I don't believe in free will.
A lot of people who don't believe in it say free will is an illusion--that we "experience the feeling of free will", but in fact we don't have it.
Others who do believe in it say we experience having it, and it is real.
I'm not so sure we even experience an "illusion of free will".
What exactly does it mean to "experience having free will" or "experience the illusion of free will"?
Do you yourself have that experience?
>>24619334
Free will is the belief that you have telekinesis on a subatomic level.
You have to be incredibly retarded or delusional to genuinely believe we don't have free will.
These are always the most retarded threads
Why do you feel the need to make this every day OP?
Free will is an illusion, results from the chain of causality.
>>24619591
I didn't make yesterday's no free will thread. That was someone else.
>>24619556
There isn't any other board with this many retards with this level of conviction about their delusions. Wonder why...
>>24619659
I should add though, that if they hadn't made that thread yesterday, I probably wouldn't have made this one today.
>>24619659
No, you make every one. Every single one.
You're not smart and you're not enlightened in any meaningful way.
You are literally high-school just-became-self-aware tier.
>>24619454
idk about that subatomic business but your behavior literally changes your genetics
>>24619556
You didn't choose to write this response. You were just reacting to the OP according to the state of your nervous system, which in turn was caused by your experiences, which in turn were caused by the previous link in the chain. It's all a great big chain of dominos falling in an absolutely set way. The domino doesn't choose to fall or not, it's only determined by what's happening around it, and so on. This obvious conclusion should not be difficult to understand.
>>24619703
>No, you make every one. Every single one.
Nope.
>>24619709
Epigenetics has nothing to do with free will.
If you believe you can will even a body movement, you believe that you can control the electrochemistry itself that causes it to happen.
You must believe you can move electrons by will.
>>24619556
I have recently come around to this view.. I used to be unable to conceive of any arbitrary force influencing the particles were made of, but then I realized that atoms are no more real than my "self," that is to say the unification of sensual information that I call me and direct at a macro level.
Just as each atom carries a force that it imparts on another to enact change, my self takes control at a macro level to enact change.
Denying this is literally denying your reality. There is no reason to regard energy as being any more fundamental than consciousness, consciousness is energy at a different level of being.
>>24619721
not him but then that would mean "free will" is just a really hazy ideal and never a reality at all. if everybody is just slave to their own system, neuro-synapses, etc, what have you, then what would even get a pass as "free will" in the first place? that's just taking things too far already. it's like you gotta be a metaphysical being or a ghost not governed by anything material to claim having free will.
I don't see how we could possibly not have free will? Seems like all this is an effort to separate your self from your brain.
ie
>you are not you you're just electricity in your brain!
>duude!
also kind of like how people today will say "wow my brain does crazy things sometimes haha
"
but your brain, brain impulses, experiences etc. are you.
>>24619781
I can I'm telling you. I also use my will to move electrons when I type or plug in my laptop.
>>24619786
To expound on this further because it is so clear to me.. you must dissociate yourself from all special qualities i.e. your name, location, history, and take yourself as a whole.
You are fundamental at this point in the hierarchy of existence just as energy is, consciousness is energy on a macro level.
>>24619845
>it's like you gotta be a metaphysical being or a ghost not governed by anything material to claim having free will.
Even if there were a ghost in the machine, I don't see how that could give you free will.
>>24619892
They move because they have to move.
>>24619850
>but your brain, brain impulses, experiences etc. are you.
So if I experience a hallucination, I am the hallucination?
Everyone has the power to change themselves
Saying otherwise is apathy, hopeless, and pathetic
This is an inherently pointless argument, cause there is no right answer; depressed losers can eventually turn into self fulfilling individuals when they choose to believe in free will, and vice versa
>>24619979
Einstein didn't believe in free will. Was he a loser, anon?
>>24619703
But this is untrue.
>>24619979
you cannot repair a broken hardware if we don't have the right tools.
>>24619948
>They move because they have to move.
