Haven't had one of these in a while. I'm up for an argument.
Free will believers, I cordially invite you to prove that free will exists, and I ask you as well, what caused you to believe in it?
Free will skeptics, when did you begin to doubt the existence of free will, and what *caused* you to doubt it? What are your arguments for disproving the existence of free will?
OP here, bumping. Will the thread succeed or fail?
Perhaps it is predetermined.
>>25265617
You have free will to an extent, but really you are just a slave to your animal instincts and emotions.
Think about it the moment you get testosterone surging into your noggin you start seeing women as cute and start pardoning any shit they do because you want the vagina where as a homosexual would treat women like any rational person would. When you are denied happiness you get sad, this is an automatic mental function meaning outside of your control and this no free will at all.
The only time a human has free will is when they have no emotions, and no instincts. Only consious rational thought.
>>25266525
How would you define the term "free will"?
Also, I don't think there's ever a time when a human is free of instinct. Our subconscious is always active, and our instinctive urges and behaviors are in there and influencing us, even if we're not consciously aware of their influence at a given time.
>>25266756
Free will is the ability to do as you will without any outside force pulling all the strings. Most human beings can resist their animal instincts and only act on it if you get them apeshit bad or horny as fuck. Emotions are just mental states that make us more impulsive meaning emotions are the opposite of free will they are mental slavery.
>>25266807
>Free will is the ability to do as you will without any outside force pulling all the strings.
But you seem to be saying that even internal forces like emotions, instincts, et cetera also negate free will. Those aren't "outside" forces--they're "inside" (your mind/brain).
>Emotions are just mental states that make us more impulsive
Not all emotions are like that. Sometimes emotions can make a person less impulsive.
>Hot drinks promote warm feelings
"If you want someone to warm to you give them a steaming hot drink, say US researchers.
People are more likely to judge strangers as welcoming and trustworthy when they are holding a hot cup of coffee, experiments show.
Volunteers rated people as 11% "warmer" after holding a hot drink than after holding a cold drink, the study in Science reports.
The warmth of a drink also influenced how selfish participants were.
In one test 41 volunteers were tricked into holding a drink while they were being taken from the lobby to the laboratory.
They were then asked to read about a fictional character and rate how cold or warm they found them on a scale of one to seven.
Those who had held the hot drink were significantly more likely to rate the character as a warm person.
But the warmth of the drink had no impact on how the participants judged other personality traits.
Selfishness
In a second study, 53 people were asked to hold heated or frozen therapeutic pads believing they were evaluating a medical product.
Once they had completed a questionnaire about the pads they were offered a choice of a drink for themselves or a voucher they could give to a friend.
Those primed with coldness were more likely to choose a gift for themselves, while those primed with warmth were more likely to choose the gift for a friend.
It is not the first time temperature has been linked with emotion - a recent study found that people who were lonely reported feeling colder.
The researchers said the findings suggests that saying that someone is warm is not just a simple metaphor but a literal description of emotions such as trust, first experienced between mother and child during infancy."
Full article here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7688315.stm
If your judgment can be impacted w/o you being consciously aware of it by something as simple as a warm cup or hot pad, where does that leave the idea that we can ever be free of external influence?
no OP here
Read that as 'Exploring the Illusion of Free Wifi' the first time I scrolled past this :/
>>25265617
I believe in free will because you have an unlimited number of possible decisions and each has its own unique outcome. No decision is impossible to make (assuming it involves something physically impossible). Even with a gun to your head, you may still decide however you want. Sure, sometimes the situation affects your decision. But it is up to you to make it.
>tfw Free Willy hasn't come on TV for a few years now
Why won't they air it?? It used to give me serious feels
>>25267862
This argument was recently addressed by Patrick Slattery on his blog.
>"The word "possibility" can be used in 2 different ways: ways that are quite often confused...leading to some huge errors in thought. This is even done by very intelligent people.
>One way has to do with our uncertainty about the future. Due to our limited prediction capabilities, we often look at and call future events in which we think at the time "could happen" as a "possibility". This type of possibility I'll call "epistemic possibility" as "epistemic" assesses our "knowledge or lack of knowledge" over the possibility.
