>free will
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /r9k/ - ROBOT9001
You are currently reading a thread in /r9k/ - ROBOT9001
>Human beings have free will
When will this shitty meme end?
Humans have about as much free will as a tree does. A tree takes in varying amounts of rain, wind, sun, and soil nutrients. It grows, bends, and photosynthesizes accordingly, contributing oxygen and shade back to its environment.
Likewise, humans take in vitamins and nutrients, and are affected by the actions of others. Our brain chemicals vary accordingly, within brain structures established by genetics and childhood experiences, and produce reactions. In no part of this process do we actually make a choice; we may feel like we did but the outcome was predetermined.
Normans like to believe that their lives are good because they chose to work hard.
>>24850801
What about enjoyment of the arts?
genuinely curious about the counter free-will stance on this
>>24850801
How I look at it is we have the freedom to choose from options which are predetermined. A bad analogy would be distributing your stat points except you have limits on how high you can go with certain stats and start with higher or lower points than other people.
>>24850801
>ignoring the fact that quantum mechanics states that there is uncertainty and varrying levels of probability in literally everything
>ignoring that these brain chemicals are affected by said uncertainty and probabilities
kys
>tfw no spectral bride
To paraphrase Dan Barrett:
You think you're going to kill yourself because you are depressed? No, you're going to kill yourself because you've seen and heard about thousands of other depressed people killing themselves, so you subconsciously conclude that it is the thing to do. Furthermore, your "depression" is probably caused by not getting enough vitamin D and other vitamins because you never go outside and eat shitty food? Why do you eat shitty food? Because your family raised you on shitty food. Etc..
You never make a choice for yourself in your entire life, nor are you capable of making one.
>>24850839
What art do you think you enjoy out of your own free will?
>>24850839
I enjoy autistic shit like Majoras Mask and UT because I was born autistic.
>>24850836
Exactly. Our entire capitalist / democratic system depends on the illusion of free will, so naturally those in charge maintain the myth.
>>24851107
I don't know your exact situation. Maybe because you were born with enough testosterone to want to compete, fight, and win, but not enough to push you into sports. Maybe your parents taught you to read with fantasy books so you associated fantasy settings with comfort. There are literally tens of thousands of factors at work
>>24850911
m'stemlord
>>24850952
dunno, senpai. i lost all my friends except my pseudo-fembot/weab gf after college. i frequently feel isolated and don't want to live in a world run by the consensus of normies. i just want out.
i've looked at the satisfaction i'm getting out of life daily vs the cost of the struggle, and it's rarely worth it.
example: i should go to bed; i open in 4 hours, and then i have a break in the middle of the day, and then i close at my second job, then sleep, then open again.
fuck everything.
>>24850801
I hope you aren't trying to prove that with SCIENCE.
>>24851323
I guess that because some chemical imbalances in that head of yours, the pain you experience for lack of serotonin / dopamine release is overriding your inherent self-preservation instinct. There are some 24/7 wageslaves who endure your condition without complaint because their neurochemicals are GENETICALLY SUPERIOR
>>24851345
My claim relies on philosophy, neuroscience, chemistry, metaphysics, and armchair psychology :^)
to have free will implies that a 'you' exists in the first place
you are nothing, the same as everything else
>>24851577
Solipsist get out
>>24851199
>Maybe because you were born with enough testosterone to want to compete, fight, and win
I don't...what?
How do you figure that based on those 2 games though?
What you've said is still interesting though.
>>24851577
But what is "existence"?
The presence of 'energy' maybe?
>>24851611
Not him but I thought solipsists thought that ONLY 'you' exist
>>24851623
T B H i've never played either of those games. UT is an online fighting game, no?
>>24851611
thats not what i meant
>>24851641
just watch this and you'll see what i mean
around 10 minutes in he explains shit about religion and like 40 mins in he explains what certain religions mean by what they say
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_xZcD4veGc&index=8&list=PLFfM65xLnO-GGdbO5yYuQvaKOhG6j1Ih7
i recommend his other videos as well, it's enlightenment just straight to your brain
>>24850952
lol
toppest fucking kek
if you honestly think any part of that quote was intellegent you need to fucking kill yourself asap
the whole quote goes against all tenants of modern psychology
>>24851745
>psychology
>respected field
pick one
>>24851745
Sounds like you need some more vitamins buddy :^)
And didn't Professor Shekelburg teach you that to refute an argument you need a counterargument of your own? Or did they stop teaching you how to question the way of things in jewniversity social science classes?
