No free will
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /r9k/ - ROBOT9001
You are currently reading a thread in /r9k/ - ROBOT9001
>TFW you realize free will is a myth
>but muh quantum indeterminism
If an uncaused quantum event caused your decision, that's still not "free will".
>>24541283
I can't believe people still think free will is not an illusion
>>24541283
dont care to be honest
what are you going on about
>>24541291
I think it's a reasonably useful social construct
RELIGION IS A JOKE
>>24541329
It's an incredibly destructive social construct.
>Making people suffer just because "they deserve it"
>You can just choose to be happy
>Your genetics and conditioning don't matter that much, you can use the magic of "free will" to do better
>>24541329
Is is profoundly harmful.
>'Why did he do it? What could have possibly led him to do it?'
>'Oh, just his free will. Don't think about it.'
Some people actually think they don't have complete control of their own destiny/reality?
That is sad. I know it hurts to take responsibility for your failures and shortcomings and incompletions but... Throwing it all into the wind by saying you never had a chance. That is truly pathetic.
>>24541362
you just don't get it, do you?
>>24541362
See >>24541350. You just evade responsibility for actually helping people fix their lives by throwing them the bone of 'just use your free will lol'. There are stupid people? No need for better textbooks or schools, 'just study harder under your own free will'. There are sad people? No need for medication, 'just control your emotions under your own free will'. There are uncreative people? No need for stimulating them artistically, 'just pollinate yourself under your own free will'.
things like fear, anxiety, risk and reward play a part in whether or not someone does something.
>>24541350
>It's an incredibly destructive social construct.
no its not, because free will doesn't exist they didn't choose to believe in it.
>>24541387
...and? desu
>>24541378
In other words, free will is inventing a fictitious blamable entity in everyone's heads so to avoid the moral obligations of becoming aware of the real causes of those people's behaviour, namely genetic and environmental.
>>24541397
>no its not, because free will doesn't exist they didn't choose to believe in it.
Just because something is not freely chosen doesn't mean it's not destructive.
>that feel when our universe is just energy that exists inside of a 4-dimensional black hole
>>24541401
But can you really get mad at anyone for believing? It's not like they chose to.
Why must everything being determined and there being free will be contradicting ideas? Just because the decision you will make is already set in stone doesn't mean it's any less yours.
>>24541426
What do you mean, 'can'? I obviously do, because I am not a perfectly rational human being.
But getting mad at things, since it is rooted in belief in the free will of whoever made me mad, has no intellectual, no real basis.
>>24541444
Your basic point is right. I call it 'will exists, just not free will'.
>>24541378
I don't have any interest in helping people fix their problems. Just another attribute of someone who doesn't have any will, expecting help. This education will the extent of me helping you. Nobody thinks having free will was a magic spell to make things the way you want them to. You still have to try and struggle as hard as you can to get what you want. You CAN choose to be happy. A slave to the coal mines for the rest of your life? You can still choose to be happy. That is free will.
>>24541444
That's "will", but it's not "free will".
What if you like apples, but want to like oranges, but find you can't? Where is the "freedom"?
You can want to enjoy the orange but be unable to, due to your genetics or conditioning.
For a grimmer example, look at people who compulsively mutilate themselves. Most of them want to stop. They don't "want to want" to hurt themselves, but they do it anyway.
>>24541467
Quit a far off point, but if you're talking about cutting, you're unbelievably naive. Its generally a form of attention and cry for help, like female suicide 'attempts'
>>24541464
>Just another attribute of someone who doesn't have any will, expecting help.
That's odious sophistry. Just the fact that I point an irresponsibility of yours doesn't make me (in the general sense, meaning anyone who responsibly rejects free will) irresponsible. We are talking about you (in the general sense of believers in free will) here.
As for the rest of your post, you literally kept doing what you just claimed you do not to. 'Oh well yes I sympathize with your plight, I've totally been there, just choose to be happy, the power's in you.' Epitome of cowardliness.
>>24541350
You sound like a fedora-tipper to be honest.
If you aren't blaming God for your problems, you're blaming the laws of physics. You will do all the required mental gymnastics to avoid blaming the ONE person responsible for your condition; yourself.
>>24541421
If free will doesn't exist, then what exactly are they "destroying"?
>>24541464
>You CAN choose to be happy. A slave to the coal mines for the rest of your life? You can still choose to be happy.
If it's true that no matter what, you can just choose how you feel about anything, then why is it wrong for abusers to hurt other people? The victims of the abuse could just "choose to be happy" no matter what.
>>24541495
In other words, immoral slime like you, >>24541464, or >>24541499, have no compassion, and therefore imply infinite potency of an impotent piece of pseudoadvice. Oh, I'm just going to justbeurself you, and as soon as that banal off-handed crap cliche fails to effect a change, because it is just a fucking dumb cliche, I'm going to call YOU a flawed human being because your brain didn't produce magical, self-fuelled creativity and motivation and love of life. You are an egoistic, cruel person.
>>24541499
>If free will doesn't exist, then what exactly are they "destroying"?
You are retarded.
>>24541499
>You sound like a fedora-tipper to be honest.
Cool shaming tactic bro.
>the ONE person responsible for your condition; yourself.
That's not how reality works.
>>24541530
How can you place blame on these posters when they have no free will to act in the way they have? Why even bother trying to convince them, you have no choice as to what you believe and neither do they.
>>24541537
>That's not how reality works.
Hush. You cannot teach causality to a believer in free will. They are literally religious people.
>>24541530
Even if they don't understand that we have no free will, you should try and be kind to them. For whatever reason (genetics and/or conditioning), they do believe in this idiotic, toxic concept and they don't have the "free will" to not believe in it.
That's the beauty of fully realizing that there's no free will. In addition to not feeling so compelled to torture yourself for the mistakes you made in the past, it's so much harder to get angry with other people once you realize that they're people-puppets, just doing what they're programmed to do.
>>24541550
>How can you place blame on these posters when they have no free will to act in the way they have?
You misinterpreted.
I don't *blame* them. I am saying that they are irresponsible, immoral and harmful, which they are. It is not exclusive.
>Why even bother trying to convince them, you have no choice as to what you believe and neither do they.
W-what?
This makes no sense.
Why do discussions on free will attract retards?
Of course my choices are determined. Of course I have no choice but to type the very words I'm typing. But this doesn't chance the fact that the words I type are right in the intellectual and moral sense, and theirs are wrong, as well as that they might change the outlook of some readers of this thread. They won't have any free will either, but it still might happen.
WoW actual anti non troll free will discussion, I like it.