>It's important to note that "possibility" in this epistemic sense does not necessarily align with whether something was a real possibility. It's more of a perspective over our uncertainty regarding what is and what is not a real possibility. For something to be a real possibility it needs to have an ability to be actualized. In other words, it must be able to happen. Keep in mind that this doesn't necessarily imply that it will happen, only that it "can". It's a real possibility. This is what possibility actually means -- that it may in fact happen. To distinguish this from epistemic possibility it can be qualified as well. We can call it an "ontic possibility" meaning the possibility actually "exists" in reality. Another way to qualify this is simply to say "real possibility" or say that it's "really possible" rather than simply an assessment of uncertainty in our head (epistemic possibility).
>The distinctions between these 2 ways to use the word "possibility" should not be conflated, because they are very different. When people do conflate them they make some huge mistakes. For example, they may believe that when thinking about options as "possibilities" at the time of epistemic uncertainty, that they in fact are "real" ontic possibilities. This isn't, however, necessarily the case.
http://breakingthefreewillillusion.com/possibility-confusions/
>>25268438
Due to the character limit, I couldn't repost the entire article. I'd recommend reading the whole post on the web site.
It's a very good counterargument because it quite simply explains the difference between ontological and epistemic possibilities.
>>25267890
Maybe it's on Youtube.
>whinging about animal instincts
>ignoring the whole quandary of a universe where cause and effect exists
>>25268529
Some say that on the quantum level, there are acausal events and those can somehow (maybe) influence things on a macro level. But if those quantum events are acausal, then our wills/actions can't cause them. "Acausal events" could not have causes.
So even if there were such a thing as true acausality at the quantum level, since our wills can't cause acausal quantum events , we're pretty much back where we started as far there being no "free will".
As far as our wills and actions are concerned, all that's been thrown in by entertaining the idea of acausal quantum events somehow coming up and altering our behavior would be "wildcards", that we could in no way control (because if we could control them, they wouldn't be wildcards).
>>25268701
Yeah, that shit makes my head hurt. Do you have any reading material about that premise, that doesn't require grad level maths?
>>25268770
Slattery's blog is probably the best one I've found when it comes to explaining how we don't have free will using simple English. He made this infographic which is very easy to understand.
>>25269022
Any thoughts on the idea that our sensorium just can't grok what's really going on, and the seeming paradoxes are just the result of not having proper information?
(ie, the story of blind men touching an elephant's nose and concluding they've found a snake)
>>25269157
There are things that are beyond the realm of our understanding, but the concept of "free will" in a libertarian sense is clearly illogical.
We cannot know everything, but we can infer a lot by using logic. Plus, the evidence against free will is not only rationalistic, but also empirical. Scientific study has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that our genetics cause some of our behaviors. That in and of itself puts a nail in "free will"'s coffin.
Then there are the experiments that show that our judgment can be influenced by something as simple as holding a hot drink. Add to that the documented effects of drugs on the nervous system (even drugs as common as coffee or nicotine), plus the existence of classical and operant conditioning, and the principle of cause and effect, and there really isn't any room for "free will".
Our understanding of everything is limited, but logic itself is the foundation of philosophy, and empirical evidence is the foundation of science.
If logic itself is somehow wrong (an idea that was explored by the feminist philospher Andrea Nye, who argued in her book "Words of Power" that logic itself is both wrong and misogynistic) then really none of us can know anything about anything. We couldn't trust logical inference to tell us whether cutting off our healthy, normal fingers would increase our happiness (of course, unless we were sick in the head, our subconscious/instincts would just tell us right off the bat that it wouldn't), or if it would be a good idea to eat dirt. You get what I'm saying here?
As a caveat, I should add that there do seem to be some places where logic does seem to break down--such as the question, was the universe (in some form--not as it is today) always there? Or was it created ex nihilo?
Those seem to be the only two possibilities, and neither makes sense.
>mind is a material object
Beat this rejoinder
>>25269470
I should add that I suppose we do know some things without reasoning or scientific exploration. We can know them a priori, by instinct. But sometimes our instincts are wrong--for example, our instincts might tell us that a better use of our time than going to high school would be going out and having sex. While that actually might be a better use of our time because most high schools are pretty shitty (that's what I think, at least) and having sex would probably make us feel better than sitting in some boring class, if we were under 16 then we could get arrested for truancy. So our instinct could be wrong because there are other factors in play.
(No, I'm no longer in high school myself. Nipping that opening right in the bud).