>>24851690
I'm a pretty fedora-tier atheist.
Will I be able to watch this?
>>24851745
>the whole quote goes against all tenants of modern psychology
>modern psychology
I am laffing. Well played.
>>24851998
it explains why religions exist and how they came about as well as what certain esoteric phrases such as god and the devil actually mean in reality
most interesting thing 'you'll' watch today especially if 'you're' an athiest
>>24852042
TL,DR please
>>24851809
>>24852017
Dismissing psychology as laughable pseudoscience is ignorant. I don't know what 'modern' psychology involves but if it doesn't take recent advances in neuroscience into account than it is still in the dark ages
>>24852099
i dunno where you want me to begin just ask me a question and i'll answer it to the best of my ability
>>24851690
>Why does religion exist?
People need agency in order to live happily.
Religion gives them this agency.
That's all there is to it.
>>24852099
Psychology is just the study of behavior. Neuroanatomy plays a role, I even think it will be psychology's periodic table equivalent one day, but the science is still very young. It gets a bad rap from all the brain dead cunts who want to 'help people' or think it's 'interesting' but chemistry was even more ridiculous with the philosophers stone, panacea, and gold shit.
>babby-tier continental thinks he's had some sort of profound revelation by coming to the conclusion that humans are influenced by their surroundings
You're fucking autistic. If you can't explain EXACTLY when and why somebody is going to do something before they do it, then that's evidence enough of free will. Occam's Razor and all familia.
>>24852154
that's not all there is to it though
when it comes to the 'psychological' side of religion, the ego will recognize religion as a form of order to 'itself' and incorporate it unless has truth practical or (I don't know how best to say this) metaphysical/on a level of enlightenment
the spiritual side of religion has a lot of truths but its so wrapped up in lets say esoteric phrases and to put it bluntly bullshit, that the uninitiated mind would simply not be able to decode what certain things mean in reality
of course you have your hardcore gurus and shit that became enlightened like jesus and buddha but over the years what was said/done has turned into myths and fables surrounding the supernatural when in reality it's something a lot more down to earth
>>24850801
we have the right to think therefore the right to act
suicides occur therefore humans has the freedom of movement
>>24850911
Randomness is still a determining force that humans have no control over, so it is pretty irrelevant.
>>24850911
>muh quantum mechanics
>not realizing that quantum mechanics are at odds with general relativity
>not realizing that by virtue of the uncertainty principle, "free will" is just as good of a descriptor for the "X" variable in the equation that determines why humans choose decision A over decison B as any other
>not realizing that general relativity would be much better suited to your position as it has no uncertainty principal, and you could simply claim that we simply haven't reached the point where we can adequately calculate the future actions of humans with a certainty that would unequivocally dispel of the notion of free will and create a world in which we all live like the Tralfamadorian you seem to think you are.
>>24852649
the illusion free will has already been dispelled with scientific tests showing that actions are conceived by the brain a full 6-7 or so seconds before the ego actually registers it
it's not real, free will can't exist because the notion of 'you' isn't real as well so how can 'you' have free will?
>>24852716
You don't seem to understand friend, I'm not telling you that you're wrong, I'm telling you that you have no way of knowing that you're right. You may believe that your consciousness, or ego, as you called it, is just a sort of buffer between the highly preset decisions of the brain and the nervous system it controls that basically serves as our monitor into our lives that we're forced to passively observe, but the general consensus and Occam's razor dictates that there's an unknown variable that goes into every minute decision that us humans that compels us to choose one perfectly possible option over another. Like whether to stomp your cat's head into the carpet or not, or whether to shower before browsing 4chan or not, that can best be described as "free will". In that the human is just as free to choose one decision or the other but prefers one for no reason at all other than some other equally abstract concept compelled them to do so.
You can't know any of this for sure, you're speculating with grandeur. Stop passing your theories off as fact, faggot.
I don't know how one would even design an experiment to test whether free will exists or not but it is exactly that I challenge you to do.
>>24852929
>that we're forced to passively observe
no, I'm saying that 'we're' not real that everything 'you' 'attach' 'yourself' (really hard to explain any of this in language especially over the internet) is a fabrication of chemicals and the like
i don't really know how to explain it you're just gonna have to get enlightened kek
the truth of no-self is basically one of the most important things you have to realize to become enlightened
>>24853021
there was this test where people had to make a decision of left and right and when 'someone' picked a 'choice' it turns out the brainwaves or whatever already did it before the 'person' recognized it
i dunno look it up
>>24852716
how can 'you' have feelings? that logic is complete bs
>>24853024
No, that's post-modernist bullshit. Go read some Vonnegut or Tao Lin or something and fuck off when the big boys are discussing things. The sad thing is that you've most likely never even experienced the origins of your bullshit worldview a firsthand, only via pop culture osmosis from edgy internet rants. Your nihilistic life philosophy justified by half-baked scientific claims is likely just a coping mechanism for your own inadequacy, as is your superiority complex and insistence that others are less enlightened than you. Anyway, I'm gonna go finish off this bottle on account of my own free will and probably pass out before you have a chance to kill any more of my brain cells.
