Fuck you naysayers thinking that Isaac Newton and J.M.E. McTaggart had all the knowledge they needed to determine that we are all simply part of a giant universal reaction that started with the big bang.
Humans have agency; we aren't sciencefags anymore. Grow up and get over yourselves if you really think you don't have free will.
If everything is determined, then the fact my will seems freely determined by myself just means I am so embedded in this system that it really doesn't matter if we have free will or not
>>1264619
I don't know what you're trying to say here.
Newton and McTaggart said that we don't have free will?
>>1264619
Where are the proofs?
>>1264619
Define free-will
The future and past are fixed though
>>1264647
you have the illusion of free will because your actions are determined by your personality and you can't escape what you will probably do because of how you will react to something
Why do you think that? Is there some sort of the deterministic law that you should have a free will?
>>1264674
Uh, yeah, that's what I'm saying.
There's no "I" that can take a step back and wonder if his will is free or not. If the system is determined, even you questioning whether it is or not IS DETERMINED.
So just enjoy the ride. There's literally nothing you can do. If you have free will, you have free will. if you don't, well, within the bounds of the system it is free, so you pretty much have free will.
I cannot explain away EPR correlations without determinism. sorry not sorry
We can suicide, therefore we have free-will.
end of discussion.
>>1264709
lol what
>>1264648
I'm not the OP and I don't know if they ever said anything like that, but most people who claim free will doesn't exist point to Newtonian physics as "proof" that free will is impossible, which is hilarious considering that Newtonian physics are a flawed and outdated model to begin with. Literally the only reason kids still learn that bullshit at school is because it's much easier to learn than the truth (or at least, the truth as we now understand it) while still being accurate enough for every day situations.
I'm not saying free will exists though, but there's no conclusive proof either way.
However, there is proof (hard to call it conclusive since it's not hard science, but it's backed up by several studies anyway) that people who believe free will doesn't exist display measurably less moral and ethical behaviour as those who do.
>>1264709
Considering that suicide is more often that not a result of some form of mental illness, that's more proof of the opposite.
>>1264666
says satan
>>1264732
>Considering that suicide is more often that not a result of some form of mental illness, that's more proof of the opposite.
Define mental illness without the context of society, you cannot. Not any mental illness that exists today, anyway. Are you also trying to imply that no 'sane' person ever has killed themselves?
>>1264742
there's a gene which determines if you believe in god or not. Basically science confirms you have no free will.
>>1264746
I'm saying that suicide doesn't happen just because someone feels like it. There's a chain of event, usually (but not always) involving mental illness (which in most cases is both measurable and chemically treatable, fuck off with your "muh society" bullshit) that leads to it. So it doesn't prove anything concerning free will, because it can be simple seen as a case of cause and effect.
>>1264752
>there's a gene which determines if you believe in god or not
There's a theory that such a gene exists. There hasn't been any confirmation of such a gene to my knowledge.
>>1264776
The self preservation instinct prevents you from suiciding unless despair is at 100%
>>1264776
>I'm saying that suicide doesn't happen just because someone feels like it.
hahahahahahaha, yes, yes it does.
>There's a chain of event, usually (but not always) involving mental illness
This can be said about literally everything, the point is committing suicide is CHOOSING TO END SAID EVENTS EFFECTING YOURSELF. You are using semantics to form your opinion, which is quite frankly, wrong.
>(which in most cases is both measurable and chemically treatable, fuck off with your "muh society" bullshit)
>chemically treatable,
Oh, you have experience in the matter? Then care to explain why a side effect of most anti-depressants is suicide?
>fuck off with your "muh society" bullshit
I like how you attempt to disregard the point which destroys your claim.
Society =/= existence. There is no such thing as a mental disorder outside of this society - a mental disorder is defined by ones inability to fit into society, mental health can just be seen as the norm of the society - how can you be this naive? This is moving from the point though.
The fact of the matter is you are using retrospect to form your argument, along with some ignorance. You think BECAUSE a person killed themselves (after the fact) they had no choice, completely disregarding all the other depressed individual who don't kill themselves and put the gun down. There is a choice in the moment, whether or not you want to keep living (which is backed by your past experience) but in the end it is your individual choice whether or not you pull the trigger.