>>25265617
>>25266525
even when youre free of emotions and insticts you will have no "free will"
everything you do, think, want, and feel is based off off what youve experienced in the past, you wont fear dogs if the only one you ever saw was a loving puppy
if you are free of emotions and insticts, and only think logically, then you still base your actions on what you know
>tfw normies say youre crazy when you want to steal newborn babies for an social experiment
>>25269846
>if you are free of emotions and insticts, and only think logically, then you still base your actions on what you know
I don't think anyone is ever entirely free of emotions and instincts, but if they were as close to it as possible, that person would almost certainly be rendered psychotic and a danger to themselves and others.
We need emotions and instincts to think clearly. They can sometimes make us less rational, but other times they help us to be rational.
Reduced ability to feel emotions actually is an early warning sign of psychotic disorder.
>>25269846
>>25269956
also, without emotions youd lose passion and motivation completely, youd probably eat, and sleep, but youd feel no need to socialize, have hobbies, etc
without emotion you are a fucking plant
(i guess that the human race is more like a parasite but thats a whole different story)
I'm predetermined to believe in free will
>>25270148
That shit really bugs me man!
I've read people arguing that we should be organizing our society along more rational lines (ie, trying to heal criminal behavior as a systemic problem rather than punishing individuals)--but if we're deterministic robots, doesn't it make just as much sense to indulge our craving for institutional vengeance, and/or destroy or isolate "malfunctioning units"?
>>25270224
>but if we're deterministic robots, doesn't it make just as much sense to indulge our craving for institutional vengeance, and/or destroy or isolate "malfunctioning units"?
I mean, certain "malfunctioning units" have to be isolated for their own safety and the safety of others, granted.
But the craving for vengeance for its own sake itself is largely driven by free will belief. If you're not a psychopath, then it's likely that as you come to understand that free will is an illusion, you'll have less and less desire for vengeance for vengeance's sake.
A lack of free will belief doesn't imply moral nihlism, either. There can still be "right" and "wrong" (under utilitarian definitions)--it's just that we can't "freely" choose between them.
It doesn't matter.
A world in which determinism holds true or doesn't is functionally the same.
Free will is a concept that works in a local space.
>prove
Empiricist solipsism.
Only secular layturds believe in determinism.
Your weak argument is based off of the myth that the mind is influenced, rather than influences.
>>25269470
>We cannot know everything, but we can infer a lot by using logic. Plus, the evidence against free will is not only rationalistic, but also empirical. Scientific study has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that our genetics cause some of our behaviors. That in and of itself puts a nail in "free will"'s coffin.
Holy shit, empiricists actually believe this.
>evidence
>reason
Short for: "i have no argument--here's ideology instead"
>>25270224
>rational
Meaningless statement
>>25270529
Understanding that free will is an illusion has major implications for how we treat others, how we treat ourselves, and how we make "decisions".
Operating under free will belief is operating under a false premise. We generally do better when we operate on true premises.
>>25269737
>reason exists
>MUH OBSERBERBBERBATION MEANS I KNOW THING
>>25270499
Utilitarian definitions are arbitrary and thereby wrong.
>>25270563
See: >>25270551
There is only my will and you are all my puppets
>>25265617
Faggot nerdbooks aside, that guy makes a mean taco sauce.
>>25270551
>Your weak argument is based off of the myth that the mind is influenced, rather than influences.
It's both, and this should be obvious. The existence of memes prove that one mind can influence other minds. The existence of conditioning proves that the mind can be influenced by experiences and events.
>>25270617
>obvious
No rigor; post discarded.
Try again.
>>25270595
>Utilitarian definitions are arbitrary and thereby wrong.
What do you mean by "arbitrary"?
Does any definition of anything fall outside that "arbitrary" classification?
Maybe this is overwrought, but consider the timeline of the universe as a possibility density cloud that is only solidified into the past by observation, a la Heisenberg. Action is the only thing that turns possibility into absolutes.
Fundamentally, there are phenomena in nature that are random. That fact alone eliminates predestination.
>>25270640
Arbitrary is well-defined, you moron.
In plain English, anything done for a non-absolute reason is arbitrary.
We think within a context. Our society was built around the ideals and actions of our forefathers and mothers. Common sense dictates that you will not speak Chinese when you grow up around English speakers. We will not learne beyond our experiences, we simply cannot think outside of the context we are provided.