The sun is yellow because it is yellow
The water is wet because the water is wet.
Are you posting the obvious now?
>>24619948
ok I'm convinced
>>24619954
no I think you misunderstood me but it's a moot point as my belief in free will has been shattered, we are all energy
>>24620017
Einstein wanted to be someone who finds the answers/ discover the mechanisms of the universe
He proved free will in an act to disprove it
>>24620123
>He proved free will in an act to disprove it
No he didn't.
Doing something productive with your life =/= free will.
>>24619786
>>24619904
Do any of you know what I'm talking about?
>>24620151
Now you are just making things up.
>http://www.einstein-website.de/z_biography/credo.html
>>24620081
>I can move electrons with muh magic
>>24620183
It literally says
>I do not believe in free will. Schopenhauer's words: 'Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wills,' accompany me in all situations throughout my life and reconcile me with the actions of others, even if they are rather painful to me.
>This awareness of the lack of free will keeps me from taking myself and my fellow men too seriously as acting and deciding individuals, and from losing my temper.
Thanks for proving my point.
>>24619948
You are presupposing that there is no self capable of willing change on its own, there is no reason why the self should be an emergent property of some lower hierarchy being (energy).
As it stands you have no argument to suggest the self is not capable of willing its own change. You have merely pointed out that there are rules internally consistent amongst the lower levels of being.
>>24620274
>>24620183 was meant for>>24620123
Sorry for the inconvenience.
>>24620185
It isn't necessary to adopt such a stance towards what hasn't been firmly established, that suggests you are biased.
Why can i not call electrons and their associated forces magic? Why do you have a preference?
>>24620319
Ah.
Well, then take my thanks in the most genuine way. Haha.
>>24619786
>>24619904
>>24620284
>>24620332
Bump so I didn't write all that for nothing. Helllloooo advocates for determinism plz respond.
>>24620284
>>24620332
There is no reason to believe free will magic exists.
The only free thing is our mind, not rooted in the physical realm. Our bodies and physical manifestations are tugged along by processes we can not control. We can merely observe them.
>>24620553
Even if our minds were in some manner non-physical, would such a thing give us free will?
>>24620507
Yes actually, our direct experience, that is a pretty good reason. A very good reason.
The burden of proof would be on those trying to show why this established thought is not the case after all.
Appealing to underlying forces is not a solution, as that would be a circular argument, it would necessitate proving that there is no way for the self to change its environment of its own accord, which is the issue at hand in the first place.
>>24620721
In fact, seeing as how perception is reality in any meaningful sense, in order to refer to the same reality we are concerned with it must show why our experience is an illusion.
As it stands the self is no more an illusion than energy and its associated particles.
>>24620721
>Yes actually, our direct experience, that is a pretty good reason.
That goes back to the subject of the OP.
Do we really "experience" having a free will?
I don't think I do.
>>24620808
Right well the burden of proof would lie with the side trying to show why the prevailing notion is incorrect. I haven't heard an argument as to why yet anon.
>>24620452
Even if you personified all the atoms in your body. They do not obey "your" will, they only obey natural laws.
It doesn't make a difference if you call your body yours or not, it does not obey "you".
>>24619334
>rejection of free will doesn't mean that humans are no different than rocks
>rejection of free will doesn't mean that we are fated rather than part of a causal process
What the fuck am I reading?
>'I believe in free will, but I reject free will'
>tfw it has literally made you nearly suicidal to more or less come to terms with the cognitive implications of rejection of f.w. only to apparently come to be lumped with idiots like that
I want out.
>>24620905
You are not free to think about what you don't know.Its actually this easy to disprove free will.
>>24620996
>rejection of free will doesn't mean that humans are no different than rocks
That's true. Rocks presumably don't have feelings. We do have feelings. That means we are different than rocks.
