whats your opinion on free will?
I'd answer if i could
It's real. Nietzsche's opinion that it does not exist in BG&E's starting pages can be easily disproved (if one was adept at philosophy)
Otherwise, it does not matter what can be said against it.
Look, if Free Will exists then explains Cats, for FUCK sakes.
It doesn't exist but we have a feeling that we have it. Just because we do not have free will does not mean we do not have volition.
This is the main flaw between free will versus determinism.
>>8280357
Simple. There are three types of brains. Reptilian, mammals and humans. Each individual thought goes through those stages until you express it.
Reptilian is cold and calculating, mammal is empathetic and emotional, and human is a combination of the two with rationality.
Humans do not have free will which goes against causality but we do have a feeling of volition that goes beyond nature and causality but is still influenced by it.
Cats are mammals that feel empathy and connect with whomever. This is why if you feed a lizard, it'll never love you.
>>8280351
I like his opinion that we might not have free will but do whatever you want since it's probably what fate wants, so who cares.
>>8280344
>opinion
>free will
Sounds like a loaded question.
>>8280344
It's fine I guess. Kinda fucks me up a lot of the time though.
>>8280388
>Simple. There are three types of brains. Reptilian, mammals and humans
That is a theory that is accepted by absolutely no one anymore.
>Humans do not have free will which goes against causality
Why on earth would it go against causality?
it is something retards are predisposed into believing by virtue of being retards
no more need be said
it cannot be contended
>>8280344
Does the universe, considered as a single entity, have free will since nothing is acting on it but itself?
>>8280344
no such thing as a free lunch, son
hard work brings home the bacon
I'm not convinced that I don't have it
I used to argue with people when I was in high school about stupid shit like that. This one kid picked up his keyboard an inch off his desk and dropped it, then said "how could I choose to do that if I didn't have free will?" and I'm like "but you couldn't have chose otherwise than you did" and he's like "but what if I had" and I'm like "but you didn't" and as you might guess neither of us got anywhere by that line of argument
so I used to be a determinist because I was a monist and a materialist, but even then, I didn't feel that determinism gave me any reason to feel fatalistic. and now I'm Christian and the Church says I have free will, so I don't see why not
>>8280351
>Nietzsche's opinion that it does not exist in BG&E's starting pages can be easily disproved
Please do so, I'm interested
>>8281349
A God?
one's life is entirely determined by genetics.
>>8280344
Cool digits
Free will is subconciously wanting to be tied up & naked while your mistress teases your cock
>>8283003
Wish we could do more experiments on twins for this kind of stuff. Was always a true american and believed that genetics didnt determine much in your mind but damn those experiments are eye opening
Free will is a myth, religion is a joke. We're all pawns, controlled by something greater: Memes. The DNA of the soul. They are our culture, they are everything we pass on. Expose someone to anger long enough, and they'll begin to hate. All memes, all passed along...
I don't see how a system of free will could logically exist. It boggles the mind how anything in this universe could be non-deterministic without involving some supernatural shit.
>something something typical retarded contrarian arguing about quantum randomness
Which doesn't seem to have anything to do with anyone's capacity to make decisions that are completely unaffected by causal influences. I mean, what are people even saying with this kind of argument - that choices are random phenomena? Is this just a red herring?
>>8280344
Freewill has yet to be proven or not mathematically. It's no longer a question of pure philosophy.
Opinion: It doesn't matter either way, we are all living in the moment of continuous time, therefore events will continue to occur at their standard despite if there is freewill or not, and your consciousness won't change either.
>>8283003
Your forgetting the all-importantmeme
>>8280344
Creeps me the fuck out. Gives me the free willies.
>>8280351
>It's real.
Stopped reading.
>>8280344
there's no free will
only free won't
>>8280344
That depends. What do you think "free will" actually means?
Plenty of people argue ceaslessly without realizing they are talking about two completely different things that somehow share the same label.
My opinion doesn't matter, neither does any other's here. Whether we have free will or not will never be determined as we still haven't determined what free will is in the first place.
