No free will
- Home
- Board: /r9k/ - ROBOT9001
- Reading: No free will
>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
>>24544233
How about you communicate in ways where it would be easier to be able get across without misunderstandings.
>>24544267
>No freedom exists.
Actually, for all my argument here that f.w. is not a thing, I wouldn't say that about freedom just yet. I define freedom as a function of (1) awareness, thoughts of things to do ('I could go outside, or I could learn this song, or I could change my desktop, or...') and (2) emotional independence, not having your desires affected by other people telling you you shouldn't do it, ability to say fuck you.
But I don't insist on that definition.
>>24544300
>actually intelligent
>>24544393
>batman reaction picture
You don't even need to post anything I've already placed you in the dum dum category.
>>24544353
(Which would, I just realized, mean that individual freedom is largely genetic, which is about as politically incorrect view as it gets. Oh well.)
>>24544476
How?
I can easily say I outsmarted you without any back up evidence.
So yea once again
>actually intelligent
>>24544267
>The future is predetermined
I strongly disagree. Even with set laws we still have random variables in our universe like the movement that of elementary particles.
I am no expert on this and I cannot tell how big the impact of these random movements are and how much it will effect the macro world, but they will alter the micro world. This means that you never can precisely predict an outcome.
I would argue that the the way the universe is changing is predetermined in the sense that there is only one way the universe can exist in the. Like in the future is predetermined to exist. But we cannot say that X will happen at time Y in the future.
Of course there are macro world events like the planetary movement of earth and moon that you can predict fairly precisely.
But seeing how the brain functions heavily depend a lot on the micro world it will be difficult to make predictions.
This might have been started before here, but OP's understanding of physics is incorrect.
Quantum mechanics doesn't mean that you observe something which is inherently random It is a complex quantum processor which interprets an incoming multiverse, reducing it to a finite reality which is also somehow filled with things like emotion and logic. There might not be free will, but our brain constructs our reality, and we are obviously aware of it doing so. The struggle is real even if it's unstoppable.
>>24544530
I inferred that you like comic books. You can say "i don't read comic books", and it doesn't matter.
You decided to associate yourself with Batman and that is all I need to know to discard your opinion forever.
t. actually intelligent
>>24543346
Someone's projecting.
>>24544530
>back up evidence
Just a friendly reminder that the idea of evidence is often rather inapplicable. There isn't really evidence for nonexistence of free will, because, again, the notion itself has to do with one's *definitions* of evidence. A believer in it will insist that 'I can do anything I want, therefore free will exists' will believe that this constitutes evidence, unlike a rejector, who will insist (rightfully) that only claims about matter are evidentiable (is this a word?), meaning, it has no sense to claim that 'your thoughts depends on you' because 'you' has no material definition. So invoking the term 'evidence' is, sadly, nowhere as failproof as we'd like.
>>24544604
>You associate with batman so ur argument is invalid xD
How's that fedora going along?
>>24544623
>This is what religious followers believe
>>24544576
Free Will of the Gaps.
>>24544625
I'm fine, dum dum. Thank you for asking.
>>24544652
Yes? Pretty much every religious 'argument' depends on inspecific definitions of 'evidence', 'proof', 'logic', and so on. What's your point?
>>24543032
but to some extent people still need to be able to facilitate a basic level of cooperation, so things such as murder/rape/ would still be illegal and those people would be incarcerated because they threaten that basic level of cooperation that is required for people to be able to function.
>>24544668
Are you even listening to yourself?
>>24544623
In other words, that's what I meant in >>24544008: it is not enough to argue that something is 'true', because 'God exists' or 'consciousness is universal' or 'we have free will'-tier claims will be true as soon as you convince your listener to concede that the term 'true' goes together with such vague claims. That's why the point of intellectual development is to move onto the level of strictness of terms (= discussion), in which 'true' means strictly logical or strictly empirical, and which, unlike free will 'everyone can do everything as long as they want to', provides a framework for describing as much of the world as possible ('behaviour A depends on factor B') and is not a dead end. Sage.
>>24541283
>uncaused quantum event
>uncaused
Why
>>24544787
I believe you are referring to hard evidence here?
>>24544844
>hard evidence
I feel unpleasant thinking that some people might not find this term redundant, but, yes, I guess to?
>be anon
>never done something something on his own accord
>24/7 go with flow
>depressed about shit life
>go on 4chan and project so hard I could replace a multimedia projector during presentation
>>24543988
Doesn't matter, even if my emotions are influencing me a certain way, which I had indeed touched on, I can still decide to do something completely different. I could be completely happy and commit suicide should I decide to.
>>24545461
If just once, people replying to me read the thread beforehand...
No. >>24542607.
>>24545492
In other words, some/most people's introspection is only one order deep.
Why do we fight the notion that we are just robots? How is it better to believe in f.w. than to accept the reality of biology?
>>24545546
>How is it better to believe in f.w. than to accept the reality of biology?
See >>24542888. People want to believe that their beliefs and virtues are consciously developable and defendable and don't come and go at the mercy of the environment. In other words, rampant, undue egos.
>>24545578
And a bit of laziness, too: 'oh I don't need to ensure a secure, stimulating environment as urgently as possible, I'm going to make myself rational... some way... one day. My free will will take care of it.'
>>24545578
>>24545591
(The parallels between free will and theism are truly striking. It's basically an angel guardian, a little me that will ensure that everything will be fine and that will always be there to get things right.)
duuuuuude how many times i have to repeat it to you. Ever heard of butterfly effect? thats all predeterminded.
Predetermined by what?
By laws of physics, chemistry and math.
Planets are where they are now because of how particles work. lets say we rewinded time to Big Bang. You CAN'T change position of planets(not just planets, anything!) without changing laws of physics. Its the same with humans. Actions and reactions. Yes, you can start working out. But you ether are or are not conditioned to stick to your resolution.
Even me having such opinion as i stated above was meant to be.
I guess it all ocmes down to how you define "free will"
>>24545591
>'My free will will take care of it.'
Think of it this way:
A scientific person/a robot:
>I want thing.
>Can I imagine myself wanting thing for long enough to achieve it?
>Yes.
>Wait, shit, actually no, my brain would bore, and there'd be distractions, and priorities change as I age, and while normies say that I can always remind myself to try harder, those reminders are all just as predetermined.
>I can't reasonably achieve it. I know myself.
A religious person/a normie:
>I want thing.
>Can I imagine myself wanting thing for long enough to achieve it?
>Yes.
>I can achieve it. Put under ACHIEVABLE VIA FREE WILL.
In other words, 'free will' is the bag in which every single prospect lands obstacles to which you've failed to see. Belief in free will measures ignorance.
Why does it matter and how did this thread get so different replies?
>>24541302
>>24541305
these
maybe when you realize something which is actually useful you can make another thread you fedora-tipping edgelord
>>24545836
Related to this is the normie fallacy of misequating 'not under those conditions' with 'not under those conditions plus awareness of the situation'.
Namely, a person will know, for instance, that they'll never learn a language.
To which the normie replies, 'but you can, you just need to remind yourself of it'.
But this is a completely different situation, in which presence of such reminders make it achievable by definition. And presence of said reminders is, again, absolutely not a given, because memory is faulty, because a brain will declare 'fuck it, I quit' at even the most grandiosely embraced and initially most religiously pursued goals after a certain amount of failures, and so on. Again, this is self-knowledge.
>>24545937
In other words, normies don't talk about reality.
>>24545838
>maybe when you realize something which is actually useful you can make another thread you fedora-tipping edgelord
Are you programmed in such a way that being reminded you're a robot upsets you?
Truly a sad fate..
>>24545937
>Namely, a person will know, for instance, that they'll never learn a language.
They probably can't know that with absolute, 100% certainty, though. They can make a good prediction. Possibly a very good prediction.
But one thing leads to another. At one point I thought I'd never learn Spanish. Now I'm fairly fluent in it. Stuff happened.
>>24545937
And, of course, the normie's misdefining brain will then say, 'well, free will exists in the sense that it is possible for you to come by the reminders that you should keep pursuing that hobby one way or another'. But this much has never been disputed; the issue, as I said, is the normie's unwillingness to discuss the CONDITIONS under which that, such reminders, happen.
>>24546021
True, but this margin of uncertainty is not free will, or rather, not the personality tendency under discussion.
Good thread OP I'm impressed by how little trolling and stuff is going on
Free will is an oxymoron
Everything in the universe has a cause
Whenever you do something from your will you are doing it for a cause (usually biological urges)
If you do something freely without a cause, then you will not be able to explain why you did it and it is therefore not your will
Therefore you can not have a will that is "free"
>>24546084
In other words, in a 'can I achieve thing X?' discussion, a robot takes as-is the brain in question, and considers its state as present, thinking whether it can be reasonably expected to do the thing, while the normie evades the question, says his 'bro dude you totally can', shits on the chessboard, and says 'now that I've motivated you, you can'.(He's wrong, too.)