We can't comprehend anything beyond our own eperiences, and even when we are taught concepts beyond our own imagination, we can't think outside of our box without being able to compare what we've learned to our own experiences. We literally can't know what lies beyond our own perception.
I know this because it's obvious. We are blind to the world. I learned this through the works of philosophers and radical feminists.
>>25270763
>Common sense
>We can't comprehend anything beyond our own experiences
>I know this because it's obvious
No rigor; post discarded.
>>25270601
Did I not just cause you to think about corn?
>>25270699
Is the definition of the word "arbitrary" arbitrary?
Even if free will did exist, you couldn't really hold people morally responsible for their actions since they did not choose to be born. However somebody chooses to react to their life is equally valid, they have no obligations to other people.
>>25270807
No, because there was purpose and intent behind developing it.
>>25270834
What was that purpose and intent?
>>25270807
Definitions are absolute.
>>25270821
Seculars believe this.
>>25270882
>Definitions are absolute.
Then utilitarian definitions of good and bad are "absolute".
>>25270783
>no real critique
And you're discarding posts?
Find an argument or proof that we can magically realize concepts that we never experienced? We imagine the world through our five sense but we can't even understand a reality beyond our perception. When people describe other senses, such as wavelengths and electrical senses, we can only imagine it as a sight or sound, or something we can perceive. We can't understand other people's pain, we can only empathize by relating their pain to ours, we can only go as far as concepts we've realized. you have to prove that such isn't the case.
A white middle class American man will see the world differently than a black Japanese woman. Even when they meet, they can only understand each as much as they understand their own lives. Neither will fully understand the other, no two humans will fully understand one-another because they can't envision each other's lives through their own experiences past a certain point. you can only fill in the gaps with what you think is there, but which is increasingly inaccurate.
>>25270858
To communicate a concept to another.
I.e. concepts (whether they're valid or invalid) exist independently. You could consider the word and it's definition as the way you "package" a concept in a communication medium to communicate that concept to others.
Similarly, emoji (like them or not) was a language invented to convey concepts through a written medium where that capability was previously insufficient. The concept of "joking" exists without the emoji, but the emoji were developed specifically to convey such concepts.
Tl;dr: The definition of arbitrary is just like any other word except the coincidence of it being the word arbitrary.
>>25270995
>To communicate a concept to another.
Utilitarian definitions of good and bad are also for the purpose of communicating concepts to others.
It's not possible to have "suffering" without tying in "bad" to it. Suffering is inherently a bad feeling. It might cause good feelings due to endorphins, or due to psychological complexes, but inherently "suffering" entails the concept of "bad".
It's not possible, so far as I can tell, to define "suffering" without using "bad" or some synonym like "negative" or "unpleasant" or "hurtful".
>>25265617
Can freewill exist if OP finds it impossible to stop watching tranny porn?
>>25266525
What about like buddha monks that can control hormones and other bodily functions?
>>25270933
hahahahahha do you even know what the hell I meant by 'absolute'?
It means they are as they are; the definition of defined, a prime example of the power of circular logic. A cake is a cake, if cake is redefined then a cake is still a cake and the old cake is something else.
>>25270956
>thing is cuz i sed it is COMMON SENSE CURRENT YEAR
Empiricists are such solipsists.
>We imagine the world through our five sense but we can't even understand a reality beyond our perception.
BCUZ I SED SO.
Like I said, NO RIGOR. A nonentity's poor interpretation of a poor interpretation of dialectics.
Free will does not exist. Hierarchy of control.
Matter/molecules > thoughts > actions
Free will believers think their thoughts or actions are independent of the physical laws of matter and the universe. This is wrong.
The entire universe is a big petri dish full of matter. There is only one possible, deterministic result of this chemical reaction.
Of course we can't predict the outcome due to the incredible complexity of the chemical reaction though. So this knowledge of free will not existing is useless to us, but true nonetheless.
>>25271033
Perhaps, but as you said, they have a purpose and intent, and are therefore not arbitrary, just as defining and naming the word "arbitrary" isn't arbitrary.
>>25267524
who ever said we'd be free of external influence? perhaps freedom is merely being aware of it. actually i have no fucking idea what makes free will free exactly.
>>25269470
epigenetics though. the life you lead determines what RNA unravels. it's quite beautiful when you think about it.
and why would logic ever dictate that you cut off your fingers?