>>24541579
>this doesn't chance the fact
*change
>>24541550
>How can you place blame on these posters when they have no free will to act in the way they have?
Right. It's better not to blame them.
>Why even bother trying to convince them, you have no choice as to what you believe and neither do they.
Just because there's no free will doesn't mean people don't respond to environmental factors, like these discussion boards.
>>24541283
don't forget about tfw no objective morality. the two go hand-in-hand
>>24541579
>>24541589
Will their lives be better for it though? What is the point of making them slightly more knowledgeable robotic drones?
>>24541598
Well yes, but throwing too many big subjects like these will eventually derail the thread.
>>24541602
Regardless of >>24541598, rejection of free will causes less retaliation and more scientific investigation which leads to decrease of suffering, as >>24541574 mentioned.
It's a pointless question to ask
It won't change anything
>>24541378
>muh medications!
Reminder that pill-poppers are literally killing themselves because they think they suffer from a real illness.
>>24541620
I'm this thread has marginally, but actually changed the lives of at least a couple dozen people by now, be it for a couple of minutes.
>>24541613
I might add that striving for the truth is always the best path to take.
>>24541613
I'm not sure spreading this knowledge is so responsible.
Regardless of its veracity, could it not cause people to act in irresponsible, cruel and apathetic ways, secure in the knowledge that after-the-fact they can rationalize that they could not possibly have taken another course of action?
>>24541551
Doesn't religion not support free will either? I know only Calvinism explicitly describes predeterminism, but isn't it implied in the idea of an omnipotent God who created everything? He designed everyone's brains and everything in the Universe, so he decides what course people's lives take. Also, the fact that he is omniscient and knows what will happen supports the idea that we cannot change the future and have no free will.
And yet Christians think Hell is justified. Why would someone create someone just to destine them to Hell? What's the point.
>>24541598
You can finagle a utilitarian definition of morality into free will skepticism.
If you define the moral thing as that which would decrease suffering and the immoral thing as that which would increase suffering, then moral and moral can still exist--you just can't freely choose whether you do the moral or immoral thing.
>>24541283
>Free will is a myth because I can use big words that I don't really understand but I think they make me sound smart
fuck off
>my opinions are edgy
>the only reason you disagree is because they are 2edgy4u
>therefore my opinions are right
>>24541650
God can make 1 and 1 equal 3. He can create a rock so heavy that he can;t lift it, and then he can lift it. He can certainly imbue humans with free will while still knowing the outcome of their actions. If you wish to attack a religion within its own logic, you must play by the rules of that logic, and omnipotence is one of them.
>>24541629
This is just one example from a literally infinite number. 'Why do people stutter?' 'Why does he like programming?' 'Why are women shit?' All answerable questions, and all brushable-away with 'oh it is just his/her free will'.
>>24541634
Agreed, even though rejecting f.w. is not true in the strict sense of the word; rather, it is adopting the paradigm in which the range of true and false claims includes claims about people's motivations. ('His behaviour was affected by factors A, B, C, ...' as opposed to 'He did it just because he chose to, end of story.'.)
>>24541646
We can only estimate the outcome if this would become general knowledge. We lack the data to make predictions like these. But I believe like sam that it will lead to increased happiness.
>>24541646
I don't believe that would be the case. I wish I'd have stopped believing (or semi-believing) in free will ages ago.
I have a lot more empathy for people in bad situations now that I realize that they didn't have the magic of "free will" to prevent that situation.
When I see an alcoholic homeless guy on the street I'm more liable to want to help him in some way, now. Instead of blaming him.
I guess I might still would've wanted to help him before, but now I don't feel that undercurrent of judgement I used to get, and I do think I'd want to help *more* than I did before.
>>24541687
>('His behaviour was affected by factors A, B, C, ...' as opposed to 'He did it just because he chose to, end of story.'.)
In other words, belief in free will is not really a belief but rather a personality dimension of propensity to blame ('it's your fault') as opposed to scientific analysis ('let's see why you did that, maybe some useful conclusions will come up...').
Also, on the subject of >>24541646, I agree with >>24541691. Kudos, >>24541691.
>>24541654
Still a short sighted view at best.
Decreased suffering means less death, skewed unfavorable selection in terms of offspring and this in turn adds up to the number of people on the earth increasing, long term this will create more suffering, not less.
>>24541681
>God can make 1 and 1 equal 3. He can create a rock so heavy that he can;t lift it, and then he can lift it. He can certainly imbue humans with free will while still knowing the outcome of their actions. If you wish to attack a religion within its own logic, you must play by the rules of that logic, and omnipotence is one of them.
This isn't "logic", though. It's just absurdity.
>>24541697
Well, that same view can be garnered from the view that, although free will exists, there are situations where environmental factors are so overpowering as to make its effect nil or virtually so.
>>24541716
>there are situations where environmental factors are so overpowering as to make its effect nil or virtually so
This is basically about what I said in >>24541700, namely that belief in f.w. is not a belief but rather a scale determining how you react to situations, as >>24541697 has nicely exemplified. The farther you, so to say, 'dig' into causes and the less you leave to personal agency of 'he just chose to be that way' tautologies, the more scientific you are. Some people dig all the way; some, perhaps having never heard about the concept of free will due to their religious upbringing but being innately rational, might claim they believe it, but in practice as good as don't exhibit this belief (good for them).
>>24541713
It is as absurd as an omnipotent God, and no one is forcing you to believe in that. If you've never bothered to think of the consequences of omnipotence, however, that simply makes you ignorant or stupid.
>>24541530
>You are retarded.
Answer the question.
>>24541401
/thread
Thisisoriginalbloxblox
>>24541744
>having never heard about the concept of free will
*about rejecting
>>24541756
>Answer the question.
'If evil spirits that want to eat my soul if I leave my room don't exist, then why exactly is belief in them harmful?'
>>24541283
If there was no free will then you wouldn't be reading this post aloud inside of your head or even perceiving anything because everything is already determined and you'd have no reason to exist because there is nothing to do.
>>24541769
>being a fatalist
Oh boy did you just passed the first stage of nihilism?
>>24541401
>MUH GENETICS
You sound like one of those shitty parents who blames their kid's ADD (or autism, Down's, etc.) every time they fuck up.
>"Timmeh can't help it, da's jes' how God made 'im!"
Two hundred years ago if you fucked up, you were told to stop fucking up.
In 2015 if you fuck up, you're told you have Fuck Up Syndrome and should seek a career where your fuckups are acceptable behavior.
Free will DOES exist, but modern society is doing everything it can to eliminate it.
>>24541283
Explain how people start their own businesses then
>"THE BUSINESSES WERE THERE AND THE PEOPLE JUST STOLE IT!"