>>8280344
Free will kits are avaliable from the tax office if you're interested. They can be pretty dry, litigious reading but, if you know someone who has already written a will you may luck out and they may have bequeathed some pretty neat stuff to you.
To answer your question, I think free wills are a good idea.
>>8280344
The whale movie?
>>8280344
It's an inadequately defined concept.
>>8280344
it doesn't matter
>>8280388
>cats have empathy
>he fell for the cat meme
>>8283637
how stoned are you
>>8280344
There is no omnitemporal god. We do have free will, but nature, evolution, psychology, society does restrain us.
>>8280388
>That is a theory that is accepted by absolutely no one anymore.
If you say so.
>Why on earth would it go against causality?
Because it has to be proven that humans can think in a way that is not predetermined or influenced by outside influence of any kind. That every thought is simply an effect caused by something else. Hence, not free will. There is no will that is free.
However, we do have the sense of volition that makes it seem as though we are above causality and nature. This is center point of all free will versus determinism arguments.
When people agree that everything is deterministic, there is no free will, so why bother, they aren't denying free will but volition. Acceptance of volition is the acceptance of being human and being able to influence the world around you. Accepting that you have no free will, as accepting that you have no volition, is akin to becoming nihilistic.
>>8283633
Cats are assholish little shits and have a sense of mysticism. It's the reason why they're better than dogs. Cats are like humans, in the way the don't give a single fuck about anything, but dogs are tools and nothing else.
>>8282943
>and now I'm Christian and the Church says I have free will, so I don't see why not
>Pragmatism
Mah Nigga
>>8283674
But humans suck because of those things. So cats are irredeemable. At least dogs have innocence and humility
>inb4 Slave Morality
>>8283674
>It's the reason why they're better than dogs
Cats are a bi-polar recluses best friend for a reason, they're not better than dogs.
>>8282959
First off, he contradicts himself in a way by supposing that the 'philosophers of the future' could be exempt from an absent free will. So he's basically praising the skeptics' needs to console themselves in the fact that they have it (page 208.130)
His concept of free will on pages 25 & 26 can be defined as "the [feeling of commanding to action] in relation to him who must obey... the inward certainty that obedience will be rendered... that he believes renders obedience." He posits that this action, or held feeling, is created outside of one's ego, which is then exploited by the one as their free end-product.
He presupposes unconscious instinct for *all* of our actions, giving us the 'illusion' that we freely willed on our own accords. But we do freely will plenty of things against our unconscious.
His qualm with free will in general tends to be its connection to religion, and past philosophers (2.10).
^that was just a rough summary of the paper I wrote for it, but I cant remember what the others said back then. I remember feeling convinced back then though.
>>8283849
Also, to disprove the free will deniers outside of Nietzsche: the future literally doesn't exist. It is simply an idea. Quit acting like dumbass Donnie Darkos and start taking responsibility for your free will
>>8283728
Humans are better exclusively because of that. Cats are irredeemable and useless except for their mysticism. They have nothing to contribute but their own existence and presence. This is what makes them unique and better.
Dogs are valued in their innocence and humility but only become valuable in the sense that they may become tools for a purpose. You cannot train a cat to do anything because it's a cunt. You can only break a cat to become submissive.
The only people that do not like cats are those who cannot break their cats to worship them instead of the other way around. When you can make your cat sleep by your bed, beg to be petted and ask for more when you pull their tail, only then you understand that cats are the best.
>>8283753
Dogs were molded to become tools for countless generations.
Cats will never become a slave unless you forcefully take it in your arms and abuse it. You have to break your cat to make it love you.
An obedient slave is more boring than a broken slave that still tries to resist.
>>8283871
>The only people that do not like cats are those who cannot break their cats to worship them instead of the other way around.
I think you've got Toxoplasmosis brain. You've been breathing in WAY too many cat farts fella
Which is better, a girl that will suck your dick, follow any orders you give it, or a slave that reluctantly follows order, does whatever it wants but still comes back to you?
>>8283882
Says you, I don't even clean my cats litter box. I pay my friend to do it for me.
>>8283871
You're an autist.
My mom and I tamed a stray kitten after a few months of feeding it and slowly being able to pet it/ letting it in our house a few steps further every time til she'd get scared, until eventually she was just our cat and we got her shots/etc.