>>1264796
>The self preservation instinct prevents you from suiciding unless despair is at 100%
How the fuck can you even say that, let alone calculate that before someone even kills themselves?
>>1264619
There is no "ghost in the machine" type free will. You don't have control over your thoughts and therefore your actions. You're just a machine that evaluates input using neural networks and spits out an optimized algorithm based on past information.
This doesn't mean that agency isn't a worthwhile term to discuss as it has important implications on the ethics which naturally emerge from interaction between sentient beings.
>>1264796
Even if that was true (and it's not, it's complete bullshit since "100% despair" is a nonsensical and utterly juvenile notion), how is that even an argument?
You're saying your behaviour is guided by your basic instinct (self preservation) unless something happens to override it. One is an intrinsic property that has nothing to do with free will since there's no conscious choice involved, and the other is either an external influence (something happens to make you despair) or a chemical imbalance (like severe depression). Either way, just more proof that free will does not exist, or at least isn't involved in any meaningful way.
>>1264823
I like how you fail to provide even a single argument about why your "choice" of self-termination is an actual free choice. All you do is repeat BUT THERE IS A CHOICE without giving a single coherent argument of what that choice is, how that choice is formed, or why you think that choice is "free".
And the most common side effect of anti-depressants is suicide because it's most commonly given to SUICIDAL PEOPLE. Holy shit you cannot seriously be this dense.
what does anyone have to gain from free will anyway?
You are free to do what you have the ability to do and that's not much
>>1264879
>And the most common side effect of anti-depressants is suicide because it's most commonly given to SUICIDAL PEOPLE. Holy shit you cannot seriously be this dense.
You don't understand. There are many forms of depression that do not involve suicide. So when I thought you had actual experience in the matter, you did not. My bad.
Make a point next time, or do not even bother. Saying I have no point is an easy cop out for you, ignorance is bliss after all
>inb4 you reply with I never even made a point
Just don't bother. You want to know why you cannot argue? Because you are parroting some philosophy you read a million times over so you could memorise it and tell everyone how right you are. Have a thought of your own, and get back to me.
>>1264900
>There are many forms of depression that do not involve suicide
And that's relevant how? I thought you were talking about suicide as proof of free will?
>Just don't bother.
In other words, you're giving up because I called you out on your third grade bullshit? Classy.
>>1264895
Accountability is the most important aspect of free will. It's why, even if you don't believe in free will as a scientific thing, it's still best to act as if everyone has free will.
In theory every action a human takes is a result of various chemicals and electrical signals. However the technology has never existed which would allow us to document every single chemical reaction and electrical pulse in an entire person and the resulting actions of them, nor is such technology likely to ever exist. The theory that ever action a human takes is 100% determined is unverifiable.
[spoiler]Also such arguments will never convince anyone who believes in free will in the first place. Because if there is something like a human soul then that soul could simply ignore things like chemicals and act how it wants to based on its will.
>>1264823
>There is a choice in the moment, whether or not you want to keep living (which is backed by your past experience) but in the end it is your individual choice whether or not you pull the trigger.
How does this even make sense? The person was evaluating whether to live or die using past information and at some point their brain just stopped and said "ok time to processing information and let this human use his Free Will™ to make a choice"
Everything is backed by past experience. There's no such thing as making a decision that isn't 100% comprised of past information and internal biological drives acting on your brain.
>>1264928
Metaphysics don't really have a place in a discussion like this. At that point you might as well just plug your ears and repeat "I believe because I believe!"
>>1264942
I know its pointless, I'm just trying to point out how using science to try and refute belief systems that are not based upon science as the ultimate truth will only devolve into pointless arguments.
>>1264917
>And that's relevant how? I thought you were talking about suicide as proof of free will?
It's literally got nothing to do with anything except for the fact that you said suicide is chemically treatable, it's not. Funny how you hang on that point, right? It made me believe you actually know a thing or two, had actually been through the system and seen a psychiatrist about suicide.