>>24546195
(The point is that, as I explained in a recent suicide thread, the normie's changing of the question doesn't invalidate the framework in which it is supposed to be considered, namely that of nonexistence of f.w. Again, this has about as much sense as replying to 'does the heavier body attract the lighter one more?' with 'not if we make the latter one heavier'. Thanks for nothing. Also, your evasion of the original question remains invalid regardless of any 'motivation' or 'help' it might have been for the asker.)
>>24546194
>If you do something freely without a cause, then you will not be able to explain why you did it and it is therefore not your will
The nonsensical premise of 'doing something without a cause' notwithstanding, the conclusion is pretty creative. I like it.
>>24546194
>If you do something freely without a cause, then you will not be able to explain why you did it and it is therefore not your will
>Therefore you can not have a will that is "free"
Im not understanding something here. If I can explain the cause to an action, and said cause was an internal and conscious decision, then doesnt that mean that my will caused it?
>>24544625
He is right though desu senpai. one punch man is the new batman.
>>24546451
Said cause can not be "internal and conscious" because it will always depend on past external stimuli. If you can explain why you did it then it is your will, but then it's not free since it came directly as a consequence of something else.
>>24546451
>said cause was an internal and conscious decision
There is no 'internal'. There is only the 'external', in the sense of the universe being one material whole. And conscious doesn't mean self-originating any more than casting light on something creates it.
>>24546999
Also sweet, my second trips in this thread. Though I remember one, incidentally on the same topic, in which I think I got three.
>>24542312
Kant was shit and a blight on philosophy.
>>24546698
So free is defined as without prior cause?
That doesn't make much sense to me. Why must something be free of prior cause (if I'm understanding you right)?. A prior cause just makes one likely to act in certain ways. If there's a possibility outside of the most likely choice, and barring some undiseased and non-addicted mind/conscious, then a person could certainly pick something outside of what every past example would indicate.
Typing on a phone, sorry if something is messed it.
>>24547525
>then a person could certainly pick something outside of what every past example would indicate
I swear, fence-sitters, 'I believe in half-free will', are even funnier than the full believers.
>>24547562
>>24547525
And seriously, again, >>24542607.
>>24541283
some people are free, others are not.
>>24547562
I never said I believed in half free will. I'm just trying to understand your position. No need to be a dick.
>you are not special anon, you are a chimp living on a rock flpating through space
>however you still have the ability to manipulate the atoms in your brain as you please to impose your will upon the universe as a god, so dont fuck up :^) or you will be answering to the bbc
>>24542153
existentialism is a school of philosophy that concerns itself with free will very very much.
>>24547739
I would be wary of a 'philosophy' that contradicts the very foundation of science.
>>24547812
I was just calling out that anon for using the word wrong.
I also don't really get how admiting that free will doesn't exist should change anything in how you approach the world.
>>24547879
>I was just calling out that anon for using the word wrong.
Oh, I see. Sorry.
>I also don't really get how admiting that free will doesn't exist should change anything in how you approach the world
Seriously, just read the thread. Or at least >>24541697 (not my post).
>>24547879
See
>24542888
>>24543032
literally retarded.
without freewill consequences would be all the more important, as they'd substantially contribute to future action
>>24547948
I'm the author of >>24542888 (requoted for >>24547879's convenience).
Let me give a real-life example. I just went shopping. And while at it, I managed to have a couple of ideas how to optimize things around me: put away someone else's cart together with mine, noticed with the corner of my eye that someone wants to move and let them pass, noticed that a fridge was open (which was hard to do, because it was opened almost completely and you needed to look closely), and so on.
All good, right?
Except every time, I was reminded that I know of no way to ensure such level of mental effectiveness (no need to tell me that it is laughably little and everyone does that -- it is mental effectiveness *for me*, I know myself) in the future. That I don't know talking to whom would increase occurrence of such thoughts. Maybe just thinking about such thoughts makes them rarer? Would a job, and socialization, make them more or less likely? Would watching movies, reading books? Questions, questions, questions. The whole realm of your behaviour is opened to science and you can't possibly test your hypotheses fast enough.
>>24548050
Or this. Timely posted. Rejection of free will entails being on a constant watchout for possible consequences of things.
>>24548193
tl;dr every time I have a thought, the follow-up comes up, 'what to do so to have more of those in the future'. And >inb4 'just let go and don't think about it, they will come when you're relaxed' -- I am not at all convinced this is the case.
>>24548193
I guess I don't get how you can accept the knowledge that free will is not real without either only knowing it but not acknowledging it or becoming a complete nihilist because you are essentially just someone observing existence and there is nothing right or wrong to do in any situation because there is nothing to do in any situation and you are not any more responsible for your own actions than you are for those of others or for the earth orbiting the sun.
>>24548193
I already lightly touched on this earlier in the thread, but I find it very hard to deal with when free will believers unsympathetic to this worldview put roadblocks in my way because they don't get it.
Right now, you and I (hopefully) feel pretty smart and pretty sane right now. We probably are in a mindstate where we would make better "decisions" rather than worse ones. We realize though, that this is due to our brain states.
If something goes wrong, it could set off a chain reaction and end up causing us to fuck up, bad.
This is very concerning. The fact that most people don't get it makes it frustrating, because you (or at least I) wonder if they're going to somehow mess things up, since they're working on a completely different paradigm.
I'm not sure whether I was able to pick the right words to communicate what I'm talking about to you. If I had the ability to use "free will" to pick better words, I would. But you get what I'm saying man, right?
>>24548369
I feel like the way you are thinking there is still a will involved on a higher plane than the cause and reaction brain, and I'm not sure if it is possible to escape this as a human because you cannot truly experience the undeniable scientific fact that free will does not exist.
>>24548330
>becoming a complete nihilist because you are essentially just someone observing existence and there is nothing right or wrong to do in any situation because there is nothing to do in any situation
Wait wait wait calm your non-sequiturs.
I am not 'just someone observing existence'. Brains just don't become perfect detached floating analytic machines as soon as they understand free will doesn't exist. I'm still going to do and think and want and be engaged (I deeply hope). So there's that.
I don't consider myself a 'nihilist' because I don't understand this term. I have never said that 'everything is meaningless' or anything like that, because meaning/importance is subjective (when I like a genre, songs in it are valuable, when I'm hungry, food is valuable, because I'm an animal, sex is valuable, etc.).
It's definitely false that 'there is nothing right or wrong to do in any situation'. Non-existence of free will has nothing to do with morality. We're all the universe's dead puppets, but the puppets that steal, like, and are inconsistent, as long as they do it awarely and without a sense of coercion, still apparently evolutionarily turned out to be evil. All that nonexistence of f.w. has to say regarding this is that it is meaningless to hate them for it. But the moral thing remains to study the causes of this and fight it.
And 'there is nothing to do in any situation' is just puzzling. What is your definition of 'being to do'? What happens, happens. I just don't understand this claim.
>>24548469
No, man. I don't believe in free will at all.
That's why if I'm in a good mindstate, I need to do what I can to keep that mindstate.
I'm in a good mindstate now. I'm not too happy with my life, but I'm calm enough and lucid enough that I am almost sure I won't screw up anything too bad.
If something goes wrong with my brain, I could end up ruining my entire life.
What takes decades to build can be destroyed in minutes.
Sanity and intelligence depend on particular configurations of the brain. If things get too out of whack, it can fuck everything up.
>>24548501
>But the moral thing remains to study the causes of this and fight it.
Why does the moral thing matter when you are incapable of choosing it? Either it happens or it does not happen.
>>24548554
>I need to do what I can to keep that mindstate.
That's the thing though, despite your insistence that free will does not exist you still seem to think you can change your behaviour in any way.
>>24548556
>Why does the moral thing matter when you are incapable of choosing it?
Fuck man, I know you're honestly asking, but...
You don't understand the difference between the 'purpose-why' and the 'reason-why'? There is no 'purpose-why' to whatever behaviour I had done and will do, whether it is/was moral or immoral. I was just determined this way. We can discuss the fine points of my past effecting my present and my future for hundreds of years if you want though.
I never claimed that morality 'matters'. For moral people, it matters, for immoral ones, it doesn't. Sometimes people's stance on importance of morality can even be changed via environment. What are you trying to catch me at exactly?
>>24548600
My behavior can change. I just can't freely choose how to behave.
If I'm calm, I can't just choose free of prior causes to get angry.
>>24543583
But did they get these dubs due to the timing of their own choice. Or were these dubs already decided when the universe began?