Fucking morons
I want to look good, l change the way l look, get a haircut and workout
I want to become rich ? I have to work for it
I want to become a professionnal cs:go player ?
I play everyday.
/r9k/ should be removed
>>24541687
I think you are confusing 'free will' with another term. The question over 'free will' is not the one that would be applicable to 'Why do people stutter?'--that's nature versus nurture.
Free will is like 'when I choose to buy a tuna sandwich rather than a chicken sandwich, is that really my choice, or is there something else driving me?'
Nobody says a retarded person is retarded because of 'free will'
>>24541765
>'If evil spirits that want to eat my soul if I leave my room don't exist, then why exactly is belief in them harmful?'
It's poor form to answer a question with another question.
>>24541283
For anyone who doesn't buy the scientific interpretation: go read Schopenhauer's "On the Freedom of the Will". From your earliest, formative years to adulthood you are being constatly exposed to a multitude of stimuli and external conditions over which you possess no control whatsoever. You are being limited by your parents' capital, by social stratification, by your genes. Even if there is free will, your choices are so limited and independent of you that it's all irrelevant.
>>24541785
If it's not free will then why does it feel like you have a choice in things intuitively assclown?
>>24541803
>You sound like one of those shitty parents who blames their kid's ADD (or autism, Down's, etc.) every time they fuck up.
Shaming tactics, again.
>Two hundred years ago if you fucked up, you were told to stop fucking up.
Let's blindly assume that's actually true for a second. Are you implying that we ought to emulate the beliefs and behaviors of people from the early 19th century?
>>24541803
Have you heard of the robustness principle? It is relevant to a ton of things, from linguistics to free will.
The solution to your purported problem is very simple: with respect to yourself, you should act AS IF free will exists (which it does not), namely, try achieve things, have hope, and all that, but with respect to others (namely, communicating), including explaining why you either succeeded or failed at something, you should be explicit that it doesn't (namely, never say shit like 'it depends on you' or 'it depended on my own choices' and instead exclusively attribute outcomes properly, either to nature or to nurture. When I'm saying that my kid's behaviour is caused by this or that and not his 'choice', I am not absolving, I am stating objective, neutral facts. 'Yourself' in 'it depends on yourself' is not a valid part of the causal network. 'The kid behaves this way because he/she behaves this way' is meaningless. It casts light on nothing.
>>24541838
Sorry I don't understand what your question and the context is. Can you elaborate?
>>24541874
Or, in short:
Act as if free will existed, speak as if it didn't.
>>24541869
> Are you implying that we ought to emulate the beliefs and behaviors of people from the early 19th century?
YES PLEASE
Can anybody recommend any literature about this? Surely Sam Harris was not the first one to recognize this?
>>24541911
>Sam Harris
Please don't bring this religious moron into this.
>>24541911
Go to /lit/. There are loads of philosophags on there
>>24541911
Do yourself a favor and skip Sam Harris.
>>24541838
Because for apes, it is more important for survival to be able to squeak to each other that 'you can hunt, you can rape, you can, you can' than to realize that in fact, they might be overly optimistic and that success of such endeavours might fail depending on a multitude of factors both environmental and cerebral. But humans are more reasonable than that.
>>24541911
http://www.amazon.com/Illusion-Conscious-Will-Bradford-Books/dp/0262731622/ref=pd_sim_14_5?ie=UTF8&dpID=41OZINinqtL&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR102%2C160_&refRID=1XENBC0QJ94RNTES5PGN
>>24541283
Determinism is idiotic and fundamentally meaningless.
It doesn't state anything of value and it is unprovable.
It's kinda like saying x = x, it's a statement that doesn't mean a thing.
>>24541869
While it may be helpful for empathy, that is a terrible way to bring up a child. Teaching them from birth that their actions are out of their control, and thus they hold no responsibility does not bode well.
>>24541283
you sound a like a huge faggot to be around.
>but muh quantum indeterminism
>quantum indeterminism
who the fuck even talks likes this?
>>24541838
because your choice is already predetermined
>>24541980
Oh, you've heard nothing yet.
Go attend philosophy lectures sometime.
>>24541973
>It's kinda like saying x = x, it's a statement that doesn't mean a thing.
That is the Law of Identity. It's a bedrock principle of logic.
http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_Identity.html
>>24541991
That's not what it feels like to me.
>>24541979
>Teaching them from birth that their actions are out of their control, and thus they hold no responsibility does not bode well.
I'm >>24541874. Your comment seems well-intentioned, but is misguided.
One does teach children motivation, simply not at the cost of poisoning their language. For instance, you tell them 'I really want you to succeed, and the harder you'll try, the happier I'll be for you, no matter which place you will achieve. :) ' Note how this is different from 'You can do it if you only try.' The former is factual; it says about the parent's motivations and is honest, and doesn't imply that success doesn't depend on environment on the brain. And yet it motivates.
>>24541956
Thanks I hope this ships to europe as well.
>>24542016
>on environment on the brain
*or the brain
>>24542016
And yet thats not what the poster I responded to stated. You are taking motivation into account, while he said to leave all cause at the foot of environmental factors.
Likewise, a belief in the lack of free will is not necessary for your suggestion, its just good parenting.
>>24541997
Yes, I know that.
The identity principle is worthless on its own, you need to construct releations between x and other things, otherwise it does not state anything beyond "something is what it is".
>>24542045
>You are taking motivation into account, while he said to leave all cause at the foot of environmental factors.
I don't think this makes sense.
The issue of free will is about locating things' causes. When I motivate someone, I don't ignore the environment. In my scenario, if the child asked me, 'what does it depend on whether I'm motivated/whether you motivate me?', I would explain truthfully that it doesn't depend on 'just yourself' or 'just myself', but would explain chemical parental bonding, evolution, and so on.
>>24542045
Motivation is a product of the brain. The brain is a product of the laws of physics (genetic/environmental causes).
i dont get these threads, or this concept. you choose to do thing, you do thing. that was your will and your choice, i dont get it
>>24542089
In other words, whenever *causes* are asked about, one must answer truthfully and at no point imply free will. But at the same time it is perfectly fine to motivate without implying free will. Again, 'I would be very happy if you got this job.' Perfectly true, perfectly motivating, no free will implied.
>>24542110
But why did you do thing?
>>24541283
>If an uncaused quantum event caused your decision, that's still not "free will".
>Implying the free will isn't the cause.
>>24541350
>>Making people suffer just because "they deserve it"
>Implying "they deserve" isn't the functional equivalent of "this action needs to be disincentivized"
>Implying incentives require free will
>>24542110
You did not choose the workings of the machine which reacts to everything in your life.