>>25270224
we could just plant more trees in impoverished areas, it's been shown to reduce crime.
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/kbenfield/new_evidence_that_trees_reduce.html
Jesus why is every social architect a fucking moron? Just put yourself in their position: if you were surrounded by blocks of concrete all day wouldn't you break something to get the fuck out? Wouldn't that ugliness weigh on your soul after a while? people are so fucking inhumane to one another. I mean aesthetically. Aesthetically inhumane.
>>25270617
yup. output needs input.
>>25270634
no rigor?! what the fuck is your criterion?! how about you put forward some of your own ideas instead of shitting on everyone else.
>>25271106
>laws
Empiricist stupidity.
>>25271119
You're not arguing with me.
>>25271135
>no rigor?! what the fuck is your criterion?! how about you put forward some of your own ideas instead of shitting on everyone else.
I have; please learn to read.
>what the fuck is your criterion?!
Everything you argue is arbitrary or assumed, therefore you have no rigor since your firmament is like sand.
>yup. output needs input.
Why?
>>25271106
>So this knowledge of free will not existing is useless to us...
It's actually very useful. Knowing that there's no free will can imbue a person with new metacognitive insight. It also has implications for childrearing, psychology, criminal justice, and life strategies.
If you think your thoughts and actions exist in a vacuum without external influence then you really need to prove it, because otherwise we have no free will, in that we are thinking in a box of our own perception, unable to comprehend anything outside ourselves or make decisions beyond our imaginative freedom.
Can you imagine electricity without relating it to a sight, sound, or feeling? Can you honestly envision a wavelength beyond a graph that you can see, an imagined feeling, or a sense that we have?
I doubt it. In such case, we can't have free will if our experiences dictate our thoughts. Your imagination is not a free roaming entity, it is a collection of your memories and decisions made within those memories.
Anything you regret? Why did you make that decision? If you would make a better decision now, what stopped you then?
>>25271135
The idea of free will is that our thoughts and actions are independent of external influence to any degree.
But we are fully completely controlled by the physical laws of the universe and matter, since our minds and bodies are made of matter.
Some dumb fuck philosophers like to argue about the soul, or consciousness elevated from reality, etc. they are all retards.
There is nothing metaphysical in existence, at all. Everything obeys the laws of physics, which we also do not fully understand.
>>25271214
>Anything you regret? Why did you make that decision?
It seemed like a good idea at the time.
>>25271254
>no argument only positivist ideology
N O R I G OR (or bait)
>But we are fully completely controlled by the physical laws of the universe and matter, since our minds and bodies are made of matter.
Why?
>Some dumb fuck philosophers like to argue about the soul, or consciousness elevated from reality, etc. they are all retards.
Why?
>There is nothing metaphysical in existence, at all. Everything obeys the laws of physics, which we also do not fully understand.
Why?
If you can't answer these questions with an absolute answer with firm logical ground, you are a non-entity that needs to remain silent.
>>25265617
The free will vs no free will arguement is stupid.
All you over-analytical faggots need to know is that not everything can be logically explained, as human-logic only reaches the understanding of any phenomenon that can be sequenced, summed, or generalised.
While someone can have an "idea" of why something has occured, occurs, or is going to occur, you'll never have a complete defining formula for it as the existance of something "perfect" is literally (not theoretically) impossible.
>>25271214
>proof
>more empiricism
N O R I G O R
>>25271135
Fundamentally, I think that "free will" means that there are phenomena that can never be predicted, and that among those phenomena is a living being's decision. Not necessarily every decision; one decision in the history of the universe is enough for proof of concept.
>>25271135
>Just put yourself in their position
I totally agree. I'm 100% on board with progressive reforms to justice and law enforcement, but I think they make just as much sense from a traditional "greater good" "compassion based" rationale as from the logical perspective. It just doesn't make sense for a society to marginalize whole groups of people and lock them up like animals--the backlash is much more expensive than doing as Norway et al do with criminals.
It's just that, if I really internalize the idea of a deterministic universe, it's hard to care about any of it. It's like shouting at the clouds to turn back a thunderstorm.
>>25271094
It is up to you to provide evidence that we can think so boldly. Why then, do people not make the same decisions throughout their lives? Why do people regret things that didn't go wrong but they simply realized they didn't want?
To say we are fully aware of the world around us and the lives of others, is a massive statement that needs evidence.