>>24548627
I don't think I'm getting what I mean across and I have to go to bed but I'm getting the feeling that you still have a sense of "you" that thinks in terms of right and wrong and how society or individuals should be in a way that is incompatible with a pure "matter and energy" worldview.
>>24548369
Sorry for delay in reply.
Yes. I don't have much to add, because you put it well. There definitely is a, so to say, 'casusal/factoral dread'. We're only as sane as long as our brain structure isn't that of psychosis. There is always this, again, game of one-upmanship with normies. We say, 'I fear for my brain'. Then the normie says, 'you can control your reactions to factors affecting your brain'. Then I ask, 'I fear for appropriateness of my reactions to those factors'. And the normie replies... And so on. Apparently, we've ended up on the 'but what if it goes wrong and I don't manage to handle it properly' side of the game.
>If I had the ability to use "free will" to pick better words, I would. But you get what I'm saying man, right?
Yes. 'You can just read a dictionary and build your vocabulary', the normie says. 'But', then ask I, 'what about all the ideas to find better, online dictionaries, and all the cool strategies and techniques for wordlearning that my brain would have had had it been born smarter?'. We have seen into the void.
Cheers.
>>24548771
This is also why everyone needs to be really careful about pills that affect the brain.
Have you heard about all the generic drug debacles we're having in the US?
>>24548771
>>24548369
For instance, one of the most maddening periods of my life was when I was acutely aware that all my awareness and priorities, including that very awareness, was going to disappear way before my death, and become less important to me, less thought-about, less developed, and generally neglected. And I was aware that I can't just make my brain magically produce thoughts to remember to cultivate the subjects I was interested in, because such reminders would STILL BE FUCKING ENCODED IN MY FALLIBLE BRAIN MATTER and as such, I still would be on its mercy. And I can't take special precautions to THAT, because those too.. etc. etc.
lol fuck philosophy
DO YOU FEEL IN CHARGE R9K?!?!?!
>>24541362
If people had control over their own destiny or reality no one would be born poor and no one would die prematurely.
>>24548891
>Have you heard about all the generic drug debacles we're having in the US?
Is it visible that I'm not a native speaker?
Also, not sure. Recreational or medical ones? Links? And yes, I am very wary of anything that claims to 'improve my thinking'.
>>24548948
The lengths people will go to to defend "free will" are absolutely mad.
>"Yes, I was using drugs that night, but I was in complete control," said the rapper, who also goes by the name of Christ Bearer. "I cut [my penis] off because that was the root of all my problems.
http://www.eonline.com/news/559406/rapper-who-cut-penis-off-i-m-alive-penis-or-no-penis
His brain was configured to cause him to cut off his own dick. The idea that he was "in complete control" and all these rationalizations are bullshit.
>>24548974
BUT AT LEAST THEY CAN CHOOSE TO BE HAPPY AS THEY DIE POOR AM I RIGHT
>>24548985
No. Your use of British spelling made me assume you were from the UK, is all. Your English is very nearly perfect.
>Recreational or medical ones? Links?
Medical.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/17/business/generic-ritalin-drug-not-equivalent-to-the-brand-is-in-use-anyway.html?_r=0
> I am very wary of anything that claims to 'improve my thinking'
Good. You should be.
The concept of free will isn't negated by determinism and dialectic materialism. A decision sparking in your mind can be both pre-determined from the first nanosecond of the Universe, and free willed. It depends on knowledge and observation (just like Quantum physics wave-particle duality).
If you lack knowledge and observation of the future, the future is not pre-determined. When you gain knowledge about the future, it's determined.
The riddle of an all knowing Gd and human free will has been a basic concept in Platonism and Jewish Talmudic thought, as well as in the Book of Job (to some degree).... nothing new here.
>>24548993
Rationalizations of effects of drugs are on a whole fucking another level. I was called mentally ill dozens of times for saying that 'realizations' from 'psychedelic' drugs, for instance, are just changed priorities, e.g. that 'I just understood/chose to be nicer' or 'I just understood/chose to be more accepting of other people's perspectives' are not objective realizations, but just changed brain chemistry, changed definitions of what's proper and what's not ('I suddenly understood that the objectively proper level of forgiveness and credulity just happens to all the time have been not the one I was on before the trip, but the one I am on now'). What makes this even worse is 'psychedelics' literally convince you of relevance of whatever you believe during the trip.
It's basically the whole 'it depends on you whether you choose to let them make you an idiot/lazy/...'. Well, what about their power to affect your decisions to let them make you that? If I once believed that I am my physical body, and now I find acceptable the phrasing that 'I am the whole universe', then obviously the root of the problem is the fact that my definition of abuse of language has gone off. Something must have caused it.
>Your use of British spelling made me assume you were from the UK, is all. Your English is very nearly perfect.
Right. I recently read that -ize is more proper suffix than -ise and returned to it, doing which might've led me to think my British spelling isn't as noticeable. Thanks.
Reading your link now.
>>24549242
>Rationalizations of effects of drugs are on a whole fucking another level.
Agreed. Christ Bearer doesn't seem to understand how irresponsible he was to say what he said about being "in complete control".
He was doing meth, PCP, alcohol, and MDMA, and not sleeping. Yet he claimed to be in "complete control".
The message this sends is that you can abuse loads of hard drugs and still be okay, and he just happened to "choose" to cut off his penis.
No. His brain was fucked up on drugs which led him to think this was a good idea, and now it's scrambling to rationalize a horrifying situation.
>>24549319
>The message this sends is that you can abuse loads of hard drugs and still be okay
Exactly. Just wanted to mention this. As I put it, if drugs make you happier/more relaxed, and so on, it is the drug's (disputable) benefits, but if they ruin your life, it is suddenly the user's fault because he couldn't cope with the effects. The person who has suffered, the victim of misinformation, is being made the scapegoat, so to shift the responsibility away from the drug: using, guess what, free will. 'He just didn't apply his free will that he had had, it won't happen to you as long as you use it though and just choose not to go overboard.'
>>24549392
>it won't happen to you as long as you use it though and just choose not to go overboard
Also known as the infamous 'it's not harmless by itself' tautological fallacy.
>>24549392
>>24549434
In other words, free will is being abused as a proxy, a causal buffer, which is basically saying '...maybe not tho'. There is a relationship between a substance/a practice and a harmful outcome? 'Well don't judge, there is always free will to the rescue together with the responsible use that it might bring'. Again, again, again, the question is whether the substance increases or decreases *the likelihood of the thoughts and desires to act responsibly* appearing in the user's brain.
Sorry for hammering the point; I tend to rant.
>>24549434
>'it's not harmless by itself'
*'it's not harmful by itself'
>>24549392
This is just one more reason why "free will" is such an incredibly destructive concept...
Do you ever feel like you and I are the ones who actually WANT to do the "responsible" thing (although we really can't take much credit for it considering it's just our genetics and conditioning), but the free-will believers imply the opposite--that we "CHOOSE" not to believe in free will because we want to be irresponsible?
It's almost the very opposite of how it is.
>>24549504
Except, I should add, I don't feel like I ever "chose" not to believe in free will.
I don't believe in it because it's an incoherent, illogical mess of a superstition. I can't choose to believe in it any more than I can choose to believe in a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis.
The fact that believing in it is so dangerous isn't why I don't believe in it, but something I realized.
cba reading this whole thread
But nothing is stopping me from jumping infront of a car to prove you wrong or whatever. I'm not going to do that because I don't want to. I guess that proves your point but desu it's pointless even making the point to begin with.
>>24549504
>the free-will believers imply the opposite--that we "CHOOSE" not to believe in free will because we want to be irresponsible
Yes. This is one of life's bigger ironies.
The people who cry 'defeatist manchild' somehow manage to only see half of the picture, and ignore >>24544037/>>24544002. Yes, no one can blame me for anything, but also I can't blame myself for anything. Rape me, kill me, once I have professed rejection of free will, you have the full right to call me a hypocrite if I tell someone that it was their fault. And anyway, I think that people who genuinely reject it, meaning genuinely look at an act of hostility towards them and selflessly think of the causes, are the more successful ones, anyway. (Sadly, I neither do that or am successful.)
And implication that we *chose* not to believe is indeed an insult added to the injury. Never noticed that. Funny.
It's visible that you've thought it all through, anon. What do you do for a living if I may ask?
>>24549697
>but also I can't blame myself for anything
Oops, *blame OTHERS for anything. Not a Freudian slip, I swear.
>>24549697
I'm a college dropout. Was going to be a professor. I had a near-perfect GPA.
Stuff happened.
I don't really want to get into too much detail.
>>24549784
I see.