From the moment of birth, this machine, whose workings are not chosen by you, is affected and affects environmental factors around you, also not chosen by you. Your brain is obviously the machine. I think that's the simplistic gist of it, although I'm actually>>24542045
>>24542128
because you wanted to. if you didnt want to,you could have done something else.
this is a boring, lame concept imo. I'd rather think about existentialism than this free will stuff
>>24542128
Don't bother.
A believer in a free will is like a lazy explorer. He wonders 'why did my brain did that?...', sets out to find the causes, gets tired before he even reaches the first one, and decides to call it a day and return home: '...oh, I reckon it's because my brain just wanted to do that'.
>>24542145
>>Implying the free will isn't the cause.
"Free will" can't cause an uncaused quantum event. An uncaused quantum event can have no cause, or else it wuoldn't be uncaused.
>>Implying "they deserve" isn't the functional equivalent of "this action needs to be disincentivized"
No, there's a difference.
You can disincentivize someone by punishing them. There's a certain point at which punishment stops being a mere disincentive and becomes vindictiveness, or torture, for the sake of causing suffering--not for the sake of preventing it.
>>24542116
But you're missing the second half of the truth.
>I would be very happy if you got this job, but you have literally no choice in the matter at all
If you don't think this is a bad way to raise children, then I think your view is flawed.
>>24542145
>>Implying "they deserve" isn't the functional equivalent of "this action needs to be disincentivized"
Rejection of free will doesn't imply that punishments should be abolished. It just makes explicit the arbitrariness of individuals' notions of justice and what exactly deserves retribution, which makes it easier to get people to discuss those and reach conclusions, as opposed to religious fervor whereby 'he just deserves it because he does'.
>>24542153
>because you wanted to.
>>24542164
>'...oh, I reckon it's because my brain just wanted to do that'.
It's like poetry
>>24542199
Another example,
>I am angry at you for beating up your schoolmate, but according to my beliefs, its not your fault.
>>24542195
Why can there not be a metaphysical entity causing a quantum event?
>>24542153
If you deny free will on a physical level, you deny rational though and philosophy as a whole.
>>24542164
Someone who denies free will is lazy, not someone who accepts it.
If you deny free will, you deny that you are capable of thinking anything at all.
hey guys free will doesn't exist so we should change things
if free will doesn't exist, then it never existed in the first place. people were never choosing to put people in jail and you never chose to realize it doesn't exist
literally nothing has changed, if it doesn't exist, then it never existed
>>24542240
>Why can there not be a metaphysical entity causing a quantum event?
That would mean the quantum event was causal.
>>24542266
Not if you are incapable of proving the existence of this metaphysical entity.
It may only look uncaused to you, because you cannot perceive the entitiy causing the event.
>>24542199
Well, at this point I can just point out to many highly motivated people who understand f.w. is not a thing and nonetheless achieve things. Remember that you aren't going to remember about it all the time; your brain is naturally going to forget and won't bring it up unless in threads like this. If anything, the increased scientific inquisitiveness rejection of f.w. causes can bring awareness of more things to try or to do, which will increase motivation.
>>24542216
It is good you brought it up because it shows a certain rather deep moral relationship. Namely, as soon as you accept that you actually morally have to tell your child that he isn't responsible for his actions (because it's true, free will doesn't exist), you necessarily need to hope that he will just see that he did something wrong by himself -- that he will feel intrinsic shame for attacking someone *even in spite of* knowing that it was, in causal terms, not his fault. Granted, this is difficult. And if he doesn't do that, it brings into the question whether it was moral for you to have a morally insensitive child to begin with. Which leads you to biological causes of morality ('whom should I have mated with to rather have a better child?'), and eventually eugenics. My point is, sticking to the necessary intellectual conclusions no matter what can lead you to very inconvenient truths.
You'll Cowards Don't Even Read Kant
>>24542310
If it increases the risk of an immoral child, just why is it moral to tell him? That's not a necessary intellectual conclusion.
>>24542310
tl;dr of the second paragraph is, every time you are tempted to invoke the lesser evil ('it is lesser evil that I wrongly tell my child that something was his fault in addition to being wrong'), it is an opportunity to consider how the dilemma you are thus going to 'solve' could have been avoided altogether.
>>24542292
If any sort of "entity" caused a quantum event, then the quantum event was not uncaused.
If an event only APPEARS uncaused, but was in fact caused, then it was not acausal, and therefore cannot be used as an example to refute causality.
No amount of intellectualism or philosophical rambling will change the fact that we have a very convincing illusion of free will, regardless of whether we actually do or not. Thinking about it further is interesting but ultimately changes very little.
>>24542344
>If it increases the risk of an immoral child, just why is it moral to tell him?
Because it is true. Remember that the fact that I might withhold a true statement for a greater good, which might be real, doesn't mean that the lesser evil of withholding it disappears, is cancelled. If I lie to somebody to save somebody else's life, I have still wronged that murderer-to-be for lying to them. Which fact should prompt me to consider what I could have done to kill two birds with one stone: to both save the person's life and not tell the lie. This is why we mustn't obliterate our awareness of our lesser evils.
>>24541283
If shitposting on 4chan isn't a choice, define choice. It doesn't matter how, in the end you make a choice and you know it.
>>24542393
>Thinking about it further is interesting but ultimately changes very little.
This is just obviously false. I am 100% convinced that nonexistence of free will should be a compulsory subject as soon as possible, preferably in grade school.
See I finally understood what people mean when they say this the other day when I was rolling. It's just that outright saying "you have no free will" is a retarded way of saying it.
>Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wills
>>24541869
>Shaming tactics, again.
Well yeah, you SHOULD be ashamed of the stupid shit you're saying.
>>24542393
>we have a very convincing illusion of free will
I don't..
Free will was always something that ran contrary to how I perceive my own actions and those of others.
If you just sit still for 5 minutes and try not to have any thoughts, the "illusion" crumbles even more. Thoughts just come to you, even if you don't "choose" them. They keep coming.
Look at how you're sitting right now. The way your legs are bent, What keys your hands are resting on, if they're resting on the keyboard.
Do you feel like you "chose" that leg/finger position?
>>24542461
This. The impression of choice is the consequence, not the cause. It's like saying that pain causes injury.
>>24542431
It's a 'choice" in the same sense a beaver chooses to chew a log, or a chess program chooses to open with 1.e4.
It's that kind of "choice", in a colloquial sense. Not a choice free of causality.
>>24542487
>free of causality
I like the word 'acausal'.