I was simply wrong.
![moral-responsibility-INFOGRAPHIC[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/0JTGZos.png "moral-responsibility-INFOGRAPHIC[1].png")
>>1264924
Most people that intuitively think everyone has free will say the dumb shit on the left
>>1264619
People who advocate that human beings have no free will are attempting to not be held responsible for the evil that they do.
>>1264929
care to explain to me why your past experiences are in control of you? They dictate your path, they do make you walk it.
>>1264964
>strawmanning: the picture
Nice lack of sources, broheim.
>>1264928
http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v11/n5/full/nn.2112.html
I'm sure we'll get there eventually
>>1264985
To add to this you and everyone else implies that all your experiences account for all your choices, it's not so. You internally choose the experiences you want to form you.
>>1264959
Just because the treatment doesn't always work doesn't mean it can't be treated. Note that, unike what you're claiming I never said "suicide is chemically treatable". And even if I did, the fact that depression doesn't automaticall lead to suicide is not a counterargument to that.
You're grasping at straws and you know it, otherwise you wouldn't be retreating into this pathetic "you're not worthy of discussing this with me" persona.
>>1265009
>it's not so
Because you say so?
All you're doing is insulting people you have no argument.
Free will probably doesn't exist. Everything we understand as a species about physics seems to suggest this.
However, the phenomenological illusion of free will is so strong that it doesn't actually matter. In your first-person perspective, you make decisions, which give phenomenological evidence that decisions exist. This only applies to your first-person view of reality.
>>1265009
your choices are biased by your personality and history
>>1264848
this to be perfectly honest
>>1264985
Past experiences physically shape the neural pathways in your brain which reinforces specific types of thought patterns. All of the new information that gets processed passes through those patterns and is therefore directly guided by said past experience. You're wrong in thinking that one 'walks' a path because walking implies other things are possible such as stopping or running. You don't choose to experience consciousness, it is forced upon the information processing system in your skull. The thoughts you consider to be 'yours' are just the output of a bunch of tiny electrical circuits that get triggered by constant, unstoppable sensory input.
>>1264989
I don't know why you're talking about strawmanning, I wasn't even trying to argue with you. I'm just pointing out that people who believe everyone has free will in the basic intuitive sense tend to demand moral responsibility in the strong sense which can have negative implications on livelihood. Also there's no 'sources' the picture is from a blog, the address is at the bottom and it's totally worth checking out.
>>1265001
Side note, why do sites like this make people pay to read these things? The info is getting out one way or another.
>>1265074
well free will has to exist for moral responsibility to exist. If someone believes in moral structures and then says free will doesn't exist, they don't actually think about how stuff works much.
>>1265019
Yes,
>implying you are doing anything but the same thing
Anyone is yet to empirically prove that we don't have free-will.
>>1265148
Ethics is a emergent property interaction between sentient beings. It does not require free will, just the ability to perceive and compute.
Morality is a meme that helps govern social behavior.
>>1265165
What would you even consider proof of that?
I will believe people have free will when you empirically prove that mental processes are not influenced by input.
>>1265216
>Morality is a meme that helps govern social behavior.
>>1265216
>I will believe people have free will when you empirically prove that mental processes are not influenced by input.
What would you even consider proof of that?
>>1265283
>the mental process of a person remains static by the use of free will.
What would you even consider proof of that. Use buzzwords all you like, what you are saying has literally no meaning. You are doing the exact same thing as I am - speculating.
>>1265340
If a person has free will then they should be able to control their thoughts no?
Put them into an MEG machine to record brain activity and introduce various stimuli. If they have free will they should be able to control and maintain their thoughts which would be reflected in a relatively static output image. If they do not have free will then their brain activity will directly change with different stimuli regardless of what they were instructed to do.
If quantum mechanics did not exist, we would not have free will. If our minds and our bodies were subject only to atomic laws and acted in ways atoms always do, then our existences would be entirely deterministic and could actually be calculated to a point if the math was available (although calculating every action of every atom would be essentially impossible). The quantum nature of our reality ensures that the actions of atoms can be altered and are subject to chance even on the most minuscule level. You can't say that everything is deterministic and that things happen as they always would have happened if even existence itself isn't quite sure what will always happen.