But then one of my fecking brothers started to get random, serious allergic reactions to her a few years later, so we had to take her to the pound... (she got adopted though)
>>8283882
Cats have advanced biological warfare that makes you love them
> dogs have poo worms that eat your eyeballs
>>8283893
>you're an autist
>lemme tell you a nice story about a stay cat I adopted that has nothing to do with the conversation
Nice story but I don't see how that has anything to do with anything.
>>8283900
You're an autist, AND stupid.
I gave you an account on how to tame a cat that does not involve sperging out and "breaking it", you. Dense. Retard.
>>8283894
Their cries mimics the sound of a baby.
Cats overtook the internet, one of the most advanced pieces of technology ever created for no other purpose but to spread their influence and charm.
>>8283900
(disregard that first reply if you werent the same guy, a bit drunk)
>>8283911
I know I added this fucking picture. But which faction is trying to silence me?
>>8283911
>dogs no longer have a purpose to help us hunt food
>keep them around
>cats literally do nothing but eat and ask for attention since forever
>keep them around
At least fishes have pretty colors in aquariums.
>>8283915
>But which faction is trying to silence me?
Depends. Did you silence yourself because you don't give a shit or is Big Brother taking control of everything without you knowing?
>>8280344
Doesn't matter, we're constrained either way. Mull this sentence around:
You can't exist before you exist so that you can decide who you want to be when you come into existence.
You weren't around before you existed and got to choose who you would be, like a character creator. You just became alive and had certain desires, given to you by nature and nurture. Whether you have free will or not is moot. The point is that what you DO with that free will is constrained by your desires, and your desires are something you didn't create.
So no, you filthy nigger.
>>8283920
>implying that cats don't keep rodents out of stored food, having practically domesticated themselves
>>8283926
I distinctly remember attaching the file on the first comment. I assume it was just a glitch... or was it?
>>8280344
Haha. The world is predetermined. But we don't know the future. So you can act upon the world and it can seem like you did. But in the end that's all the world is. Predetermined.
>>8283956
You have three hypotheses.
1- You made the glitch from your incompetence
2- the system is glitched, making you waste time for no reason
3- option 1-2 happened at the same time
>>8283937
>implying rodents haven't become obsolete in locations where there are the most cats
You only see one fat cat in a farm and hundreds of cats in a single apartment. Which do you think is the more useful?
it was settled a few years ago, there is none
>2016
>not being a materialist
>not believing in causal determinism
conscioussness is a purely physical property
>>8284081
>Any year ever
>Being a fucking materialist
>>8283987
When will this meme die? It is not predetermined at all. The future doesn't literally exist.
>>8284838
I'm sorry if you believe in magic and ghosts anon, but most people are pragmatic enough to see that the world is real
We are pre-destined, to use free will. We have no choice in the matter.
>>8284848
and yet consciousness and perception is legally recognised as being fallible.
something to think about anon, before you smugly write it off
>>8284848
Lol. I bet you read Marx and Hegel. Freaking cringe
>>8280344
No such thing mang.
It's all chemical determinism.
>>8280344
Will for free? Sounds like socialist propaganda.
I think that my "opinions" don't matter.
"Will" is a pre-existing notion. Whether it's "free," or not, is a matter of semantics.
What did /lit/ think of this?
It doesn't exist, because it doesn't make any logical sense and that has huge consequences for morality. Punishment and vengeance for example are of course never justified, as no person can be held responsible for their actions.
>>8283024
>Subconsciously
You are not a psychologist, so stop trying use psychological terminology.
>>8280344
Depends on your definition of free will.
/thread
It's a geist.
>>8280344
Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wants.