>rejection of free will doesn't mean that we are fated rather than part of a causal process
A lack of free will does not imply fatalism.
http://www.naturalism.org/philosophy/free-will/fatalism/determinism-vs-fatalism
A lack of free will doesn't even imply determinism, come to think of it.
>>24620996
In other words, I am seeing clearly now that all that social 'educational' campaigns are ever going to cause is make people apply cool labels to themselves.
>'I am rational, but we shouldn't reject all claims of the paranormal just yet.'
>'I am an atheist, but the concept of God can still be meaningful on the personal level.'
>'I am logical, but without emotions there wouldn't be civilization as we know it.'
>'I don't believe in free will, but it doesn't mean that your actions don't depend on you.'
It's hopeless. It's always been hopeless.
>>24620951
This argument pertains to our experiences only, that is reality, and we are debating reality.
I have already stated this, but there is no reason why atoms are to be regarded as more "real," as your self in that they are able to impart change on the world. You must argue this point before making the claim that my "self" is not able to impart change upon its environment of its own accord.
That is to say, "you" as in your "self" are fundamental, and so it is in fact true that my body answers to the influence of my self.
>>24621126
>it is in fact true that my body answers to the influence of my self.
Or is it your "self" that answers to the influence of your body?
>>24621126
You are redefining what "You" and the "self" mean. In such a way that you can construct sentences like "and so it is in fact true that my body answers to the influence of my self."
What you are describing are chemicals reacting to other chemicals, producing changes on each other.
With your definition it would make perfect sense and I even agree with you under your new defined terminology. But f.w. surely doesn't define the self as your chemicals, but rather the consciousness that is a product of chemicals.
>>24621048
That is not a useful argument, whether the knowledge is there or not has absolutely no bearing on whether your self is able to impose change of its own accord. That would simply imply that the knowledge is not there.
The self is not to say that anything could happen upon some arbitrary request by some arbitrary entity, that is not what free will is. Free will is the idea that there is a fundamental self on a macro scale that is able to impart change of its own accord, it is internally consistent. This is what free will means, it doesn't not mean anything can happen at any arbitrary moment, only that the self is fundamental.
>>24619334
If we had totally 0 will we would all be equal and would be doing the same thing
Lucifer gave us free will
In heaven among God you dont have free will, you roam around God like you are part of him, sublime
>>24621118
For instance,
http://breakingthefreewillillusion.com/10-benefits-no-free-will/
Only #4 is a meaningful benefit. The fact that he uses the other 9 to push his Buddhist agenda of 'let go of the self', 'embrace compassion', 'embrace oneness', just proves how far he is from actually living what he preaches. You could bet that if he saw /r9k/, he'd shitpost 'you just need to try your best' as hard as any other religions normalfaggot.
>>24621345
How does not having free will imply that we would all be identical?
Like..what?
>>24621287
Maybe we have a misunderstanding then, I never implied that the body answered to the self, I mean to say that the self is the only thing that exists, the conscious experience is reality, the chemicals are observed to be real upon conscious observation. It is this that makes them real, everything must refer back to the self, the conscious experience, that is being, and being IS reality. Everything must refer back to it, that is what makes something real.
>>24621388
like the ants
>>24621388
like cult followers
>>24621388
just the fact that nihilism exists as a philosophy gives it away that we're not devoid of free will
>>24621388iwajnefiasndfiasndfiasnfd
>>24620996
>>24621118
>>24621368
For a final conclusion:
If you, for instance, see someone, and see him/her gravely, solemnly swear that he won't do something, do you trust him,
or do you you plan contingencies in case he/she changes his/hr mind anyway?
If you trusted him/her, you don't believe in free will and you are a hypocrite.
Even more acute example is trusting *yourself*.
>>24621856
In other words, rejection of free will is not about accepting theoretically this or that, it's about actively sensing places in which the notion comes through anyway. Trust is one example. Another is motivation, 'I knew you could do it'. Another is responsibility, 'it depends on the user whether this is harmful'. And so on, and so on.