>>24549637
>nothing is stopping me from jumping infront of a car to prove you wrong or whatever
By the way, >>24549784. You might find this amusing. In a recent thread, I realized that a way to prevent such nonsense on the linguistic level would be to make the pronouns 'I' and 'you' morphemically mean 'the speaker's body' and 'the listener's body'. As a rule of thumb, if you substitute 'I and 'you' for those and the result is meaningless or platitudinal, probably so is the original.
Claim:
>'The only thing that's stopping you from doing anything you want is yourself.'
Translation:
'The only thing that's stopping the reader's bod from doing anything the reader's body wants is the reader's body.'
Much less tantalizing and much more tautological.
>>24549905
Also, I'd like to remind that I'm not 'defeatist' or 'negative'; I made >>24542016.
>>24549905
Really interesting use of words there. Thanks for sharing.
You know, I'd like to chat with you more. But there's no way I'd post contact info on /r9k/...I know better than to risk it.
It's a pity.
>>24549987
Well, I'm planning to collect my writing from /r9k/ over the years, and maybe compile it one day (even though four months' worth of threads from archive.moe/r9k/ seems to have been lost just because a certain idiot decided to scrape the lone other /r9k/ archive so to recover those months, which made its owner shut it down). You might Google >"self-awareness is harmful" in a couple of years; I'll definitely use that phrase in it, and definitely no one else will think to use it, either, so it'll be me.
Nice chatting with you.
>>24550085
>from archive.moe/r9k/
*from the now-defunct
>>24550085
Cool, and likewise.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ca7i-D4ddaw
>>24547562
I think it's a black and white issue. Either you have free will, or you don't.
>>24550457
Again, what I've been suggesting ITT is that free will is not something that exists 'out there', but a personality trait, basically [1] (by the way, indeed, it is bitter how even purportedly scientific resources such as that site associate rejection of free will with blame, hopelessness, and so on). Do you, primarily, as you think about yourself and others, FEEL, such as pride or envy or contempt, 'I/they have achieved so much/little', or do you THINK about WHAT MADE them so, 'I wonder what circumstances led to this?'. In this perspective, it is definitely a scale, and both modes can co-occur.
[1] http://psychology.about.com/od/personalitydevelopment/fl/What-Is-Locus-of-Control.htm
>>24550651
In other words, asking if free will doesn't exist is a bit like asking if logic or math exists. It doesn't exist as much as it is a framework which enables and invites you to reason about stuff as opposed to just feeling about it. It's elective; take it or don't.
>>24550651
>http://psychology.about.com/od/personalitydevelopment/fl/What-Is-Locus-of-Control.htm
In fact,
>If you work hard and commit yourself to a goal, you can achieve anything.
>If you study hard and are well-prepared, you can do well on exams.
>Luck has little to do with success; it's mostly a matter of dedication and effort.
those consciousness-narrowing tautologies, intended to make people think less about the impact of nature/nurture, made me physically weak. Is this what they teach people in psychology courses?
>>24550763
>If you work hard and commit yourself to a goal, you can achieve anything.
I don't think that's even worth calling a tautology. To a great extent, it's shiny-happy nonsense.
>>24550859
And a normie staple.
>'I've been banging my head on the wall for four hours trying to break through, my head is bleeding, and the wall is intact. I'm not gonna make it.'
>'You will never know unless you keep trying! Keep banging!'
Someone once posted a 'motivating' normie comic here with two guys digging two tunnels, racing to an underground pool of diamonds, with one guy giving up, disappointed by the apparent lack of results, just before reaching it, unwittingly letting the other, behind him, get to it instead. I photoshopped it so that there was no diamonds in the picture at all, so that the disappointed guy who returned just got home, while the enthusiastic idiot would keep digging on... and on... forever.
It is relevant to suicide too.
>'Just cut, you coward!'
>'Just jump!'
There is hardly a concept as contentious as the exact boundaries of 'you can'... or effortlessly overcoming just how many factors can the spacious word 'just...' imply.
>>24551024
And a variation on Pascal's wager, especially in the way you portrayed it.
>>24551024
>the exact boundaries of 'you can'
(Personally, I think that capacity is not real either, and that all that exists is just scientific predictions, endlessly and unconsciously being made and remade by brains as new events happen and are being considered. Strictly speaking, capacity is the result of a prediction. As I said, imagine a guy estimates whether he 'can' find a job. 'Considering my skills and the market, hm, not really.' So, say, c = .07. Then, when he remembers that 'hey, actually, I can try really hard!!', the previous capacity is just being discarded, and the new prediction incorporating his newfound enthusiasm just produces new capacity, say, c = .23. Capacity is only a function of analysis of the pre-given criteria. But this is a guess.)
>>24551111
Nice quads. Nicer than my two trips ITT.
>a variation on Pascal's wager
With the caveat that on Earth, we are not immortal, and trying in vain to get the proverbial gf that we wouldn't enjoy infinitely anyway might indeed be a waste of precious time which to rather (non-euphorically, but enjoyably enough) NEET/MGTOW/... out.
>>24551258
(Except that, of course, 99% of such predictions are absolutely unconscious, non-explicit. When we are on a walk and there's a big branch on the path, we too implicitly calculate a capacity, 'knowing my gait, hardness of the wood, amount of ambient light, etc. etc. etc., will I be able to safely walk over it?' Then the result is being compared to capacity of taking the route around, which obviously wins (unless there's a factor such that, for instance, there's an animal sitting there which the person has a phobia of, or something). The results then interact with decision-making (energy expenditure of respective choices) and ultimately produces a 'nanodecision', a 'nanoreasoning'. There happen hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of those daily.)
>>24541283
Then what is chained will?
If we changed our own way of thinking to reflect that fact, we would end saying things like
> The misery of this man robbed the property of this wealthy dude
I kinda remember that there are a few old languages constructed like this (navajo?) but my memory is blurry.
>>24548966
> DO YOU FEEL FREE WILL OF CHARGE?
>>24551258
>>24551388
In other words, in spite of what many people and many groups love to insist, humans are intrinsically rational. We literally cannot not be rational.
>>24544300
This may actually be the stupidest post I've read in this thread.
It's real in the sense that humans will never be able to determine a full causation path. There are more variables than there are numbers we know of.
>>24544476
>dum dum
this is
>>24551513
>a full causation path
There isn't even a single path. I've read people call it causal network, I don't think I've ever come across a satisfactory visual or mathematical representation of what the fuck causality really looks like.
For the believers in free will: When does a young man or woman get free will?
Do they get it at 12? 18?
14 years, 1 month, 2 days, and an hour?
>>24551692
(I mean things like a thing can cause something both directly or via a proxy (IQ causes linguistic ability both directly and via finding intelligent, good friends who motivate you to develop it), distinction whether, say, a drive such as for food is caused by the individual, the evolution, or the laws of physics... never mind, in fact, I shouldn't have made that post; sorry. I just meant that in my mind, neither the mathematical line 'path' implies or the mathematical graph 'network' implies seem to do the subject justice, no matter how I fancy it.)
>>24552288
A more interesting question would be, maybe, at what point do primitive animals begin to exhibit desire.
>>24552288
When their conciousness is born
you fags need to get laid
>>24552288
At conception you silly goose. You might not be able to take in your surroundings or your reasoning might not be as developed yet, but you still have free will. God's gift to mankind
>>24552559
Does God know everything?
>>24552524
They'd have gotten laid by now it they were meant to. It seems like an easy way to avoid responsibility and actually doing anything, which is why neets love it.
>>24553151
>They'd have gotten laid by now it they were meant to.
Literally implying determinism
>>24553151
>It seems like an easy way to avoid responsibility and actually doing anything
I begin to understand what Imhotep the wise trip meant when he said, quoting from memory, that sides of popular arguments are on a different planet wholly than real, actually existing distinctions.
Literally no one rejects free will to 'avoid responsibility'. Maybe 15-year-olds, for whom it is just a phase, who justify it once or twice with a vague 'we're physically determined', and who and forget about the whole idea within after a month or two, turning a couple of years intofree will-believing normies that then shitpost on /r9k/. True rejection of free will is rarer and has to do, yet again, with whether you react emotionally to your treatment by other people, with how you motivate others, and so on.
>>24553401
>with whether you react emotionally to your treatment by other people, with how you motivate others, and so on
With, as said above, whether you trust yourself, and other people, not to alter their behaviour in spite of their declarations...
>>24543228
c.s. lewis already explained why punishing criminals is preferable to aiming to "rehabilitate" them
>>24553151
Avoiding reality is part of reality, me shedding the guilt that would typically come with slacking off with my life is part of reality too. This post is reality.
Anything I do I can say was determined from the beginning. Anything
>>24553401
>how you motivate others
Which is, by the way, about the faculty you address in them. A normie f.w. believer addresses their emotions: he wants them to feel confident, powerful, and so on. A robot f.w. rejector addresses their knowledge: he wants to them to know ways to be more capable, say, 'your choice of dress might make you seem...', and even when he/she wants them to feel good, he/she prefers to just signify that knowledge, to *communicate* 'I hope that you succeed'.