>>24542447
>this is just obviously false
>you're wrong because I say so
Not worth it, enjoy your shitty thread and meaningless existence.
>>24542500
>>you're wrong because I say so
No, you're wrong as proven by the posts above ITT that you didn't read.
>>24542359
>If any sort of "entity" caused a quantum event, then the quantum event was not uncaused.
How do you know whether it was caused or not?
You make a measurement, draw conclusions from it.
Quantum events are real, as far as we know.
Physical reality is separate from a sort of thought reality, in this thought reality you would know everything that happens but it is also controlled by your own biases.
The way it was bought up here it clearly referred to the idea of quantum events in physical reality.
We physically have measured quantum events, that APPEAR to have no cause.
Does that mean they have no cause or that we are incapable of perceiving the cause, in actual measurable reality?
Sure, in your wonderful thought reality, they may well be uncaused, because you know everything that happens in your thought reality, but can that really accurately depict what is actually happening when you do not know everything about the way the world works?
>>24542393
>Thinking about it further is interesting but ultimately changes very little.
Ultimately nothing matters and any choices you do make (or pretend to make under the guise of free will) will be pointless.
>>24542461
This argument is so absurdly stupid that it barely merits a respons. Because we don't consciously choose and regulate every action that proves we have no free will? Try harder, your pleb is showing.
>>24542266
>>24542292
>>24542359
>>24542522
>thread derailed by rambling quantumfags
As always.
>>24542009
that's because you are not aware of all the contributing factors that led to your choice, and the ultimate outcome of it
>>24542552
>because you are not aware of all the contributing factors that led to your choice
This. I was a year ago amused to realize that belief in free will can be considered a measure of awareness. The more you believe in free will, literally the more ignorant you are.
>>24542487
Well obviously every ounce of us and the environment define our decisions. It's still your choice, because you are yourself and the environment.
>>24542543
>Because we don't consciously choose and regulate every action that proves we have no free will?
The neurological proof of non-existence of free will is this:
There is no level of self-control or self-awareness of neurologically-induced feelings, thoughts, or decisions that isn't neurologically-induced itself.
Or simply put, any thought you might have to 'override' or 'act in spite of' a thought you have ('uh, no, I'm going to assert my free will and act in spite of this decision') has been determined as well.
>>24542447
Prove nonexistence of free will, I'll wait.
Then go ahead and prove why it matters, why it anything more than worthless information.
Anything more than x is x for an x that has no relations to any other information that can be known.
>>24542487
Beavers and chess programs aren't self-aware in the human sense senpai. They don't even have a concept of a 'choice'
>>24542635
How do you know beavers aren't self aware?
>>24542584
>It's still your choice, because you are yourself and the environment.
All right, but if you concede complete dependence of those choices on nature and nurture, this claim becomes irrelevant.
>>24542616
>Then go ahead and prove why it matters, why it anything more than worthless information.
>Anything more than x is x for an x that has no relations to any other information that can be known
Rejection of free will has social implications for interpersonal relations, safety of brain-altering substances such as drugs or 'meditation', education, medicine, and so on. Again, as explained ITT.
>>24542647
I know where you want to go with this one.
I won't do solipsism, because that's even more retarded and meaningless than a denial of free will.
it's a scientific fact that the brain makes choices 7 seconds or so before the ego registers it
you're wrong if you say otherwise and an idiot at that, the ego isn't even 'you' anyway
typical low iq lowest common denominator trash, I didn't know there were so many here on 4chan of all places
>>24542665
>Rejection of free will has social implications for interpersonal relations, safety of brain-altering substances such as drugs or 'meditation', education, medicine, and so on
Which ones, please show me.
>>24542694
I'm not going to point and click on post numbers for you, you lazy fuck.
>>24542672
> solipsism
I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm genuinely curious why you don't think that other animals (especially higher level organisms) would have self awareness. What about other apes? Dolphins? Elephants?
>>24542677
Thi shouldn't even be a necessary proof for the illusion. As soon as you learn cause and effect in physics 101 you should be able to grasp that this simple thing implies that free will cannot exist in our current definition.
>>24542694
You are purposely derailing this thread.But don't stop, you were determined to do so.
>>24542703
their egos try to run in logical circles so it never comes to the conclusion that they have no free will
they're made like this, they are genetic trash there's no point even trying to make them understand, those who are smart enough to understand figure it out themselves or at the very least understand it from someone else
>>24541283
meditate for ages and you realize free will really is a think. you just dont experience it cause you're blinded by the haze of bullshit your brain is cooking up..
>>24542703
>free will cannot exist
>exist
I really think it is misguided to argue for free will's 'non-existence'. I think it should be made clear from the start that, as I explained in >>24541700 and >>24541744, it is not a thing, it is just unwillingness to adopt standards for meaningful discussion to begin with; it is unwillingness to begin discussing causal relationship between matter (what's the relation between the past, my present brain, and the future), instead insisting on the relevance of the 'your future depend on you' x = x.
>>24542752
What a compelling argument. Simply amazing.
>>24542737
Ad homine attacks wont do any good I fear.
>>24542756
I agree, but I am not as sophisticated on 4chan as in real life.
>>24542737
Maybe being an egotistical shit yourself and being vague and condescending isn't the best way to enlighten other people. You have no problem ragging on someone's genetic makeup but god forbid they are punished for anything else they do that they can't help?
>>24542756
In other words, the phenomenon we're discussing here is not 'free will', but rather, 'causophobia' let's call it.
>using unproven theories as proof
>>24542781
I really like this definition.
>>24542701
I'll bite.
I won't respond once you start with solipsism shit, is that alright?
I'll clumsily offer a logical proof why I can believe that a beaver is not self-aware:
>I am self-aware.
>I am human.
>It is reasonable to believe that I am similar to other humans.
>Therefore it is reasonable to believe that other humans have self-awareness.
>A beaver is not human.
>Therefore a beaver is not like me.
>Therefore it is reasonable to believe that beavers are not self-aware.
The weakest link in this argument is the assumption that "I am similar to other humans", which is what you could attack by asserting solipsism and I don't care for that, so please go on do that and win the argument if you like.
>>24542726
Yes, I am because I refuse your ideals so I really don't fit into your hugbox of a pseudo-intellectual pseudophilosophy.but don't worry, I was determined to do so, right?
>>24542779
>getting mad over posts on the internet
>thinking I give a shit about some genetic trash who in 18+ years hasn't figured out the basics of the universe
wew laddie boi
>>24542781
What is the last cause?
Does it simply not exist because you cannot perceive it?
>>24542810
Nice, another one who got it. We did it reddit!