Do you believe that upbringing has outcome on development and decisions, or do you feel we all simply "Know" the world at some point, and somehow can make decisions without context?
>>25271318
I'm not going to write a fucking book for you.
Explain why not and I'll tear apart your counter examples.
>>25271323
I don't think it's stupid to discuss free will or the lack thereof. I think free will is a destructive and harmful belief. In addition, "free will" is ultimately incoherent.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joanVUoXY0s
Your best bet is to believe that you have free will:
If we have free will, you'll be exerting your agency as you see fit. If we don't have free will, you were destined to act as you do anyway.
Make sense?
>>25271341
I don't think a lack of ability to predict a person's actions means that that person has free will.
>>25271323
The absoluteness of a deity supports a duality.
>>25271367
>evidence
Pure solipsist ideology.
Please come back when you're educated.
>>25271376
See? N O R I G O R.
I'm right, you're wrong. Empiricism is objectively wrong because it is both arbitrary and based on assumptions; your firmament is of sand, and so are your floors.
>>25271341
You're confusing free will with determinism.
And you believe in free will so that makes you a retard.
Anyone read Schopenhauer's essay on free will?
I study law and in a lecture from some psychologist guy talking about insanity defences etc. He said that most people in his field believe there is no such thing as free will.
>>25271429
See: >>25271423
Get some rigor or pull the trigger
>>25271416
If you believe that you (and by extension everyone else) have free will, then your conditioning becomes far less important (because you'll always believe you have "free will" to override your conditioning).
The way you treat others becomes less important, too (because if you treat them badly, they could just use their "free will" to not be so badly affected by it), and you're justified in having less compassion towards others who are in bad positions, because you'll be able to reckon that they got there by their own "free will".
If you realize that free will is an illusion, the importance of maintaining good conditioning for yourself and protecting yourself from bad influences becomes far more clear. You may also feel more compassion to those who have made bad "decisions", because you'll realize that they couldn't have done otherwise out of their own accord.
>>25271423
You say you're right, but why?
N O R I G O R
>>25271205
>I have
How about you humor me and restate what exactly that was. Is it that you think empiricism is shit? It's a bold opinion, but not a solid idea.
And can you actually prove my arguments are arbitrary beyond merely declaring them so? (Which is rather arbitrary of you.)
>Why?
There is nothing on the surface of the Earth that produces output of any kind without input of some variety. That's just the way life is; different forms of life feed off of one another. You needed a tremendous amount of input to get where you already are - food, love, various forms of education. You did not occur in a vacuum. You could not occur in a vacuum.
>>25271483
Memeing is not a rebuttal. I explained why, learn to read. I'm literally using high school-level English for you morons.
>>25271481
>free will is an illusion cuz i sed so
>>25271429
Free will is conceptually the other side of the coin of determinism if you subscribe to incompatibilism, which I do.
>ad hominem
Sure, whatever you say ...
>>25271429
Also, I am not this guy:
>>25271479
>>25271334
You can say no rigor until your face turns blue, but you have to provide a counterexample or you're just ignorant. You expect something that you are not able to provide.
>>25271323
This.
Its funny how a lot of people here are probably incapable of just living their own lives, because while this topic always subconsciously floats in their minds, they feel that they need an explanation for every wrong or right that has occured in their lives.
It's a shame that these people will never stop living in the past, and not even attempt making themselves a more positive future by just acting and thinking on the present.
>>25271522
>There is nothing on the surface of the Earth that produces output of any kind without input of some variety
Empiricism is an anti-argument, bub.
See: >>25271423
You slowpoke.
>observations are right and reliable
Is an arbitrary assumption.
>>25271551
I have though, read you dumbfuck.
>>25271525
There is no evidence that we have free will, and solid evidence (both logical and empirical) that we do not. Many of the logical arguments, and examples of empirical research, have already been posted in this thread.
You might enjoy this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ca7i-D4ddaw
>>25271481
I'm not arguing that we have complete control over every aspect of ourselves. There are limits to the human body and mind. But what I am arguing is that you should believe and behave as if you have at least some degree of free will, because to not do so would be to relinquish your agency when that might not be necessary or wise. If the universe really is just deterministic anyway, then it means you were predestined to believe (or at least act as if) you have some free will anyway
>>25271481
I can draw very different conclusions. No one has ever posited that "free will" is absolute--you don't have free will to keep your hand on the hot burner of a stove.