There appear to be two possibilities:
- We are bound to world and some of its cause and effect, but also possess a mysterious will that transcends determinism
- We are utterly deterministic creatures with no power to choose anything
Since we will never know the answer, the first seems the only sane choice. And indeed, everything we do supposes a free will that can alter reality rather than be the pure slave of it. Language itself supposes it - the concept is so intimately tied up with thinking that the determinists can't discuss free will without using terms that suppose (and only make sense in light of) a free will.
>>24553636
If it was the second one then where does the illusion come in? What could my brain have experienced in this determined world to have the idea exist?Consciousness is supposed to be the way information feels as its processed, that is generally how intelligent people view it, and yet that description alone would not explain how two people, lets say you and I, can both agree that we each have a conscious experience. And of course that agreement is manifested in writing or speech, which are caused by the very physical brain. Its obvious then that the brain must necessarily have interactions with a similarly physical source, if it did not, then the brain would not have had the ability to create the sound waves or keystrokes that it did to communicate the idea.
Another way of looking at it is to see how it is not possible for blind people to dream visually, as their brain has no ability to receive information or process light information from the source (the environment). The idea is the same, if the source of conscious information did not exist, then the brain wouldn't be able to conceive of it at all. I wouldn't have any clue what the sound waves that reached my ear described, and yet I do.
>>24553691
For what it's worth, this is hilariously arrogant. People were making the same statements before QM was discovered, certain about the implications of classical mechanical determinism. You're in love with your own mental models (which is understandable given how much you think about them, but still). Reality may be very different to what you think.
Who knows what remains undiscovered? There is no way to disprove there are multiple other dimensions, for example, and in fact it seems likely that there are. Who knows if we are in a simulation, with free will provided by our minds, contained in other realities under bizarre and incomprehensible laws of physics?
You have no fucking idea what reality is. You only know the portion of reality that you can see and comprehend, and that is far from sufficient to believe that something as fundamental as free will is even hinted at being answered, let alone decided.
>>24553625
A common, although regrettably retarded misconception.
Rejection of free will implies absolutely no mitigation of punishment. If it so happens, a state that rejects free will might still practice tearing people's balls off while being perfectly explicit that that person didn't deserve it. It is just a matter of whatever the society, educated on arbitrariness of definitions of gain and loss, eventually agrees is the best solution. If tearing off balls has been found to be the most effective, according to this or that arbitrary definition, deterrent of certain crimes, then, again according to that set of values, an innocent individual is going to be condemned to it. End of story. Rejection of f.w. only is here to help people understand that since guilt and deserving is obviously not a thing, and since the society is obviously going to treat certain people in certain ways so to prevent certain things (currently called crimes) in the future, then we could and should just as well be explicit about the whole fuss, admit our definitions and values are arbitrary, and all that.
>>24545492
Fuck you retard, I said something about that before too. Read that shit nigga.
>>24553728
>hilariously arrogant
Yea its not like I actually know
But I sure as hell know I feel as if I control myself and I experience something. How is it arrogant to acknowledge reality?
>>24553636
This post is an anti-intellectual cesspool in itself, but this takes the cake:
>the concept is so intimately tied up with thinking that the determinists can't discuss free will without using terms that suppose (and only make sense in light of) a free will
A belief might be true because there are traces of it in language? A belief might be true because we can't debunk it without calling it by its name? If this weren't embarrassingly retarded, then cold and suction and so on would also exist.
>>24553773
It's a bullshit point, though. Everyone has their own set of rules that they can change. It takes about a month for a daily decision to change to become a habit, but it happens. People change. Free will exists.
>>24553848
>People change. Free will exists.
>Snow changes its location from the sky to the ground. Snow has free will to fall.
>imb4 no it's different
>>24543326
>one anon implies that if a person does X he will not go to jail but if he does the Y thing he will.
>another anon says the same thing but now it's suddenly an argument that free will does not exist at least at some extent.
Nice logical fallacy there.
>>24553760
In other words, as far as the legal system is concerned of course, hardly anything would change. Jut the terminology. Instead of 'found guilty of', there would be 'found having done'. Instead of 'sentenced to', there would be 'is to undergo'. Instead of the connoting word 'crime', there would be something along the lines of 'intervention-warranting behaviour'. Only the veneer of deserving and objectivity would be scraped off.
>>24553867
>>Snow changes its location from the sky to the ground. Snow has free will to fall.
>snow has the same cognitive functions as people
>>24541283
It doesn't take long to realize that free will is a myth. Any philosopher who has seriously looked at the issue of free will either comes to the conclusion of determinism or ends up creating a poor argument for free will.
Free will is not reconcilable with the principles of cause and effect. That's really all you have to say in order to beat any argument for free will. You can argue that you "choose" to do x, but that is ignoring the causal factors which resulted in you making that choice.
"I was thirsty, so I took a drink of water." You were thirsty because you haven't been drinking enough lately. You haven't been drinking enough lately because you've been sleeping too much. You've been sleeping too much because of stress in your waking life. You're stressed because of x, y, and z. X, Y, and Z occur because of a, b, and c. And so on. Every action is caused, determined by previous actions. There is no escape. There is no free will.
>>24553996
Well, here's the problem. You violated the >inb4 because you are attached to the imaginary difference between people and snow. You think it's qualitative, that people are 'alive' and snow isn't, and not just quantitative, in terms of slightly more complex reactions. If reading the thread didn't help you, nothing will.
>>24554035
>that people are 'alive' and snow isn't
In reality, of course, literally everything in the universe is inanimate. Animateness is a human delusion, a quality that isn't there.
>>24554005
>Every action is caused, determined by previous actions.
Can it be you for a change and not me who'll reply to the idiots that are going to reply to this with 'but I can choose to act irrationally'?
>>24541283
what if I flip a coin to decide something?
So? I am still free to say anything I want to say. I also have different degrees of freedom to decide what I want to do with my life. Free will from a philosophical perspective doesn't matter compared with practical freedom.
>>24554058
In spite of this heinously frigid conclusion you've come to, I do frankly say "nay, untrue this is", as your thesis is based in armchair /r9k/ sensibilities that simply do not stack up in a tried-and-true debate. We've reached an impasse.
>>24554092
>Free will from a philosophical perspective doesn't matter compared with practical freedom.
'I'm wrong, but it doesn't matter.'
Nice try.
>>24554105
No because I am saying practical freedom is different from free will. They are unrelated. The concept of a "free society" doesn't require free will to exist. It really just requires people to be free from others control (at least to an extent since this isn't fully possible).
>>24554058
>delusion
You fucking IDIOT HOW CAN REALITY BE A DELUSION GOD DAMN SON .. you dense motherfucker.
>>24554005
>Free will is not reconcilable with the principles of cause and effect. That's really all you have to say in order to beat any argument for free will. You can argue that you "choose" to do x, but that is ignoring the causal factors which resulted in you making that choice.
Why is it impossible to act against causal forces? Can a person upon being offered a choice between drink a and b, stop and think "I've always picked drink a; I want to try something different, so im going to pick drink b"
>>24554141
Ah, alright. I actually agree with that angle, see >>24544353.
>>24554170
I mean the sense that agents self-determine (that phenomena self-effect, whatever). The instinctive impression that makes you feel angry and retributive when you are insulted instead of thinking 'aha, the mouth on that body just produced some noises and its facial muscles changed a bit, no doubt provoked by that other action of mine' because you see that body as a rival that flares you up, that made your normie ancestors believe in forest and sea spirits when they couldn't explain some murmurs or currents, and so on.
>>24554218
>Why is it impossible to act against causal forces?
By definition?
Also >>24554005, help, >>24554086 is happening already.
>>24554313
>By definition?
By whatever criterion you use to justify you stance. I'm just trying to get a grasp of your position here. Your position points to there needing to be a action free of cause and effect to be "free", but i've yet to see an explanation as to why. Seems like it boils down to how "Free" is defined and used.
>>24554388
I'm not the anon you asked.
Anyway, as for your positing acausal irrationality, see >>24542607. Basically, 'let's just do neither, let's just behave randomly' is not a sign of a 'free volitional' mind, but just a relatively convoluted determined thought (awareness of a routine situation + boredom + spitefulness + playfulness + something something = 'no I'm gonna do something else').
> Looking at the past
> Deciding is predictable because it already happened
>>24554437
In other words, there just happens to be a mechanism whereby seeing a pattern such as a boring situation will induce efforts to subvert it. It underlies a large portion of art. Presumably it has an evolutionary benefit: to get people to mix solutions randomly or something. Or maybe it's just a side effect. Who knows. But it's determined too.