>>24542818
>>thinking I give a shit about some genetic trash who in 18+ years hasn't figured out the basics of the universe
You give enough of a shit to post ITT acting like you can barely keep up, stupid faggot.
>>24541752
i've thought of the consequences and it usually ends in a conversation with my middle finger and my saying "suck my balls, nigger faggt!"
bring on the hellfire, baby. hell ain't shit compared to what i have seen thus far
>>24542844
stay mad and dumb lel, who the fuck gets this asspained over 4chan
I can't remember that feel of being 15
>>24541667
underrated post desu
>>24542810
>self awareness has been found in other species
>therefore it is not unique to humans
>so beavers may be self awareThey're probably not but that's irrelevant. Your proof is dumb.
>>24542860
Idk why don't you tell me. Who's mad here, the person who got called out on their shit or the person calling them out?
>>24542805
Cheers.
It's just that most people are afraid to accept that they are just their brains, because this mercilessly entails that my future relies completely on my brain continuing to have proper chemical interactions. That, for instance, I might become immoral or dumb or uncreative or conformist as soon as something, a stimulus, comes in through my eyes or ears and messes with it, getting it to produce a bit too much of the wrong chemical in the wrong place, which is going to make me declare and believe, possibly permanently, that a certain choice that's objectively bad is a a good idea. This is honestly one of the scarier realizations one might have. It makes you wary of literally everything and everone you see and hear and read and meet, because you have to constantly consider whether the effects of reading it on your brain are all things considered desirable or not. It's very taxing. It is a very vulnerable feeling. God knows realizing this had contributed to my suicidal thoughts myself.
>>24542665
>safety of brain-altering substances such as drugs or 'meditation'
Just curious, did you mean to type "medication", or were you actually referring to medidation?
>>24542880
My proof is very clumsy, because tried to avoid relying on outside information and do it using pure logic.
>>24542900
>did you mean to type "medication"
I am consistently annoyed by the alphabetic proximity of those two words. Yes, I meant to type 'meditation', and the quotes are necessary too.
>>24542900
*Meditation, I meant to type. Damn.
>>24542885
the person who got called out on their shit, which is you, glad you agreed with me in the end redditor supreme
how would you define free will?
based on how loosely defined it is it's either impossible to have it or impossible not to
>>24542930
Guess it's convenient for stupid niggers to stop believing in free will so it gives them a pass to shit talk and throw other people under the bus instead of explain the philosophical concepts they profess to understand.
>>24542917
humans having something does not = animals not having something
it's something you could never truly know
>>24542888
And as soon as a believer in f.w. tells me, 'you can control the effects of the environment on your brain', I again and again ask myself the necessary follow-up, 'but what about the stimuli that affect the occurrence of my thoughts to counteract the effects of the environment?'. This is a question I've never seen occur to anyone else. People just don't seem to be able to make that simple step.
>>24542888
It might be scary, but it's also incredibly good to know.
Sadly other people pretty much won't get it.
>>24542994
>People just don't seem to be able to make that simple step.
Yep.
"Free will isn't real" is an excuse. It's a pathetic one too.
Your argument is tiresome to normal people because our ability to make choices is self evident countless times each day. It's a difficult thing to describe so you come up with this edgefag argument that no one is willing to fight against and then declare yourself the winner.
I used to talk about this with kids in highschool and I'd bet money that this bitch of an OP is a sad highschooler trying to make excuses for his shitty life.
>>24541329
>>24541291
If free will doesn't exists, then you are not legally responsible for the crimes you commit.
>>24541283
FOR FUCK'S SAKE ANTS ARE CRAWLING ON THE CARPET AGAIN WHO LEFT THE FUCKING DOOR OPEN JESUS CHRIST
>>24543024
>Shaming tactics, no logical argument
I'm seeing a pattern here.
>>24543032
But the people of the legal system have no free will either and are not responsible for the unfairness of incarcerating you.
>>24543059
>does the same fucking thing
Me too.
>>24543003
>it's also incredibly good to know
Yes. As I say, it is more important to have questions than to have answers. Most people who go through life asserting, 'my free will can deal with any undesirable stimulus I should see, I shape my life' usually don't consider the finer, surreptitious neurological ways in which, for instance, exposure to certain people can change your taste in music or vocabulary, or priorities. They'll retrospectively insist, 'yes, I began to find this-or-that more important in life, but this was my own choice', but this wasn't the case. It is, on the smaller scale, the error of the drug user who overestimates their capacity to handle addiction.
>>24542993
>it's something you could never truly know
It's something you cannot know without conducting an experiment.
How about we add some data from an experiment to this proof, then?
>dogs were experimentally shown to be incapable of recognizing their own self.
>therefore it is reasonable to believe that dogs are not self-aware.
>beavers are more similar to dogs than humans.
>therefore it is reasonable to believe that beavers are not self-aware
I don't know about any experiments in that vein that were conducted on beavers, so this will have to do.
>>24541350
What do you want?
It's not as if people chose to do that.
>>24543093
I haven't attacked or insulted anyone in this thread.
>>24543024
>OP is a sad highschooler trying to make excuses for his shitty life.
Except he is looking for the CAUSE of his shitty life.No offence OP, but I assume you are a loser when you post on r9k.
>>24543059
you might as well be arguing "there is definitive proof that god exists"
Your argument is based on something unknowable. It is at most an interesting thought experiment so acting like you've figured out some massive truth when really you're assuming you know something that can't be known is obnoxious and immature.
I agree that it's an interesting possibility that all of our actions are predetermined but life doesn't feel that way and it is impossible to test if it is that way. You are a pretentious faggot about it too which makes the whole thing more annoying.
>>24543095
You'll see a lot of guys abusing drugs with the idea that they're still "in control" no matter how fucked up they are.
Their free will belief seems to be enabling them to hurt themselves.
>>24541283
My uncaused quantum event is telling me you're a faggot.
>>24543147
Don't you also not like it when causephobian people derail your thread?
>>24543101
>dogs were experimentally shown to be incapable of recognizing their own self.
Are you referring to the mirror test?
The mirror test is biased in favor of those who rely on sight.
To a great extent, dogs rely on smell.
>>24543156
>>24543095
Define "free will"
You're using it in a way I've never heard before and seem to be implying that it is a super power. Normally "free will" just means "the ability to make choices".