Free will is pretty easy to disprove
All events take place because of factors
As with human decisions, the decision of the individual will never change so long as these factors don't
Hence, the outcome is entirely reliant on the factors, meaning the individual is a slave to the factors
Free will is simply what we interpret as the complex thought process our brains are capable of, but since it's a phenomenon that isn't independent of predisposed factors, there is no real "deciding" since the decision will always be the same
>>8283849
Nietzsche wasn't totally on board with determinism or free will, he just went after free will more often because more people believed in it. He also didn't like how free will was basically only believed because it was a good heuristic for punishing people. Free will implies that people make choices and as such can be held responsible for them. Abandonment of the idea of free will also means abandonment of our ability to justify our punishment those who offend us forcing us. We still want to punish and as such we still punish, but we would be forced to admit that we punish because it brings us pleasure rather than creating a degree of separation through the abstraction of justice, which in a 'true' form doesn't exist for Nietzsche (something which originates in Heraclitus, where justice exists only in strife).
Anyways, free will is a meme. It probably doesn't exist. But only dumbasses spend too much time worrying about it and only even bigger dumbasses try to proselytize the nonexistence of it. We use it as a heuristic in place of a better understanding of the ways of the universe and considering we will never truly 'get' the deterministic equation of the universe it's doubtful that we will ever fully abandon it.
Apparently nobody has the free will to be intelligent.
>>8285303
meh, not a strong disproof.
>the decision of the individual will never change so long as these factors don't
If this was true, psychohistory would be a real field. There is nothing stopping me from randomly flipping a table in my room for instance. You could argue that the "cause" beforehand like being mad or whatever made me do it, but there's nothing preventing me from just doing it randomly.
It is not impossible for one to act against their unconscious. See my post here:
>>8283849
>>8285320
There is a cause behind the "being mad."
There is always a prior cause.
>>8285324
But I can flip the table for no reason at all. There's an unlimited string of causes going back to the beginning of Space and Time, but there is no future 'en concreto'. It's just an abstract idea used for planning/etc
>>8285320
I'm not denying that understanding all the factors is near impossible because of the complexity of human thought, but after all the logic is sound
For humans, all actions have logical explanations therefore since actions rely on these reasons free will can't exist
It's the complexity of the justifications that make it appear as though free will exists, but in principle you will always do things for a reason, and it's this reason that disproves free will since without it you would not act in that way
>>8285332
"no reason at all" equates to "because I can" -- a cause.
I have made a thorough critique against free will:
1. I am attracted to women/straight.
2. Whenever I am attracted to something my penis gets hard.
3. Traps get my penis hard.
4. Traps are males.
Therefore, by the contradiction, I have no free will.
>>8285336
It's true that you will always do ghings for a reason (even if that reason is no reason), but the antithesis to free will is determinism, which relies on a future that already exists (which is false in actuality, like how math has irrational numbers).
But the fact that there are unlimited effects from every single instance of an event in time proves that there is no determinism in that way.
But I'm biased, as I am a firm believer in the math/science to the multiverse.
Reminder that 59% of philosophers believe in both determinism and free will
http://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl
>>8285356
Being biased is never something to be proud of. It discredits you entirely.
>>8285360
Were /lit/arians part of the survey?
>>8285356
I don't understand how determinism is false
To every moment is a certain amount of factors
These factors will always have the same consequence
This single consequence will go to affect another thing later as a factor
Hence these actions act as chains, because for every moment there are always the same factors hence always the same outcomes
The future is unchangeable because the past is
>>8285364
I know that to be true, but I was being honest. Even those that seek absolute objectivity are biased in truth
>>8285369
The future doesn't exist yet. It can only be predicted. Some things with great accuracy. Some things, not at all.
>>8285371
Being absolutely truthful all of the time may be a "virtue" but it is not intelligent for survival purposes.
>>8285377
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
We can't predict it
But it is entirely predictable, simply more complex than we'll ever be able to solve
>>8285369
They act as deterministic chains yes, but there are different effects which can result from EVERY decision/accident which also exist simultaneously in space.
You need to tie your shoe, and this is your cause to do so, but the timing of it is up to you. You trip a bit on it which causes you to avoid being hit by a car that barrels past you 1 second ahead of where you were going to be. Both of those possibilities simultaneously exist in space
>>8285389
I predict there will be further posts in this thread.
>>8285392
This doesn't really prove anything, it merely describes action.