>>24621856
>you don't
*you do
So this image wasn't a cringe at all. It was merely warning all of us from the truth.
>>24621951
I think that image makes perfect sense.
Not being ironic.
>>24621487
What? How, senpai?
>>24621951
I often think about how I would not give any more reverence to another me than to anyone else. So I guess you would say I can't trust myself, as past me also had those thoughts.
>>24622055
time began with all those religions/cults/whatever to guide man and even before the age of pineal gland calcifying he still chose to think about nihilism and distancing himself from the transcendant, unless he just had a mental illness justifying his nihilism
Anyone want to explain why it even matters that we don't have free will?
>>24622224
it really doesnt matter if we do have free will or not
nothings gonna change, unless you realize the only way you can channel yourself while not having free will is to be guided by something higher than us
>>24622224
We do have free will anon, I've established that. In any case, as far as we are concerned it changes nothing.
>>24622332
but it is also true while having free will
either way it doesnt fucking matter but personally i dont believe we're totally devoid of free will
just the fact that we can think by ourselves instead of just going with the flow all the time is an indicator
>>24622332
try explaining morality without free will.
>>24622361
>We do have free will anon, I've established that.
You have done no such thing, senpai.
>>24619334
Experiencing free will means you believe everything you do is done by yourself. If you lift your left arm you do it because what you call I wants it. That is what experiencing free will means.
On the other hand there are things "you" do that "you" might haven't done.
Imagine a ball flying suddenly to your face. You will move away but have you really decided that? The fact to the matter is the ball was probably pretty fast but your brain takes a long time to process visual information. There are studies which show that people reacted to things before they became aware of them.
It seems pretty obvious that this is Reflex caused by a part of your brain that "you" are not completely aware of.
Now imagine that everything you do is a Reflex by a deeper part of your , only making you think "you" acted.
>>24622162
None of that means we have free will.
>>24620037
You can repair it though and even with no tools or the wrong ones depending on the hardware and your willpower, knowledge and spirit
You see don't you
>>24620123
Prove is a real word and has a meaning. He most certainly did not prove free will.
>>24622430
good one
>>24622453
except Le absurd act of chemicals theres no way you can establish we have no free will neither
Look into theology sometimes
The devil gave us free will and he reigns on earth
>>24621345
>Implying God didn't give you free will and Lucifer made a false reality for you to become a slave to
Do not be deceived anon
>>24622432
>>24621416
>>24621295
>>24621287
>>24621126
>>24620789
>>24620721
>>24620332
>>24620284
>>24619904
>>24619786
Ok debate me then kid, I am quite confident in what I have written.
>>24622567
>Implying you aren't God
Anyone here read the Upanishads?
okay, yes maybe free will in this sense is an illusion. who cares? existential underlies all other philosophies anyways. this literally does not matter at all. thinking about it isn't gonna change it.
yes obviously if you were deciding between pizza and sandwhich and you chose pizza, it couldn't have been any other way. because that time has already passed. it couldnt be any other way for you in this universe, but when you throw in quantum mechanics, the "choice" spurned parallel universes. so yeah, i get what he's saying, for this you in this universe it couldn't have been any other way than the way it turned out. cool. who cares? makes no difference to your life at all. it's meaningless and it doesn't matter.
>>24622332
>>24622361
>there are people who debate things that don't actually matter in anyway
>>24622567
I dont think free will is a good thing if it gives us the ability to divide ourselves and make wars and all that stuff
im very far from a tree hugger but im just pointing out the reality of free will
among God with no free will there is only him to follow
with free will trapped in an easily manipulable mortal coil you begin to question everything
there is no reason why would God put us on earth
>>24622707
>there are people who think debating weither or not we have free will will lead them somewhere, ever
>>24622671
exactlyisuenfisunefisujnfiosen
>>24622749
>>24622332
>>24621452
I like what you've done to the place anon
Did you just learn about determinism in philosophy 101? Damn bruh your frontal lobe is getting pretty big you must be eating your broccoli
>>24619334
why do people use these stupid fucking graphics?
can people really not read more than a sentence per point anymore
>>24622671
It actually has real life implications.