>>24543032
>>24543063
This is true. >>24542310 and >>24542403 is relevant. With the unavoidable conclusion of nonexistence of f.w., all that's left is adapting the legal system to the truth. Namely, that the moral exchange of actions and reactions in the society should be based on information, not on assertion. Namely, that 'if a person commits this or that act, the I am going to produce the verdict condemning them to this or that treatment, to isolate, to deter, and so on; they didn't deserve it, but it is my educated estimate as a judge that this benefits the most of society, because certain brains just happen not to respond to reproaches; also, reminder that you disagree, it is in your complete power of yours to propose to change the law, discussion is welcome'. As I say, we must embrace moral relativism to, as a society, move from deserving-based (retrospective, retributive) to goal-based (prospective, contributive) treatment of 'criminals'. We don't punish people because they 'deserved' it; we do it because we don't want them to reoffend. We just must make this explicit.
>>24543147
>but life doesn't feel that way
Are you seriously using appeal to emotion here?
>it is impossible to test if it is that way.
But we know and understand the nature of cause and effect. It doesn't stop when we look at our brains...
>>24543228
>reminder that you disagree,
*that if you disagree
>>24543194
Normal free will also implies that you could have done otherwise if you were in the same situation.
This is what most people I talked to define as free will.
>>24541283
This sounds good, now I always have an excuse nomatter what fucked up shit I decide to do.
>>24543193
Yes, yes, I know.
But we're not arguing about veterinary behaviorism here.
It was just supposed to be a clumsy half-assed purely logical proof of nonexistent self-awareness in beavers.
You keep moving the goalposts too.
Originally this was about "self-awareness in the human sense" as specified in >>24542635.
>>24543194
>Normally "free will" just means "the ability to make choices".
I don't agree. I think people who defend belief in free will often take it to mean something more.
Something along the lines of "the ability to make choices free of prior causes or divine intervention". This is one of the definitions provided by Merriam-Webster, by the way.
Many free will believers seem to think that people can not only "make choices", but make choices *free of prior causes*.
There is a difference.
>>24543230
it is impossible to test though
You're making an assumption about how the brain works. Maybe someday we will have more advanced knowledge of the brain and know the answer but it's unknowable now.
>>24543295
Its not an excuse. Its the explanation for making the choice X in a given event Y. You will still be jailed, if you commence illegal activity.
>>24543303
So would you say that "self-awareness" is required to make a "choice"?
>>24543228
It is easier to understand in terms of, don't laugh, children. Rather than telling your child, 'you can't do that', you must tell them 'if you do that, I will hit you/kick you out/whatever'. This way, the kid is free to ask 'why tho?', which could lead you to discussion of the merits of whatever it is, you teach them to think in terms of cause and consequence, avoid being emotional, keep him from later resenting you from pretending that your subjective opinions were objective, and so on. It's the mature way.
And as for the 'some people aren't ready for this level of discussion', again see >>24542403.
>>24543122
You implied that no one arguing from the side of having no free will has been using ad homs or belittling those who fail to understand such a poorly explained, complex idea. Just being a snarky hypocrite is enough to take offense.
>>24543322
You are right, we don't fully comprehend HOW the brain does all the stuff, but we know WHAT it is. It is a part of our universe, hence it will also obey the laws of nature. The rest should come naturally after this.
>>24543312
Well ok. I guess I haven't spoken to them.
I believe we have free will in that we can make decisions. Chemistry and experience affect/inform those decisions but personally I still believe that when I make a choice I was not forced to make that choice. When I go to eat food I know that my biology is influencing what food I want to eat but I don't believe that means my diet is predetermined.
The divine intervention thing is a specific religious belief in some faiths (like Calvinism) but those are extremely fringe beliefs nowadays.
>>24543377
>Chemistry and experience affect/inform those decisions but personally I still believe that when I make a choice I was not forced to make that choice. When I go to eat food I know that my biology is influencing what food I want to eat but I don't believe that means my diet is predetermined.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be implying the existence of a "you" that is "influenced" by biology, but which has the power to override the constraints of biology...and by extension, physics.
>>24543346
Whatever. This is a digression.
Doesn't quantum mechanics prove that even with all the data in one snapshot of the universe down to atoms could not help predict the ultimate path it takes?
Peoples' decisions are based around their past, but they aren't scientifically predictable, even if you got all the data/ possible outcomes their brains can create
>>24543444
Yes I am. When you eat certain foods or don't eat certain foods your body will send signals to your brain incentivizing you to eat something to complement your diet. Those influence cravings or tastes but they do not force you to go eat/drink those things.
This is only an example.
>>24543228
>>24543339
In fact, the word 'should', the way it is used and implied e.g. in judicial pronouncements, should (I know, I know) be removed from language. There is literally no reason for it to exist; it is strictly the verbal equivalent of a tug-of-war. 'You should!' 'No *you should*!' 'No YOU SHOULD!' 'No Y-O-U S-H-O-U-L-D!'. Yet again, it *seems* superficially plausible that it is good because it allows people to convince/pressure the lesser-willed harmful people into compliance, but the deeper moral level is, if we refrained from it, we would immediately have to try even harder to accomplish the same effect. When you can no longer assert the importance of your ideas ('we should do this or that with the economy'), your list of examples has to be thrice as long to pack the same persuasive punch. But that's the point; this is painful, but such a list is more likely to be screencapped, and so on. The use of 'should' is narrow-sighted.
But that's a bit off-topic.
>>24541377
checked
>>24541444
sweet trips, checked
>>24541499
checked
>>24541588
checked
>>24541700
checked
>>24541744
checked
>>24541822
checked
>>24541911
checked
>>24542199
checked
>>24542266
checked
>>24542499
checked
>>24542500
checked
>>24542522
checked
>>24542677
checked
>>24542699
checked
>>24542844
checked
>>24542888
checked
>>24542900
checked
>>24543122
checked
>>24543322
checked
>>24543377
checked
>>24543444
checked
>>24542546
I'm a metasciencefag, not a quantumfag.
>Freewill doesn't exist xD
>I'm a failure but it isn't my fault because free will doesn't exist!!!
>I didn't crash my car because freewill doesn't exist
>I didn't rape that woman because free will doesn't exist
Autism at its finest.
Also Lol@ Science explaining how free will doesn't exist but they have a hard time explaining conciousness
In the next 5 minutes I can go out or continue to stay in my room. I will make a choice. But say that my decision will be a result of the previous social interactions that I had with people. And that was a result of my upbringing. And eventually we go to my genes. Or I could toss a coin and the result will be predetermined. Now I get that there is an effect of things that are not in my control but to some extent I still have a choice. I won't have all the options I want but I will have limited choice. Besides, even if free will did not exist at all, it doesn't mean anything. We can't prove that there is objective morality or even an existence as we know it. Yet we go on about living our life assuming these things exist. Because you can't live by leaving your thinking process behind. At the end of the day you will choose to do stuff. And Iastly if nothing we do can change the world since everything is predetermined anyway why bother try to convince people there is no free will?