>>8285395
Yes
>>8285392
No, every second that slows me from tying my shoe is not my decision
Its either because my brain is being slow, or like you said, I can trip because of another factor
It is a very complex chain that goes down paths us humans can't predict or sometimes even understand, but it remains nevertheless a chain
>>8285389
Like predicting the weather.
>>8285407
Maybe you decided to make it slower and just forgot your decision, so you could make life more interesting.
>>8285410
quite true
>>8285415
Well that would be because past factors have put me into a mentality searching for excitement
Then new factors give me an opportunity to indulge in this
At the end of the day it's all a result of incredibly complex and numerous factors
It's specifically this diversity which gives us the impression of "free will" simply because it's too difficult for us to understand (but obviously not to acknowledge)
>>8285407
Not to me. If you know you have to do something, do you *always* do it as soon as you possibly can or should? That's free will
>>8285430
All these theoretical examples instead of just explaining what you mean makes you suspect.
I think your will is failing you here.
>>8280344
Having Free will is like being a dog tethered to a moving cart.
>>8285426
Considering the model of life as an exciting pinball machine is not a very compelling philosophy.
>>8285430
nah m8 that's just being lazy as fuck
another factor in the equation
if there's a factor telling you to hurry up (ie job interview) then you would definitely hurry
>>8285443
There can be a cause which will be effected by me i.e. determinism, but the temporal aspect of it proves free will.
In that example, if I simply decide not to tie my shoes and just take them off when I get home, the cause temporally ceases to exist and so I never end up tying them
>>8285452
Not if you're an ironic, lazy human being.
>>8285446
You tried to be profound.
It was an attempt.
Well done.
>>8280344
doesn't exist, but knowing this shouldn't affect your actions
>>8285454
You theory is robotical.
I believe that
A. The universe started from a singularity
B. There are 'laws' that 'govern' the universe (gravity, thermodynamics, etc - possibly many that we haven't even discovered yet)
I believe that an expanding singularity from an "original position" following these laws will always result in the same outcome - everything happens because it is the outcome of the previous reaction, going back to the singularity.
Meaning that 'fate' is predetermined, everything is predetermined, all from the original position and the 'laws' of nature following a chain reaction.
Because of this, there is no "free will" in the conventional sense - everything is predetermined. At the same time, there is "free will" as "free will" was the result of these reactions. For all intents and purposes we do have "free will" but in reality it's an illusion, if our universe is predetermined complete "free will" cannot exist
Perhaps it's paradoxical, but I believe that the universe is predetermined and there is also free will - the free will was predetermined
>>8285476
Determinism is robotical. Fighting fire with fire eh
>>8285492
There shouldn't be a matter of "beliefs" here.
Any scientific approach should be based on observation alone. A theory is never a belief.
>>8285511
I do not own or operate massive satellite dishes capable of detecting CMB. I do not have the capability to make the observations that have given evidence in support of BBT.
Therefore it is a matter of belief - of me believing the scientific community and putting my faith that their observations and conclusions are correct.
Even if I was capable of observing myself, it would be the belief that my eyes/ears were not fooling me, the belief that I could trust my senses.
A theory is based upon belief.
>>8285493
Humans aren't robots, so you're being silly.
>>8285526
It is a matter of "no belief" for those not pretending to be wiser than they are.
>>8285528
**processing ad hominem in sequence**
***ERROR ERROR***
**Rebooting software after butthurt feels overload**
***Initiate new, singular objective: free_will_exists_program***
>>8285536
Humans are usually funny, so maybe you are a robot.
>>8285531
I'm sorry I don't understand your response, and don't want to misconstrue your words.
Could you elaborate on your argument?
>>8285545
You probably don't want to believe in it, so why bother? Serious question.
Mixing belief with science is the "mad scientist" trope.
>>8285430
>only being lazy is up to free will
go away dad
>>8285552
I probably don't want to believe in your response,
I probably don't want to believe in free will,
I probably don't want to believe in BBT?
I don't understand what you're getting at, your pronoun is vague.
>>8285568
I'm sorry.
>>8280423
came here to post this.
well done lit.
>>8285567
I cant help it that I'm lazy! Muh determinismm
>>8285571
...okay. Was genuinely trying to have a discussion with you, have a nice day.