>>24622430
>>24622749
Finding out the truth is a pretty fun thing to do, when you will never have a gf.
>>24622888
yes, but if you're a true existentialist you don't believe in a categorical imperative anyways. so it doesn't really have implications other than explaining things.
>>24622671
>hey who cares it doesn't even have an impact
this is also why agnosticism is so prevalent because of retards who cant be assed to think for more than two minutes about the reality they live in because "it doesn't matter".
>>24622888
trips and dubs consider yourself checked
Morality without free will exists exactly as you see it in reality, it has no existence unto itself like all other concepts.
In a determistic universe it is true that blame as being considered an inherent part of the individual would be misleading, but it would change nothing by itself.
Perhaps individuals who know about this would let it affect their decisions, in which case the implications are just that.
But it doesn't change reality just by itself, as whatever the truth is determined to be doesn't change anything.
>>24622930
i could say the same thing about myself but i really cant talk about shit with someone who thinks we have no free will while hes probably a nihilist
i was talking from your perspective, why does it matter if you're a nihilist
>>24622968
You are right, morality still persists as people can still behave in good or bad ways. But denying f.w. will remove the existence of objective morality.
>>24623032
Objective morality never meant anything regardless. In writing this I realize just how many instances of confusion there are because of semantics itt...
Still fun anyways.
>>24622965
actually i have a degree in philosophy and i have spent a lot of time thinking about this, but just because someone likes to think about it and finds it interesting, doesn't mean it matters. it may be fun to think about, but overall this does not matter, literally at all.
>>24622975
I am only a nihilist in my own mind because I have so many complexes and probably more undiagnosed assburgers that I do not care what happens to me. This doesn't mean that I cannot be interested in seeing human trying to improve itself.
>>24623149
drop the existential thinking and give /x/ a visit
im going out
Animals is an example of not having free will, they live their life based on their instincts and their senses.
rarely, if ever, do you see them act against their instincts in nature
>>24623096
i agree then yes. I thought you were saying that it wasn't worth discussing because it does not matter.
>>24623199
How is going for improvement existential?
>>24623286
Brains are a product of nature.
>>24623096
It matters tremendously.
Not believing in free will frees you from self-hatred and the hatred of others.
It also has tremendous implications for criminal justice, education, and drug use.
>>24619556
>You have to be incredibly retarded or delusional to genuinely believe we don't have free will.
There is only one possible source of free will and that is indeterminism in the laws of nature. All other is deterministic and predetermined. In what way does the possible indeterminism in quantum mechanics imply free will is possible?
If the principle of uncertainty implies free will what is the exact source of that free will? Can it be traced back to an exact point or phenomena? For example if you want to move your arm out of free will ( not due to a combination of sensory input and memory like a state machine ) where does that signal originate from that do not depend on either of these stimuli?
>>24619721
>>24619635
this, have been trying to word it for a while
>>24624148
the way the electrons in your brain matter move is random tho, you cannot map it, you can only approximate where they will be
>>24619721
People do not realize the scale and causality of the universe. Every single atom in every single galaxy has some degree of an effect towards your physical state. Even the tiniest degree of electromagnetic interaction can significantly change the infinitely possible quantum state configurations of your physical embodiment. What we perceive as free will is the inability to understand the infinite amount of possibilities that lead us to the perception of now. Our bodies move and then we see a split of a second later. We process and then we realize while we come to believe it's the other way around. It is only a time until we make a computer that can think as we do and at some point it will start to reason about itself. At that point can you really say that it has free will or rather the capacity to reason?
>>24624875
>Every single atom in every single galaxy has some degree of an effect towards your physical state.
But what about this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_horizon
>>24624875
do you go grab a burger when you want to go to grab a burger?