>>1265368
>If a person has free will then they should be able to control their thoughts no?
What.... If that's what you think it means to have free-will you don't fully understand what you are trying to say. You are seperate from your thoughts, your thoughts are not you, otherwise who is this person observing said thoughts? Your brain is just a machine which 'you' control.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_behavioral_therapy
And the evidence you want to prove you correct is going to be based on something which we don't fully understand? What?
>>1265395
My definition of free will is something like "the ability to control thoughts (and therefore actions) that exists independently of external social + internal biological factors"
Basically, it is the element of choice that is NOT caused by any combination of factors which come from outside the brain.
In my opinion, there is no 'I' that controls, the brain is a machine that does all the input, processing and output. It also generates a consciousness which is an evolutionary beneficial tool.
Humans (and all sentient beings) do have agency and it is meaningful to talk about it because it is the basis of ethics, but it is not agency which is independent from causality.
>>1265447
>My definition of free will is something like "the ability to control thoughts (and therefore actions) that exists independently of external social + internal biological factors"
>Basically, it is the element of choice that is NOT caused by any combination of factors which come from outside the brain.
Then your definition of free will is simply wrong. Or at least can never be proven, you've set it up so you can't be proven wrong - it's ignorance at it's finest.
What you are saying is you want a computer to calculate without any input i.e. outside the realm of cause and effect - our universe does not operate like that. Doesn't mean we don't have a form of choice in our every day lives, I can choose to eat cereal for breakfast or and I can have toast.
>TFW people don't realize that religion invalidates free will just as hard as science does.
If god can know the future, that means the future is fixed, and thus you have no free will.
Free will is invalidated by basic causality, it doesn't matter if you believe in god or science, you can't justify your way out of this.
>>1265459
Say, do you think computers can have free will?
Meaningful free will, just like us humans.
>>1265473
Why not? All it would require is some insane coding.
>>1265477
If your definition of free will fits computers then that's fine.
I think that doesn't represent the laypersons understanding of free will and their subsequent interpretation of it's implications on morality.
>>1264619
>Humans have agency
What does that mean? Why does that entail that we have "free will"?
What is meant by "free will"?
>>1264732
>measurably less moral and ethical behaviour
According to what moral standard exactly?
>inb4 morality is objective
pic related
>>1265380
>quantum mechanics
Odd thing about those mechanics,Until you measure the spin of a particle (say an electron) one can never be sure what direction that spin is,But the moment that spin is measured, by an observer, it gets fixed. Not only that, if that electron is paired with another particle, its partner will have the opposite spin.
What this means is that either free-will is an illusion (everything is determined, including the way how the observer measures the spin) or physical reality is an illusion.
>I have no evidence for my bullshit claim and all evidence points to me being wrong but get over YOU need to get over yourself not me for ignoring all evidence
Humanities fags are retarded.
>>1264619
Of course we have free god made manking free morale agents and gave use the authority over the earth and everything with in it
How do I get /fit/?
>>1267814
get moar free will
>>1267965
Define.
>>1267972
make yourself free to get /fit/
>>1267979
Free as in time? Done. Now what or who is this "will"?
>>1268006
for me it was my friend. For you it can be a person or a condition that forces you to do it.
Free from what?
>>1268205
or not free from what?
>>1264664
please OP get your mouth off that big black trouser snake and tell us.
>>1264732
>I'm not the OP and I don't know if they ever said anything like that, but most people who claim free will doesn't exist point to Newtonian physics as "proof" that free will is impossible
what no. People who argue against free will use neurosciences as their primary argument in 2016.
Isaac Newton is a Christian. His work was about motion. Not about free will or anything to do with anything remotely theological or philosophical or even biological.
>which is hilarious considering that Newtonian physics are a flawed and outdated model to begin with
???
They still teach Newtonian physics in universities to this day. His principles are literally how we launch rockets into space. Am I being trolled right now? I'm so sorry everybody if this is an obvious troll and I'm being retarded