>>8285588
Some people have a sense of entitlement. Must be a generational thing.
>The brain is simply chemical interactions
>Therefore we have no free will
I will never get materialists
>>8285677
I thought you just did.
>>8285682
mate the conclusion does not follow at all
also it assumes a shitload of crap
>>8285697
You want to understand people you refuse to understand, when you already understand them.
Interesting.
>>8285704
i get that you're trying to sound smart and insightful right now but you are doing the same thing right now as saying gibberish
i already stated (albeit briefly) my gripes with that worldview and have yet to see an adequate rebuttal of it
>>8283243
Brilliant
>>8285526
But you have the means to factcheck those theories, therefore is not a matter of belief. For example, when it comes to Christianity, either you believe the Bible is right or you don't. This is not the case, for example, when it comes to genetics.
>>8285710
It's smart to engage with gibberish.
>>8285741
You can't fact check beliefs. You can have beliefs, but you never know if someone is lying about their beliefs or if they hold any at all.
http://www.strawpoll.me/10761590/
http://www.strawpoll.me/10761590/
http://www.strawpoll.me/10761590/
http://www.strawpoll.me/10761590/
http://www.strawpoll.me/10761590/
>>8285462
>he hasn't read Chrysippus
Pseud detected
>>8285528
you could say that tbqh, biological machines
Doesn't real
>>8285783
Sure, if you're into shitty sci-fi.
>>8285356
lack of free will does not entail predictability
>>8285908
physics is entirely predictable
>>8285910
you have never taken a physics course past high schools
>>8285917
metaphysics is not real
>>8285766
I pick choice 5: there is a genetic factor in intelligence and behavior, and people of very similar ancestry will have comparable genes, but these factors are not stratified corresponding to the made-up groups of "whites", "blacks", and "asians'
>>8285932
predictable
>>8285947
>The Copenhagen interpretation — due largely to Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg — remains most widely accepted amongst physicists, some 75 years after its enunciation. According to this interpretation, the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics is not a temporary feature which will eventually be replaced by a deterministic theory, but instead must be considered a final renunciation of the classical idea of "causality."
>>8285799
But where are your decisions coming from?
You can decide to tie your shoe or not, but what is fueling that decision? What is the *algorithm* allowing you to decide to tie your shoe or not?
-Will you always tie your shoe as soon as you notice it is untied?
-Are you a contrarian who will always tie or untie your shoe in opposition of what people tell you to do?
-Are you mentally 'flipping a coin', and if so, how is the coinflip performed mentally? Are you appealing to some neurological tactic of random outcome generation you know almost nothing about? Can that really be called "will" if the outcome is random, with the absolute bare minimum of agency involved?
-Are you flipping a piece of buttered toast instead? (as we know, buttered toast is more likely to land buttered-side down).
-Are you always going to act in a way that proves your point?
-Is your "soul," some mystical essence of yourself of dubious (theoretically unidentifiable) origin, influencing your decision? In what ways does it influence your decision, and by what algorithm is *it* able to make the decision? How does your theory of the soul defeat the homunculus problem?
And last but not least,
-If your shoe-tying decisions could be entirely predicted by any algorithm, how could a computer expressively complex enough to express that algorithm *not* predict your shoe-tying decisions?
>>8285977
>Where do you get your ideas from?
A artist's favorite classic question.
>>8285970
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence
For all intents and purposes, the uncertainty principle has no bearing on everyday life, including the functionality of the neurons in your brain. The behavior of subatomic particles *in isolation* is nothing like the behavior of subatomic particles *under heavy interference*. This is a gross oversimplification, but the particles are essentially being bombarded by "measurements", causing a collapse of superposition, which leads to the emergence of classical mechanics.
>>8280344
Freud.
>>8285926
this tbqh
if there are categories then they won't be the ones we're accustomed to
>>8285977
I highly recommend Nassim Taleb's book Fooled By Randomness (Black Swan author).
A .edu site hosts it in its entirety from a google search
>>8286013
Exactly, as I said like 5 posts up, lack of free will does not entail predictability
>>8286038
You misunderstand.