Another way to look at it is that our idea of free will is a useful model.
It's like comparing a ten day forecast to a high resolution fluid dynamics sim... it won't tell you where the rain drops will fall, but it will tell you if you're going to get wet. And it doesn't require a supercomputer!
Until a better "model" comes along, I'm hard pressed to shit on the old one... belief in your own agency, and even a bit of blind optimism, seems to have some truly amazing benefits for the organism that is me.
It also requires relatively little cognitive overhead, and generally seems to work ok when paired with more macro perspectives of society, culture, etc.
>>25271323
I disagree that everything cannot be logically explained; "You cannot ever predict the answer" is a logical explanation. See Heisenberg.
Looks like I have to escort somebody to the mall. Remember: you will always be objectively wrong.
>>25271564
IT'S LE CURRENT YEAR HAHAHAHH STOP BEING PRIMITIVE BROH
>>25271573
>evidence
Empiricist solipsism.
Empiricism has already been refuted.
I am right, you are a rigorless child flailing rather than remaining silent.
>>25271529
>Free will is conceptually the other side of the coin of determinism if you subscribe to incompatibilism, which I do.
Incompatibilism is the position that free will is incompatible with determinism, not the position that free will is the opposite of determinism.
>>25271608
But a general conclusion is only what someone can believe to be correct, unless its a sets of numbers or a language that have been logically MANMADE to add up.
>>25271656
Yes, but by positing incompatibilism, they become incompatible opposites, just like the coin faces in the analogy.
To be fair, without asserting incompatibilism, the coin analogy doesn't apply. Pretty good work detecting a logical flaw. Ad hominem wasn't necessary or helpful, though.
>>25271600
In terms of society as a whole, free will belief is clearly harmful. It is used to justify torture, warfare, vengeance for vengeance's sake, and not helping those in need.
There is also compelling evidence that free will is an illusion. If you're are willfully choosing to pretend to believe in an illusion, at that point it ceases to become an illusion and is more of a delusion, one could say. Living a deluded life isn't really good, is it? The truth is better.
>>25271702
Truth and falsehood are independent of belief, whether they are known or unknown.
>>25270783
>>25271094
>>25271423
>>25271566
Nope, no evidence to support your assumption. NO RIGOR!
For example, understanding that adults are a product of their childhood helps us prevent people from being criminals rather than thinking that a child is destined to be a criminal.
If to commit violent crime is an action made without context, why are certain groups of people more prone to it than others? Can you explain that without pulling from genetic or background data which disproves free will?
This is why punishing a criminal is better seen a "Corrective" action than a justice, because justice is a societal concept with no value. Correction exists as a concept that understands influence as part of a criminal act which can be changed through upbringing rather than as a destined act carried out by someone who, with all knowledge and control, decided that it was the proper action to carry out.
>>25271718
>Yes, but by positing incompatibilism, they become incompatible opposites, just like the coin faces in the analogy.
I think you're conflating libertarianism with incompatibilism.
Libertarianism is the idea that the universe is indeterministic and we have free will--not the idea that we have free will simply because the universe is indeterministic.
It is a subset of incompatibilism, but there are many incompatibilists who hold the position that the opposite of determinism is simply indeterminism--and that indeterminism alone is not sufficient to grant free will.
>Ad hominem wasn't necessary or helpful, though.
You may have me confused with someone else.
>>25271729
What matters truth if we're just playing out a script written at the moment of the big bang?
And strict utilitarian ideas are behind all sorts of nasty shit too. Traditional notions of individual agency and empathy are just as sufficient (or insufficient) for making people get along and not be shitheels to one another.
Or, to put it another way, if people want to be shitty to each other, can they not twist any world view to justify it?
>we need to punish these evildoers because we are the righteous hand of justice!
>we need to neutralize these bad actors because they create a net loss in social stability
What's the difference?
>>25271729
Of course, when I say "willfully choosing", I don't mean "freely choosing" in the sense that you could have chosen to believe otherwise out of your own accord. I suppose I don't really believe we "choose" our beliefs. I couldn't choose to believe that Jesus is Yahweh incarnate and that I should worship him or I will burn in Hell. The idea seems so unlikely that I simply cannot believe it.