>>24554511
>seeing a pattern such as a boring situation
*for the nth time; sage
>>24554313
So what youre saying is I took you out of context then.. Ok so I guess you are right then
>>24554564
>So what youre saying is I took you out of context then..
Just for the record, I noticed no such thing, I'm not even sure who you are. So it's fine.
>>24554437
>Anyway, as for your positing acausal irrationality
I want to know why you how cause and effect as the key to free will or lack of it before you use it as a argument.
>'let's just do neither, let's just behave randomly' is not a sign of a 'free volitional' mind.
But what I said wasn't random. It was a logical thought.
>but just a relatively convoluted determined thought (awareness of a routine situation + boredom + spitefulness + playfulness + something something = 'no I'm gonna do something else').
Awareness of a routine situation, I'll give you, but you're assuming things that dont follow a logical train of thought and saying "well it's convoluted and irrational. You're assuming the thought to chose something is convoluted but it can be simple and straightfoward, no?:
>I always do this>I want to try something new>I have a choice beyond what I usually choice>Im not going to choose what I always choose> im going to choose something else.
>there just happens to be a mechanism whereby seeing a pattern such as a boring situation will induce efforts to subvert it.
And this cannot be acted against?
>>24541283
determinism is basically an old guy wearing a wizard robe saying "I KNEW YOU WOULD DO THAT" after every choice you make
whether he's there or not, it won't make a difference to your choices.
>>24554673
I want to know why you hold*
>>24554683
You're an idiot. It's more like an old man attaching strings to you and controlling your every move, while controlling other puppets who tell you everything us your fault.
>>24554511
(I'm becoming very verbose; it's late. Sorry.)
>>24554683
Not true. Let me self-quote: >>24542888, >>24548193 and the subsequent exchange.
>>24554673
>I want to know why you how cause and effect as the key to free will
I told you, I'm not that anon. I don't even term the subject of this thread as free will to begin with.
>But what I said wasn't random. It was a logical thought.
Possibly, right. I misused 'random' to mean 'apparently incongruous' or 'against the grain'. It was logical per >>24551430 and above.
>Awareness of a routine situation, I'll give you, but [...].
Point is, none of this proves f.w. Consider a guy who 'out of the blue' decides to kill himself 'because why not'. It's still not volitional; there was just a mix-up such that the evolutionary enjoyment of seeing novel things, basically creativity, and to shock others, basically will to assert dominance or to retaliate for wrongdoings or whatever, this doesn't even matter, became disproportionally big at one point. There almost always is a mechanism at play, and where there doesn't seem to be, it's just a neurological disorder.
>And this cannot be acted against?
Of course it 'can', but only in the 'determined-can' sense, not the 'acausal-I'm-subverting-free-will' sense. Sure, if you manage to have thoughts to act unconventionally, kudos. Seriously, it's about the most important trait to have. But it's not free will.
>>24554877
>Of course it 'can', but only in the 'determined-can' sense, not the 'acausal-I'm-subverting-free-will' sense.
Meaning, it 'can' happen just in the sense 'it may come to be' under certain conditions.
>>24554877
>Point is, none of this proves f.w.
Im not trying to prove free will, im trying to understand the other sides point.
>There almost always is a mechanism at play,
And what is this mechanism? Does it have a name, or an identifiable makeup?
>and where there doesn't seem to be, it's just a neurological disorder.
>Of course it 'can', but only in the 'determined-can' sense, not the 'acausal-I'm-subverting-free-will' sense.
And whats the difference between the two?
I mean, the way i'm see it, "causal forces" is just a really likely possibility combined with a person's propensity. If a person has no particular pull to either choice then they could choose either one. One choice may have a greater chance, but either could realistically be chosen. Unless there is an absolute one hundred percent probability that a particular choice is going to happen, a person could chose from any choice available.
Share a situation that you now really, truly believe you could have done otherwise in.
>>24555158
>And what is this mechanism?
>And whats the difference between the two?
First, again, I am not >>24554005.
I don't see non-existence of f.w. as a single 'thing' that has a single 'mechanism'; as I explained in too many posts to quote, it is belief in it that obscures the *wealth* of various interactions of the brain and the environment with the *single* impression that 'I can control everything that happens within my intracranial cubic inches, end of story, no further science needed, yes, things can happen in it, but that doesn't matter because if I only try, I can act in spite of them'. Belief in f.w. is really a refusal to concede reality of relationships; it is choosing to reply 'nuh-uh, thoughts and decisions can also happen when I choose them to happen, free will: 1, science: 0' whenever the latter points out that they happen under certain physically defined circumstances. And this is indisputable, because it is tautological. OF COURSE whenever 'you' 'choose' to have things, then they are, trivially, happening, it's, again, x = x. It is persistently returning to this comforting tautology so to comfort oneself that really defines free will.
>>24555337
>whenever 'you' 'choose' to have things
*to have thougts
>>24555337
>First, again, I am not >>24554005.
I never said you were. Im asking YOU for explanations for things YOU mention, and YOU said were two different things. If you state that there is a difference between two positions, then you should be able to further explain the difference between the two. If you say there's some "mechanism", then I'd like some information on it, not just, "well there's this thing that makes me right, and no, i'm not going to expound on it."
>it is belief in it that obscures the *wealth* of various interactions of the brain and the environment with the *single* impression that 'I can control everything that happens within my intracranial cubic inches, end of story, no further science needed"
So it's either "I can control every little thing" or "I can control absolutely nothing"? Its "I have no power to change anything"? is it not possible for one to determine that somethings can be controlled, and some cannot? That through work and practise, someone can indeed change how well they do something? Why is it so completely either or to you?
> yes, things can happen in it, but that doesn't matter because if I only try, I can act in spite of them'.
Is not a matter of trying, but of consistent and measured persistance? If you try once and fail, that doesnt necessarily mean you cant., but if you work on improving the areas that caused you to fail, to the best of your ability, with all of your being, would that not better your chances?
>>24555680
>So it's either "I can control every little thing" or "I can control absolutely nothing"? Its "I have no power to change anything"? is it not possible for one to determine that somethings can be controlled, and some cannot? That through work and practise, someone can indeed change how well they do something? Why is it so completely either or to you?
'So it's either "God exists" or "God absolutely doesn't exist"? Its "there isn't even a trace of him"? is it not possible for one to understand that He exists in some respects and doesn't in others? That through work and practise, someone can indeed develop understanding of His nature? Why is it so completely either or to you?'
>If you state that there is a difference between two positions, then you should be able to further explain the difference between the two.
You are no better than a religious person who asks things like 'please define exactly the difference between religion and atheism for me, please explain the exact mechanism of atheism, don't evade this question, be specific'.
It's fine, retardation is innate.
>>24555680
>Is not a matter of trying, but of consistent and measured persistance? If you try once and fail, that doesnt necessarily mean you cant., but if you work on improving the areas that caused you to fail, to the best of your ability, with all of your being, would that not better your chances?
This has nothing to do with f.w. Of course 'trying' and 'exercise' will make you more proficient at things. But, as I described as recently as >>24555337, the point is that you invoke such arbitrary 'trying' as soon as one just wants to, 'you'll exhibit X, you just need to choose to practice X', as descriptively equivalent to giving specific moments in which you choose to practice it, as opposed to when you don't. Yet again, this is the ultimate epitome of what's usually mistakenly called belief in f.w.
I'd just tell you to read the thread, but in your case, just give up.
>>24556294
>ultimate epitome
Stupid redundancy. It's way too late for me. Sorry. Good thread, everyone, thanks.
>>24541283
Doesn't matter 2bh, there are uncountable causes, consequesnces and factors that are too complex to comprehend, and that's it
In conclusion, kill yourself
I sincerely appreciate this thread and those who put effort into the discussion. This must be one of the more successful f.w. threads on r9k I have ever seen. Thank you.
Reminder that the doubters of free will are waiting for a magical being to walk up to them and tell them that they have free will and they won't be satisfied until such a supernatural event occurs
an irony of so-called rationality
>>24557714
Can you blame them? Iti certainly isn't easy to drop a believe which you have build upon for over 20years.
Life is fate. And planned
>>24544300
Define it then you cock
>>24558695
but he dont wanna cause that would mean he'd have to draw a conclusion and that's intellectually dishonest. it's preferable to languish in a non-expressed state than to express an untruth. is that really the case? I don't want to say....
>>24547050
No he wasn't
>>24554005
The main problem with determinism is not whether it is true or not, but rather what it implies about philosophy as a whole.
Asserting that everything is determined means that you are incapable of thinking, that all of philosophy has no value.
Of couse any philosopher worth anything will try to deny determinism.
Finally get a chance to post this
P1: If God is omnipotent, this means he is all powerful.