I'm saying that the human brain is entirely predictable and that arguments of free will stemming from quantum mechanics are entirely misinformed.
Even if they *were* informed, your decisions would be made by an entirely different mechanism "you" as a sentient being have no hand in, even if they are unpredictable in nature. While your actions are "free", you could hardly call them "will" because they fundamentally lack agency. For instance, you wouldn't be able to overcome your base animal instincts by sheer self-control; rather, some external mechanism would provide you with all of the mental facilities to do so.
In other words, not only were you incorrect, you should make no further effort to try to solve the problem with a similar methodology.
>>8286059
That's why criminology is Minority Report-level.
>>8280344
I believe it.
Determinist please don't hate, I can't help it.
>>8286026
Can you explain to me the significance of the book? From my cursory view of the book it seems to make a statement about humans making assumptions from ignorance. Saying this book is trying to "stamp out" or discourage deterministic thinking would be a huge stretch.
Also, I can't believe I have to say this to you guys, but the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. I'm not asking for the one true expanation for how free will works, or how you conceive it. I'm asking for one hypothetical phenomenon or process that could possibly coexist with the concept of free will. It doesn't even have to exist on this realm of existence. I'm looking for something, anything, that could possibly suggest you are right. Generic doubt in determinism, though rational in my opinion, doesn't justify *belief* in free will.
>>8286026
tl;dr pls
>>8286062
>It results in outcomes I don't like so it's wrong
Nope.
I didn't have to pay for it. Did you?
>>8280344
>I believe in Free Will but I don't believe in God
Religion - "Just the Tip" Edition™
>>8283871
I dislike cats because they're faggots. Dogs are great companions who are loyal till the end and will die to defend someone they care about.
>>8286258
Not every dog.
Some cats are better than some dogs.
Some rats are better than some dogs.
"Shoes untied example" poster here, I agree with the 59% philosophers that believe in both determinism AND free will now desu
>>8286100
JUST READ IT, it is really really great in many ways. He's an awesome writer
>>8286093
It's not making assumptions about ignorance, but that... the book is a bit too much to just sum down, but check out Monte Carlo simulator if not reading it. It's making assumptions and probabilitying better than ignorance, but it's still 'en abstracto' to what ""will"" happen. It's not trying to stamp out determinism AFAIK, but he's got a good example of a probability statistician losing touch with *reality* for getting too absorbed in the abstract (so he disregards his assertions and makes mad bank from stock/options/etc trading). Im reading Schopenhauer's Fourfold Root at the moment, and he says something similar
>>8286367
I can't take anyone's opinion on literature seriously who uses strings of quotation marks. That just lessens the quality of writing and why would a smart writer do that?
>>8286378
ok sry
>>8286367
>JUST READ IT, it is really really great in many ways. He's an awesome writer
you are to long did not read will inspire me to read it to be honest kinsman
>>8286402
UGH. 4/5 on goodreads.com and it's free, suck it
>>8286408
As if it can be read in the time before this thread expires.
>>8286419
alright, but it's still a pleasure to read after this thread
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fooled_by_Randomness
>>8280344
doesn't exist, hard determinism is an inescapable reality
>>8286408
>ugh
are you a qt grill?
>>8286445
Imagine it in a deep caveman voice or smthn teehee
Can someone explain why the question of free will vs. determinism "does it" for them? I've been reading philosophy for much of my life and yet this particular problem has never interested me. What consequences matter most to you in a free/determined life? My only concern is whether people can be guiltless if everything is determined? Other than that I see no reason to stress besides the truth-seeking nature of the issue.
>>8286454
post glutes
>>8286461
most questions in philosophy don't have any real world consequences if answered, but mankind still tries to answer them
are you a woman by any chance?
>>8286467
Not only is that a retarded perspective, it's also not what I'm asking about. Just tell me why it matters to you because I don't see it impacting much else that philosophy covers.
>>8286472
sorry but your post just screams woman, if you're a man then maybe you should examine why this is, because if you are a man then you're extremely ideologically cucked
>>8286478
If you honestly believe philosophy has no real world consequences then you are the ideological cuck and should cleanse yourself from the gene pool before you produce more redditor filth.