I could perhaps pretend to believe it and eventually condition myself to accepting it as true, but this would be deluding myself. It almost seems similar to when people create "tulpas" or whatever.
>>25271799
I learned something. Thanks.
You can't prove or disprove it through logic alone. We need to study neurology more to reach anything decisive.
>>25271817
>What matters truth if we're just playing out a script written at the moment of the big bang?
I suppose I consider the idea that the truth matters as being axiomatic. I don't see how determinism would make truth any less valuable, though.
>And strict utilitarian ideas are behind all sorts of nasty shit too.
Such as?
>Traditional notions of individual agency and empathy are just as sufficient (or insufficient) for making people get along and not be shitheels to one another.
I don't think that's the case. Otherwise we wouldn't have things like genital mutilation, foot-binding, the idea that some people "deserve" to be tortured, etc.
>we need to punish these evildoers because we are the righteous hand of justice!
>we need to neutralize these bad actors because they create a net loss in social stability
>What's the difference?
The difference is enormous. The latter allows compassion and under utilitarian no-free will principle implicitly holds that they should be "neutralized" in as kind a way as possible because they are merely victims of misfortune and there but for the grace of God go we.
>>25271588
You do not have to act as if your life is decided. to me, knowing that I act on influences and within a specific set of experiences gives me hope that we as people are not inherently selfish or inhuman, but that we can grow by understanding and learning from our past. that we can raise children to become better adults, that we can grow out of our context as a society and into a better one, that we have more control.
If we have free will, then we accept that our society can never change because we are simply a product of free will. Our tools will grow but we cannot change as people because we are acting as agents without influence.
Without free will we could say that we are malleable and changeable, that the thougths and experiences of our future generations are beyond our comprehension, that we can grow more peaceful by the decade if we simply harness our ability to teach.
>>25271913
>You can't prove or disprove it through logic alone.
Why is that the case? Even without neurological/histological dissections, logic renders the notion of free will incoherent.
>We need to study neurology more to reach anything decisive.
Neurological evidence indicates that we don't have free will. There is strong empirical evidence that our personalities and behaviors are largely determined by variations in things like dopamine processing genes and how those genes are affected by environmental factors.
>>25271886
You're very welcome.
>>25271957
Beautiful post here. I agree.
>>25271938
>Such as?
I guess it's not so much that the utilitarian ideals CAUSE nasty shit, it's that they can be twisted as easily as any other worldview.
>these people have very little economic value, so it's not a big deal if we experiment on them without consent
>these people don't contribute to the economy, we ought to gas them or neuter them
>"It's just business"
I'll concede the other points because I'm tired out, and you refute my specific examples quite well. I would just put forth the anecdote that there are truly kind, right headed people who (for lack of a better way to put it) base their actions on the assumption of free will.
The kaleidoscope of causality is so complicated that free will may just be the most elegant way to pare it down to something we can act on, while moderating it with some awareness of the titanic external realities that influence us.
The Science of Success
>Most of us have genes that make us as hardy as dandelions: able to take root and survive almost anywhere. A few of us, however, are more like the orchid: fragile and fickle, but capable of blooming spectacularly if given greenhouse care.
>So holds a provocative new theory of genetics, which asserts that the very genes that give us the most trouble as a species, causing behaviors that are self-destructive and antisocial, also underlie humankind's phenomenal adaptability and evolutionary success.
>With a bad environment and poor parenting, orchid children can end up depressed, drug-addicted, or in jail--but with the right environment and good parenting, they can grow up to be society's most creative, successful, and happy people.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/12/the-science-of-success/307761/
Thought experiment:
Are you familiar with the concept of someone being "in the zone" and "unstoppable"?
Say a guy is playing basketball. He's normally okay, but for some reason at one part of a certain game, he starts doing much better than normal. He's playing very, very well.
Could he (ontologically speaking) just use his free will to choose to stop being in the zone, without anything causing him to lose focus and start sucking?
It seems that when a person is sufficiently motivated and good at something, when they're in the zone, they ontologically speaking can't just choose to not be.
The same concept could apply to a motivated learner with a knack for mathematics or language.
>>25272502
Sure you can. "Anon, I need you to stop doing [activity] because [reason]."
>>25272579
Notice, I wrote
>Could he (ontologically speaking) just use his free will to choose to stop being in the zone,
>without anything causing him to lose focus and start sucking?
Someone coming to distract you is a cause.