P2: By being omnipotent, this includes omniscience (knows all).
P3: Omniscience includes knowing the future.
P4: If the future is known, it is predetermined.
P5: If the future is predetermined,then only one course of action can take place.
P6: If a human has free will, they can choose a course of action themselves.
P7: P5 and P6 are mutually exclusive
P8: By P7, either the future is predetermined, or humans have free will.
C: Either God is omnipotent, or humans have free will, but not both.
>>24559428
>Of couse any philosopher worth anything will try to deny determinism.
It's not a contest. What's the point of even speaking if we can't manipulate it to at least look like we have some idea what we're talking about. Who gives a shit about some babby who feels accomplished by taking a poop in his pants.
>>24559449
>P3: Omniscience includes knowing the future.
>P4: If the future is known, it is predetermined.
Wouldn't an omnipotent god be capable of changing a future it already knows about? Otherwise it wouldn't omnipotent
>>24559449
But family, there is no God.
>>24559479
>Wouldn't an omnipotent god be capable of changing a future it already knows about?
>omniscience = knows all
>no matter what change is made to the future said God still knows the outcume
>thus future is still predetermined
>>24559456
What is the point of asserting determinism is real?
All it does is devalue thought and philosophy as a whole.
>>24559510
Except an omnipotent God can change the future it already knows about, which means that there are a plurality of known futures that God can choose between.
>>24559504I know
>>24559521
You don't get it do you?
I'll give you an example
I have a train set and I decide to lay out a bunch of track
No matter which track I choose to put my train engine on I know it will travel from point A -> B
>>24559555
how do you know that it's a track though
other than our perception of time there isn't really any evidence that reality can be modeled by a 2-dimensional line
>>24559555
Why do you know?
How can you know with absolute certainty that the train won't explode or something?
>Tfw you have to resort to the lifetime work of better men to justify your NEET bullshit
>>24559587
>Why do you know?
>How can you know with absolute certainty that the train won't explode or something?
Except
>omniscience = knows all
God is all powerful
God knows all
>>24559586
I never said it's a track. All I said is whatever happens in said outcome is predetermined by God itself
>>24559625
P1: If God is omnipotent, this means he is all powerful.
P2: By being omnipotent, this includes omniscience (knows all).
P3: Omniscience includes knowing the future.
P4: Omnipotence includes the ability to change the future.
P5: If God knows the future, and can change the future, then many courses of action are possible.
P6: If a human has free will, they can choose a course of action themselves.
P7: P5 and P6 are not mutually exclusive
P8: By P7, humans can choose from a plurality of known futures.
P9: If humans can choose from a plurality of known futures, the known futures they do not choose will not come to pass.
P10: God will obviate those unselected known futures via his omnipotence.
P11: God's omniscience will not be negated because the chosen futures were among a set of known futures, which God knew that humans would select from.
C: Free will exists, but is limited by the range of known futures known to God.
C2: If the range of known futures is infinite, free will is unlimited.
The problem most people who deny free will have is that they don't understand that "free will" describes a metaphysical phenomenon.
>>24559812
>P8: By P7, humans can choose from a plurality of known futures.
God knows said humans choices through omniscience. The outcome is still predetermined no matter how much you try to rationalize it
>>24559428
>means that you are incapable of thinking
No, that is not how it works.
>>24559812
How's freshman philosophy treating you?
>>24560127
P1: Everything is predetermined
P2: Your thoughts are part of the set "everything"
C1: Therefore your thoughts are predetermined
P3: If your thoughts are predetermined they are not your own.
C2: You are incapable of thinking.
>>24559953
P1: To God, all known futures must occur.
P2: Simultaneously, God knows that humans must choose from the set of known futures.
P3: Because God knows of many known futures, God must know that man will make all known choices, which will lead to all known futures.
P4: If humans have free will, they can choose a singular course of action for themselves.
P5: The chosen course of action will be known to God beforehand, insomuch that the chosen course of action belongs to God's set of known futures, which God knows that humans must select.
P6: Once a known future has been selected, the other known futures are obviated by God.
C: All choices are possible and known with certainty to God until the choice in made, at which point God alters the future to align with that choice.
C2: Free will (choice) is a phenomenon emergent from God's knowledge of a plurality of possible known futures.
>>24560219
>If your thoughts are predetermined they are not your own.
They belong to whatever brain produced them. The fact that this brain is part of chain reaction doesn't change anything.
>You are incapable of thinking.
You don't notice the nonsensical leap you're doing here? Forget the "you", there is no "you" (apart from the machine that produces the illusion of self, consciousness and free will).
>>24560485
Not to mention the initial proposition,
>P1: Everything is predetermined
which he derives from a cockamamie interpretation of omnipotence, itself a metaphorical concept
>>24542522
you don't understand quantum mechanics
>>24559428
>Asserting that everything is determined means that you are incapable of thinking
>>24559516
>All it does is devalue thought and philosophy as a whole.
This: >>24560485. People have a knack for insisting that free will mustn't/shouldn't be rejected, because that would imply that 'everything is meaningless', while failing to notice that that very notion of 'meaning' in the sense of 'something that gives me hope and makes me wake up every day' refers to nothing, and that meaning exists only in the 'subjective importance' or 'meaning of a signifier' sense.
Just, please, don't bring the Buddhist 'you/the self is an illusion' bullshit into this. It gives the discussion a bad name. 'You/I' most definitely exists and denotes my body. 'Consciousness' most definitely exists and refers the state of my brain processing stimuli.
>>24559622
>tfw you have to avoid putting effort into your justifications for NEET bullshit and tell it like it is because of shitheels like this
>>24561178
>'You/I' most definitely exists and denotes my body. 'Consciousness' most definitely exists and refers the state of my brain processing stimuli.
And 'self' most definitely exists in the sense of the neurological whole that generates feelings of, I don't know, identification with the body, conviction in free will, and so on. That f.w. isn't real doesn't change that the entity experiencing it isn't.
>>24561205
>That f.w. isn't real doesn't change that the entity experiencing it isn't.
*doesn't MEAN
>>24561205
>>24561210
That seems incongruous, why make the distinction? You've already asserted that qualia and thought are not real, therefore according to your rationale our perception is not real. We could then extrapolate that nothing is real, or at the very least that we cannot know if reality is real or not. Another reason why your logic doesn't pan out, because it just flat out negates everything that is, including itself. Which means it's not really based on anything logical.
>>24561227
>You've already asserted that qualia and thought are not real
What? Either you misread tremendously or are confusing me with someone. Thoughts and feelings are as physical as the chair you're sitting on, which means, absolutely. They consist of interaction of matter.
>We could then extrapolate that (1) nothing is real, or at the very least that (2) we cannot know if reality is real or not.
If you are a Buddhist, do that, just don't pretend that there is anything but insidious attempt to get people to become less attached to (1) their pursuits, particularly (2) intellectual/verificational, behind it.
>>24554218
You're misunderstanding causation.
Suppose you dropped a glass. It falls on the ground and breaks. Cause and effect. Each cause may open up a statistical probability of many effects, and those effects in turn become causes. The "butterfly effect". You can't act against causal forces because you ARE causal forces.
>>24561252
Qualia is not the mathematical or biological models of the brain. It is the subjective experience.
>>24561252
I assert that the "realness" of our experience is direct evidence that free will exists. Asserting otherwise requires that we be selective with what we choose to accept as real or not. If we are real then free will is also real.
Which is why I disagree with this:
>that free will isn't real doesn't mean that the entity experiencing it isn't.
The experiencing entity is real, and so is its free will.
>>24561353
This kind of 'reality by association' can just as well serve to argue that since contents of delusions or dreams are being experienced too, then they are real too. It's not very a very relevant argument.
If there is no free will, then how come you're a faggot, OP?
>>24561353
Does a rat have free will?
>>24561748
Dreams and hallucinations are just as real as any other chemical phenomenon. Why pick and choose and say that dreams are not real? They certainly occur and are experienced by the experiencer.
Now, you can debate on the "substance" of those dreams, whether they should be taken as "truth" or not, but are they real? Of course they are. It is not as if we slip into an "unreal" state whenever we fall asleep.
>>24561847
A rat has the will of a rat.
>>24561875
>Dreams and hallucinations are just as real as any other chemical phenomenon.
I intentionally said *contents of* in >>24561353, so to avoid saying just 'dreams and delusions' for this reason. The fact of you feeling free will, call it self or ego or whatever, is real -- the content of it, the impression it refers to, isn't.
>>24561935
>I intentionally said *contents of* in >>24561353
Sorry, in >>24561748. I'm a wreck.