>>8286481
I said most, not all
read next time
>>8286461
>why does everyone not have the same interests as everyone else
Good question, but it does not interest me. Get it?
>>8286489
y u so mad boi. Just tell me what you think is juicy about fate and freedom. I'm here to listen.
>>8280344
It doesn't exist. If all it took for me was to burn a book and return to my blissful ignorance, I'd burn Free Will by Sam Harrism I bought it because it was so damn thin but I ended up suffering some sort of twisted nihilism for a whole year. Now I just try to use the bitter fruit of knowledge to live life in a different way.
>>8285100
It's bitter fruit, not for the feeble minded like myself when in picked it up as an illiterate pleb.
>>8286472
If you want my perspective, it's just interesting and I'm in a purgatory NEETish phase at the moment (gonna temporally free will this job soon though).
But I guess for practicality's sake: a few determinists might imply that we shouldnt get mad at people if they do something bad "because they cant help it thats just how it is man. If you were the exact atoms of that murderer, you'd murder that person too"
>>8286493
>we shouldn't discuss why we're asking the questions we ask
ooo this is some fedora level anti-intellectualism. Got it?
>>8286522
Yes, but I have plenty of memes, thank you.
>>8286461
Here are two opposing viewpoints. Of course, these are generalizations, but I think you will get a taste for why both camps care so much.
>Free Will
Religious proponents of free will often believe that God endowed them with free will, and that this explains why bad things happen. Free will is a way of circumnavigating the question of Euthyphro's Dilemma. In some cases, Free Will is connected to the idea of an immortal soul.
Religious and nonreligious proponents of Free Will like to believe in a "spirit" that guides the modern man, an internal muse of sorts, that endows a person with genius. Genius, then, springs from Free Will. Essentially they like to believe that Free Will is this font of Individualism, and also of Kingship, though usually the latter in a looser sense.
>Determinism
Free Will on the metaphysical level disrupts the belief in Determinism, which requires that all things are reducible to a predictable and definite outcome. If certain things break out of the deterministic pattern, determinism itself is flawed from the ground up. Note that randomness itself doesn't necessarily constitute a breach of determinism, rather a focused effort exerted by an external agent into an otherwise closed system.
It may also be stated that free will, strictly as a phenomenon that humans experience in the form of desires, and determinism are not mutually exclusive.
Imagine a god viewing a human. The human has all the natural properties that comes with a human: three dimensions, forward movement through a classical conception time. The god on the other hand views all of time as a single object. Much like moving from a two dimensional object to a three dimensional object is viewable to a human but not necessarily viewable to a two dimensional hypothetical being except through the passage of time, the god can view a three dimensional object comprehensively from the fourth dimension. The human still makes all the choices he would otherwise make, even if the god can predict each "before", in the human's conception of time, they actually occur. In other words, the human's actions are both entirely predictable and informed entirely by previous factors, but also 100% the unadulterated what they wanted - the "will" of the human.
The problem is when Free Will advocates assert that free will is a metaphysical property of the world: that a god couldn't necessarily 'peek into the future.' This has important implications to the functioning of the universe as a whole, and to the nature of things like time, space and physical dimensions, which I'm sure you can infer.
Personally, I think there is something entirely sinister with the position of a human's desires as a fundamental force to which the entire universe should subordinate itself.
>>8286642
"Shoe tyer" here again.
>The god on the other hand views all of time as a single object
This just shits on all of my theories, and I mean that in a good way. Wow.
(that being said, you could subjectively experience said >meme arrow
by experimenting with psychadelic drugs.)
>>8285389
But we must not forget this post. For all intents and purposes as pertains to humans, free will ""exists""
>>8285303
What if free will is one of these factors?
Checkmate atheist
>>8283931
What's going on in that picture ?
>>8280357
Keep that dead cat on ice brother
>>8283674
fuck you dogs are the best people
No such thing as free will.
This universe is reserved for things to unfold in a certain way. Any other action taken would exist in/as a different universe.
>>8288282
Dog people are the worst.
>All of these petty black and white "philosophers"
