitute a sensible 'free agent', namely one which might operate under certain rules but somehow deserves to be its own....thing....in reality. As a scientific matter both approaches are sensible, although the latter is strictly an abstract one.
To me, all the nonsense about interpretation of quantum mechanics illustrate this point. Whether the natural laws are this or that doesnt affect our concept of choice, and neither does it fundamentally alter what we consider to be 'ourselves', what we view as truly 'me'. The physicists and atheists keep pointing to the brain as a mechanical system, possibly unfathomably complex cause of physics, and that's that. But that answer is unsatisfying because what makes us a person is something that manifests in the grey goo.
Also religion and souls mess everything up.
>>75257712
>my body is me, my brain is me, my consciousness is me.
If you believe this, you can't believe in free will. Your body and your brain are absolutely deterministic, biological machines different from an ant or a bush only in complexity.
I think the only way to get free will is to put the consciousness above matter. However, if you do that in a dualistic sense, it's an easy argument to dismantle, because how can a non material thing possibly interact with a material thing?
What you have to do is also raise matter above the usual idea of matter, that is that matter is also immaterial.
Think of the chair you're sitting in. You know for a fact that it's 99% empty space because it's made up of atoms, but it seems solid. The entire universe around you works like that, where what you're experiencing is way off the mark of whats actually real. It's all a 3d hologram your brain is projecting outward from inside your head. Your waking reality is every bit as made up as your dreams, except you share waking reality with other people and things also just making shit up. Literally, reality is a bunch of minds making shit up and agreeing on it, to the point that getting a bunch of minds together to believe something different changes physical reality (for laboratory proven example, influencing a random number generator). That's because consciousness creates matter and not the other way around.
At that point, free will becomes entirely possible if one can separate material influences from their conscious decision making (with meditation, lucid dreaming, arguably drugs).
>>75258471
>>75258528
I only know that our brain is somehow creating this thing which we call consciousness. I have no deeper view than this.
>I suspect that we would agree on most points but I think the question is tainted by intuition, emotion, and a disregard for abstract/natural objects.
Of course it is, I suspect that most people feel like they are in control of their thoughts and actions therefor this question is arising from these emotions.
The question about the sky has less unknown variables (how much does the atmosphere alter the wavelength of the sunlight being one of them) whereas the question about feminism is more complicated since it involves a huge part of society.
We can easily map out the mechanics happening in the process of light hitting our eyes, but this cannot be said about the second question.
>I really don't see how 'without any constraint' makes any sense.
It's just the definition of the word 'free'. Choices are the same whether you view them in macro or micro.
>I'm getting the feeling you interpret that as me ignoring a part of reality, which does not seem fair
I apologize for creating this perception, but its not my intended message to you. As you stated above by mentioned the essays about fictional entities, I think it's useful and also interesting to be able to make logical statements even if the topic isn't particular interesting or if it doesn't have any practical benefit to it.
>>75245721
Am I driven crazy by it? Yes
Will asking about it on a Norwegian ice-canoe word processor daisy chain do anything productive? Nein
>>75259747
I agree, that we cannot perceive the real world directly.
>free will becomes entirely possible if one can separate material influences from their conscious decision making
Again the solution in this debate depends on your definition.
If free will is about having no constraints while thinking/planning we absolutely do not have free will.
If free will is about making rational choices than this is also constrained by your cognitive ability, but under this definition we certainly have free will.
>>75254065
But it will. Chemical reactions in our brain determine our every action. We are slaves to our brain but our brain is part of us and the illusion of choice is great enough to be considered real.
If you go back in time and just observe as an invisible entity then things will play out the exact same.
If you go back in time and alter the environment then peoples and animals brains will react to these changes and will adjust the behaviour of the bodies actions accordingly. And will do so every time
Choice in any situation is entirely an illusion
You have no control over whether you have free will or not. If you were to learn that you do or don't have it, what could you possibly do to change it?
Stop concerning yourself with meaningless thoughts.
>>75259747
Except saying that the mind is "immaterial" (whatever the fuck that means) doesn't solve anything. The principle of sufficient reason still applies, even to non-physical things.
I thought it's somewhat established there is no free will in the general sense? Something about neural impulses for seemingly premediated actions beginning measurably earlier then they are consciously perceived? In day to day language it's like your body decides to do something subconsciously and then makes you think you decided to do it out of "free will". That's just some pop science i read somewhere tho. I'm no neurologist.
>>75262061
You are right. Neuroscientists have been able to predict actions before the person is aware of deciding them since the Libet's experiment.
As someone who believes in determinism, I'm just going to wait and see how I respond.
>>75260870
> I only know that our brain is somehow creating this thing which we call consciousness.
> the question about feminism is more complicated since it involves a huge part of society.
> It's just the definition of the word 'free'. Choices are the same whether you view them in macro or micro.
I would argue there is a more fundamental difference between the sky and feminism than conceptual scale. Questions such as "Is Feminism Good?" are great for inspiring debate, but will ultimately lead to a bunch of different perspectives and observations. There is nothing to be settled. If you push the definition of 'sky' and 'blue' to its extremes you will run into similar problems, but luckily no scientist cares whether the sky is *really* blue. We just have definitions and experiments, and even things like electrons and photons (and color and frequency) are not obviously real.
My impression is that with "Do we have free will?" we have allowed ourselves to be taken in by intuition and language to create a problem that has no resolution, but feels like it should have. The actual underlying issue seems to me to be figuring out what really makes up our identity. Can we really say that we're a different person when we drink alcohol? What about being tired or ill? Or 'angry'? The reason I and others keep bringing up these specific influences as opposed to just lumping them together as 'Reality' is to try to focus intuition. We already feel like (you) + hungry is somehow different from (you). So if hungry (you) is trying to make a choice, then makes it, did (you) really make it? Welp. Stuck.
> I apologize for creating this perception, but its not my intended message to you.
It's all good man. If it wasn't there it wasn't there. Sometimes it seems "that question deserves no answer" is mistaken to mean the whole matter is irrelevant, like that other anon that used *human behavior* in general to defend the question. I just think we should be doing something else.