>>24561935
Then it's disingenuous of you to assert that reality is definitely real, since by rejecting the idea of free will you are speaking merely as an automaton, who has no concrete knowledge of whether his reality is something he is actually experiencing. There is no way for you, as a will-less object, to logically surmise that reality is real if you presume that free will does not exist. Lack of will removes your ability to comment, rationally, on the state of reality.
Meanwhile, if free will does exist, we face no such limitation.
>>24561940
That's all right bby. It's honestly way past my bed time. Light's coming in through the window...
>>24541283
read up on compatibilism
determinism isn't an impediment for free will, it's a prerequisite for free will
>>24561974
>Lack of will removes your ability to comment, rationally, on the state of reality.
>nonexistence of f.w. somehow magically invalidates all your regular mental faculties such as communication, judgement, logic etc.
See >>24561178, >>24560485, >>24548501 etc.
That I am 'automaton' just makes me utter stuff involuntarily. It has no bearing on any qualities of those utterances such as truth or credibility.
What's with you people thinking that without f.w., life becomes some irrational godless abomination?
>>24561983
Good night/day.
>>24562002
>What's with you people thinking that without f.w., life becomes some irrational godless abomination?
(It's probably just because you're so attached to the belief, you're warding it with all unrelated positive qualities without which life would be shit, just so to make me hesitate to reject it.)
>>24561998
Compatibilism is a wretched excuse for a philosophy. It merely redefines that which is unfree as that which is somehow '"free"---"because I think it's worth wanting" or "because that's what plain folks would call free".
And if quantum indeterminacy exists, then (by your statement), compatibilism is wrong on that level, too.
SPINOZISTS PLEASE LEAVE
>>24562002
>>nonexistence of f.w. somehow magically invalidates all your regular mental faculties such as communication, judgement, logic etc.
It invalidates them in the sense that without a will governing them, it all becomes noise, like a parrot spitting out phrases its memorized without really understanding them. So we can delude ourselves in believing that our communication and judgment can lead us to a deeper understanding of reality, but if we accept that there is no free will behind our thoughts and actions, that "deeper understanding" is just made out of parroted noise. On a very superficial level, yes, all our thoughts and actions function just fine, they have no need for meaning or validation in the form of will, but when it comes to attempting to probe the parameters of reality and experience, of "realness", a lack of will makes that entirely impossible - because the conclusions are drawn from a perspective that is unable to rationally interpret the noise it is attempting to understand. In the same way that a parrot cannot quite understand the words coming out of its mouth. Agency in some form is required for philosophy to exist, otherwise we might as well just throw it out.
Ultimately, our perspective is limited and that makes commenting on reality very difficult regardless of whether our will is truly "free" or not. The most likely model is something that combines elements of both, >>24561998, as strange as that might seem.
We are humans with a human will. The "freeness" of it is irrelevant.
>>24562050
any non-combatibilistic definition of free will is inherently self-contradictory or so vague that it is meaningless
as a compatibilist I agree quantum indeterminacy in macroscopic systems would mean the non-existence of free will
>>24562098
>like a parrot spitting out phrases its memorized without really understanding them
>that "deeper understanding" is just made out of parroted noise
>when it comes to attempting to probe the parameters of reality and experience, of "realness", a lack of will makes that entirely impossible
>unable to rationally interpret the noise
>Agency in some form is required for philosophy to exist
Literally just arbitrary non-sequiturs. I've never seen a post so filled with nuh-uhs. Are you one attached guy.
>>24562122
>>24562043
you seem very attached to your own retarded philosophy, at least I don't pretend to be coming from a position of reason :^)
>>24562136
>free will is necessary for human beings to have hands, otherwise we might just as well cut them off
Literally your argument.
>>24562102
>any non-combatibilistic definition of free will is inherently self-contradictory or so vague that it is meaningless
Exactly. So there's no "free will" in that sense.
What compatibilists try to repackage as "free" will is more like "chained" will.
>as a compatibilist I agree quantum indeterminacy in macroscopic systems would mean the non-existence of free will
I see.
>>24562147
nuh uh
>I'm riding in a self-driving automated vehicle while blindfolded and believe that turning the wheel actually does something, I also feel like I can comment on my surroundings even though I can't see jack shit
literally your argument
>>24562198
I do think the compatibilist definition of free will is a valid one, but other than that it seems we agree on all important points.
>>24562288
>I do think the compatibilist definition of free will is a valid one
Let's talk about that, if you're up for it.
For the sake of conciseness, will you please define "free will" (the compatibilist kind) in simple English?
>>24562122
you're kind of an asshole desu, and not because of your philosophy
>>24562313
I'm currently walking around taking care of some stuff, so my answers will be spotty.
I'd define free will as the freedom to act/behave/think (Im aware there is some overlap between these three) in accordance to ones own will.
Every other definition of free will boils down to will what you will, which obviously makes no sense.
>>24562411
>I'd define free will as the freedom to act/behave/think (Im aware there is some overlap between these three) in accordance to ones own will.
So is there a difference between "will" and "free will"?
If not, then the "free" in that kind of "free will" is literally meaningless.
>>24562444
no, the free in free will is the freedom to make descisions according to your will. Your reading of free will is a literal reading of the words that has nothing to do with how it the phrase has actually always been used
So wait...if free will doesn't exist, does that mean will power doesn't exist??
>>24562480
>no, the free in free will is the freedom to make descisions according to your will.
So if someone implanted a microchip into your brain that would take away your will to live, if you committed suicide while that chip was implanted, the suicide would be "out of your own free will"?
>>24562493
What exactly do you mean by "will power"?
Give an example, if you'd be so kind.
>>24562515
The power to fight against what the brain wills.
>>24562504
no
in that case my decisionmaking wouldn't be free. It would have been manipulated by manipulating my will.
Heading into a meating now so it'll probably be a while until I can respond again.
>>24562480
You're not really making decisions on your own. What your mind wills is literally neurological programming based on biology and whatever effects the external world has on you.
There's a reason for everything you do and believe, and it's not as simple as you choosing to do those actions or choosing those beliefs. Everything about you can be traced back to something that isn't you.
>>24562543
>in that case my decisionmaking wouldn't be free. It would have been manipulated by manipulating my will.
Your "will" is constantly being manipulated from the moment you're born. It changes based on the hormones fluctuating in your body, the things you read on the Internet in books, how your family treats/treated you, any drugs you take (legal or otherwise), and many environmental factors affecting your unconscious mind without you realizing it.
What about a microchip in the brain itself that manipulates your will would be meaningfully different from the warmth on your hands from a cup of coffee, or a song, or the words you're reading right now manipulating your will?
>>24562525
Neurologists say consciousness itself is a product of the brain.
>>24562525
Oh, and feel free to give an example, like I suggested before.
>tfw stuck in auto-pilot mode while my brain controls all of my actions and I cannot do anything to take the steering wheel into my own hands.
Fuck this gay universe.
>>24562554
>>24562567
I'm not arguing for or against the existance of free will. I argue that a free will necessitates determinism to exist.
>>24562598
Well, this is an extreme example but, say you walked in on someone you love being severely beaten by a stranger and your immediate reaction is to do whatever you can to end that antagonizing stranger's life.
Are you responsible for not exercising restraint in that moment? What if the thought of self-restraint never comes to mind. Are you still responsible?
Even outside of extreme circumstances like that, most of the time we're acting like thinking and the brain is essentially on auto pilot without any deep, conscious thought because it would waste too much time and energy to deeply consider everything we do, so for the most part we have automated responses to things.
>>24562639
But I think what you're calling "free will" is an internally inconsistent, essentially bankrupt construction.
>>24562656
>Well, this is an extreme example but, say you walked in on someone you love being severely beaten by a stranger and your immediate reaction is to do whatever you can to end that antagonizing stranger's life.
That certainly is a visceral example. I think it's a decent one though. Kudos.
>Are you responsible for not exercising restraint in that moment? What if the thought of self-restraint never comes to mind. Are you still responsible?
What exactly do you mean by "responsible"?
>Even outside of extreme circumstances like that, most of the time we're acting like thinking and the brain is essentially on auto pilot without any deep, conscious thought because it would waste too much time and energy to deeply consider everything we do, so for the most part we have automated responses to things.
True.
>A Free Will Story: The Floomps & Moomps
http://breakingthefreewillillusion.com/floomps-moomps/
>>24562637
The very desire to be in some way better than yourself is itself product of the chemicals that make up your brain.
There is no escape.
>>24563431
Only the dead can know peace from this
>>24563852
>replying factually to a thread past bump limit on page 10
You should have just created a new thread with that reply really. You could call it /nfw/.
The entire concept of carrot-and-stick conditioning (reward and punishment) rests on the idea that there's no free will.
If someone had free will, why would the promise of negative or positive repercussions alter their behavior?
>>24563878
I realized that, but too late...maybe I"ll start a new one. Cheers.