>>24543517
tl;dr 'should' objectivizes. 'Should' is basically theistic; it means 'deus vult'. We become truly responsible when we make explicit that our goals are own alone, and there is no intrinsic reason anyone should comply. We must, so to say, have the courage to show our weaknesses. When a judge pronounces 'this was a heinous crime', they should rather say 'locking you up will prevent repeated rape and mutilation of women' (yes, he shouldn't even say that it will prevent suffering, because suffering is not a material term).
>>24543660
Strawmen.
>>24543663
Is this a web crawler that fetched random fallacies from threads on free will from the Internet?
>>24543684
>Strawman
>Doesn't attack my post
Ok m8
>>24543507
So you believe that we have a soul, then?
>>24543663
>why bother try to convince people there is no free will?
To show how much you love memes
Daily reminder that people who shitpost against free will are pathetic NEETs that unironically think they deserve to live
>>24541283
Free will exists because I can make decisions to do things, simple as that. I may be predetermined since birth to make every decision I've ever made based off my eniviornment, but I'm still free to do whatever I please.
>free will somehow doesn't exist because it arises and is influenced by external forces
I can still pick and choose how I react to this that and the other, why I do so is irrelevant.
>>24543731
>>24543663
>if nothing we do can change the world since everything is predetermined anyway why bother try to convince people there is no free will?
This one is relatively important to address, though. Namely, your very notion of objective 'why bother' is non-existent, imaginary. The set of classes of meaningful claims/thoughts is smaller than you think, not every question you ask is meaningful. There is just 'is'. For instance, your brain contains such and such chemical composition, and this statistically implies that you are going to do this or that soon -- for instance, make yourself a sandwich. Over the next couple of minutes, in said brain of yours there will appear the subjective structure of 'I'm hungry, therefore I should get up and eat', which will motivate you. This is the only kind of 'why bother'. It is internal to minds. 'Why bother' comes and goes infinite times every day.
>Universe is fundamentally non-deterministic
>Hurr durr free will can't exist in Newtonian Physics even though we clearly do
>>24543744
I'm open to the possibility.
> If an uncaused quantum event caused your decision, that's still not "free will".
It's not? What is it then? It's not determinism
quantum mechanics true non caused chaos. an unmoved mover. I thought that's what free will is?
>>24543776
>I'm still free to do whatever I please.
Are you?
>DURRR FREEWILL DOESN'T EXIST BECAUZE MUH PAST DECISIONS AND EXPERIENCE DAHHHHHHH
That all comes from the left logical region of your brain, you retard. When you're under the influence of alcohol or drugs, that gets shut down and you're left with the right region of your brain. Your right side is alwaya trying to make decisions but your left brain influences you to take those decisions or not.
GOD WHY IS EVERYONE ON R9K SO FUCKING STUPID.
>>24543852
Until external forces act upon him in such a way to restrict his actions, yeah.
>>24543771
I am a NEET who doesn't deserve to live, and I understand what some people mean when they say there is no free will but it doesn't outright mean you have no jurisdiction over your decisions at all. It's just that most people are self-centered enough to only consider that they make decisions based on personal need and any attempt to counter that is just part of an alterior motive to feel good about oneself.
>>24543663
>And Iastly if nothing we do can change the world since everything is predetermined anyway why bother try to convince people there is no free will?
Teaching this stuff might have positive effects on human beings.
>>24543891
Consequences of adoption of a true belief have absolutely zero bearing on whether it should be adopted.
>>24543883
But his brain is an external force acting upon you causing your actions.
>>24543931
Isn't change the ultimate reason why some idea should be adopted?
So what are the practical implications of not believing in free will? How will that affect the way you live your life?
>>24543942
This. Well-spotted, anon. It is really a silly error to draw the boundary between 'external' and 'internal' at your skull. A reaction that fires inside your brain, such as a thought or an emotion, has exactly the same kind of power to affect your decisions as a literal gunshot outside it.
>>24543982
You can shitpost all you want.
>>24543982
The biggest will be moral responsibility.
>>24543942
His brain is a physical property of himself and houses and controls him in such that it manifests his "will" to the rest of his physical makeup and contains his subjective consciousness.
How can it be an external force if it is what the individual literally extends from?
>>24543960
No, its truth value (well, not really... let's call it 'correspondence-value'; as I explained above, rejection of free will isn't true as much as it gives one a proper definition of truth) is.
>>24544002
This, too. Rejecting free will means that nobody owes you anything and you can only count on yourself. Rather funny that unlike many of ideas ITT, it is explainable in simple words, and yet nobody has said it yet to my knowledge.
>>24544006
Slippery definitions of "you" beside, take a look at >>24543988
>>24544040
This is retarded semantics.
>>24541631
The lives of the meaningless, 4chan has the biggest collection of losers known to humanity.
>>24544060
How so? Both are external as in you cannot control them.
>>24544060
Not that anon, but how so? Decision making is an abstract process. Your 'mind' is a fluid arrangement of pursuits, of decision-making 'threads' maybe so to borrow a programming thread, the eventual vector of which determines the movements of your body. For instance, as you go about, you might have concurrent, more or less conscious, priorities that (1) you should go home, (2) you should type the [shift] key next, that (3) you don't want to die, that (4) you want to get a gf, that (5) you want to humiliate the poster you're replying to, and so on. This is an abstract structure. But it is formed and determined by matter. If you hear a loud bang outside the window, all five (in reality, all infinity of them) are marginalized as the (6), see what the fuck up was that, takes absolute priority. But so can affect this infinitely varied arrangement of pursuits something that originates from within your brain, involuntarily. For instance, a random associative brainfart might create a (7), I wonder what >>>/mu/ or >>>/lit/ has been up to. And this (7) is absolutely no formally different from (6), and, as >>24544159 points out, just as involuntar. This is what I meant in >>24543988.
>>24541980
You don't know shit friendo read a book.
The future is predetermined, there is nothing you can do to change it. Free will does not exist. What any of us will do next exists only being predetermined. No freedom exists.
>>24544191
Very well put.
We neither have control over brain farts or the loud bang outside. There is no need to subdivide both causes into external and internal.
Free will is similar to the concept of objectivity in the way that you can use it to quickly test if a person is a dumdum parrot or actually intelligent.
Free will is an illusion because determinism = dum dum
Free will is not an illusion because quantum magic wibble wobble = dum dum
The dum dum is only interested in the conclusion and will throw his favored conclusion in your face without even defining properly what free will is supposed to be.
t. actually intelligent