>>24624925
That only applies to matter outside of space-time, not to objects within the identifiable universe which are affected in some degree by every other object in the universe. It is said that if an object enters a black hole it leaves space-time as it enters the event horizon but I believe that is still under debate ( a lot of parts of general relativity are on rather fragile footing ).
Fire off a rocket: it's a chemical reaction. It goes and goes until it fizzles out.
We are shot out of vaginas and last until we fizzle out as well. Our muscles are the throttle of our rockets; they keep us above the ground, until we run out of energy and gravity wins.
I don't believe we have free wills either, but I still believe in souls and the afterlife. God visited us through Christ so that He too could feel what its like to have your fate decided, and feel what its like for the rocket of life to fizzle out.
Your fate is decided, based on the complex reaction of chemicals that makes up you. Where you go depends on where your rocket was fired. But even if rockets are just chemicals, they are beautiful nonetheless.
>>24624928
>Philosophy, American-style.
>>24625226
This is an incredible new mutation of autism!
As long as you are acting based on what you truly desire then you are free. Free will and determinism are compatible, one of them being true does not exclude the other from being true.
>>24625371
>As long as you are acting based on what you truly desire then you are free
Am I free to choose what I desire?
>>24625226
This is a new mutation of autism!
>>24625500
You can't control WHAT you will but you can act in accordance with your will in which case you are free.
>>24625566
>You can't control WHAT you will but you can act in accordance with your will in which case you are free
What if I want a different will?
>>24625618
That's a paradox. How can you will a different will? Doesn't that mean your will is already correct since you will a different will? Unless you are saying on the surface you desire something but underneath you desire something different. In that case then the desire that is underneath is the true desire and you true will.
>>24625926
Jim is 11 years old. His favorite color is pink.
He wants to wear a pink shirt to school, but he doesn't want to get called a fag.
He wants to want to wear a blue shirt, because that way he could wear the shirt that he wanted to wear without getting called a fag.
But he finds that he can't want to wear the blue shirt. He wants to want to wear the blue one, but he wants to wear the pink one.
LIke there are threads every day about women following their programming
> being young and fucking chads
> growing older wants a beta man
we are 60% preprogrammed and recieve 40% of our programming during life. Why would people spend their lives in a basement if it made them miserable when they have every single option available to them? Because they are programmed that way
>>24626033
althoug that programming can always change and does throghout life.
>>24626016
Then he is not acting freely. If his true desire is to want to want to wear blue but he still wants to wear pink then he is not acting in accordance with his will.
>>24626463
He hasn't even "acted". What I described were his feelings, not his actions.
>>24626533
I meant if he still wears pink even though he wants to want to wear blue then he is not free. It's possible to have multiple desires that conflict but only one true underlying desire (his desire to desire to wear blue).
>>24626666
>It's possible to have multiple desires that conflict but only one true underlying desire
Can you prove that?
>>24626692
Are you telling me you have never wanted multiple conflicting things before?
>>24626708
No. I'm asking you to prove that when desires conflict, there is always "only one true underlying desire".
>>24626769
If you have multiple underlying desires (you want to want to wear pink and want to want to wear blue) then you don't really have a will. If all desires are equal one desire can't be seen as your true desire so there is no will. If you have a third level of wants to wants to wants then that would determine your true will.
>>24626899
>Implying desire A can't outweigh desire B one minute and then be outweighed by desire B the next minute.
>>24626944
Then your will would constantly be changing but it would still exist and as long as you are acting according to it then you are free.
>>24627010
So you are constantly literally becoming a different person, then.
>>24627125
Shit man I don't fucking know I'm just trying to give a different perspective is all.
>>24627191
Fair enough desu senpai.
>http://breakingthefreewillillusion.com/
Has anyone here actually read this book?
>>24628291
I might just buy it and read it because of this post.
>>24629059
From poking around the webpage it seems like he's doing the majority of the discussion in the book. I was just curious as to whether or not it's worth the read