I don't understand why debates like these are always started off so belligerently.
>>24853065
>when 'someone' picked a 'choice' it turns out the brainwaves or whatever already did it before the 'person' recognized it
And why are you assuming that the brain is more fundamental than the self? You are prejudiced just like dogmatic religious people.
If you think that the brain is somehow capable of imparting change upon its environment, but somehow a loosely defined "you", which we all know from our daily experiences, is not, then you have shown prejudice. There is no reason to assume this deviance in attitude from what each of us believes is true from his own experience.
This is what someone comes to believe as soon as they learn about science and how a religious attitude is dogmatic and prejudiced, and in turn they become dogmatic themselves.
Its like that picture of the kid standing on books and seeing butterflies, the adult standing on books and seeing chaos, and the NEET standing on the books and seeing the sky above the clouds.
>>24853184
Because this is 4chan, not a philosophy class or some shit where people are forced to conform to some sort of rule set that would prevent them from spewing ad-hominem to justify their claims. Don't get me wrong, anonymity has it's benefits when discussing shit, but personal liability is essentially nonexistent, meaning that many people may say shit that's blatantly wrong for their own personal amusement.
>>24853184
see
>>24853230
and also people have pegged their egos to success in these arguments, their perception of their own intelligence is at stake.
This is common online and irl
>>24853118
'you' don't except you do in a way, you're not actually attached to it in anyway
yeah I can't explain this at all you enlightenment is something you have to experience
>>24853152
>Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated
so not what I'm talking about at all
certain so called values are fabricated by the mind and are just simply not real
>as is your superiority complex and insistence that others are less enlightened than you
not at all, 'I' don't feel that way in the slightest I just came here to tell the truth
like look at what 'you' are acting like and feeling like right now, you're trying to tell me that isn't your brain trying to sustain your own little pre-concieved bubble of what the world is
I mean seriously just internally observe how you're feeling right now in response to the things I wrote and tell that's not just the ego reacting in a way to preserve itself, tell me that's not the brain creating chemicals, these emotions and feeding 'you' bullshit
like it or not you're in hell right now, the hell comes from all these illusions and the only way to break it is with the truth of enlightenment
>>24853229
>And why are you assuming that the brain is more fundamental than the self? You are prejudiced just like dogmatic religious people.
No I am saying that the 'self' is just an illusion and if you were to become enlightened, remove all of these illusions and thoughts and just experience everything at full force you'd understand everything that I say. The problem is that you're thinking with this sort of 'logic-based' mind and pondering about things instead of silencing your mind, observing and then ultimately experiencing.
cont
>>24853230
>saying things that are blatantly wrong for their own personal amusement
I love doing this, Or speaking from a perspective I don't agree with whatsoever.
>>24853229
Everything you wrote is this huge strawman argument you've cooked up from misinterpreting what I've said and applying your own beliefs onto it. Once again these truths I'm telling you are something that 'you' can experience for yourself if you wanted to. Like I said before you're in hell and the gates to hell are open at anytime.
Free will is simply a myth whose days are numbered.
Even if not everything were predetermined (that is, if some things were caused by acausal events), that still wouldn't give us libertarian free will.
Both causality and acausality are incompatible with libertarian free will.
>>24853229
>If you think that the brain is somehow capable of imparting change upon its environment, but somehow a loosely defined "you", which we all know from our daily experiences, is not, then you have shown prejudice. There is no reason to assume this deviance in attitude from what each of us believes is true from his own experience.
>>24853384
This is the part you haven't addressed and is the reason I believe in free will, there is no strawman here.
You aren't addressing the points of my argument, you're just calling it wrong as a whole, what am I supposed to say except ask for you to clarify man..
>>24853364
>No I am saying that the 'self' is just an illusion
Calling the self an illusion... Pepe I think either you are referring to certain aspects of the self like your name, race, title, societal status etc... in which case I understand.. but you gotta say these things or else you sound nutty friend
>>24850911
That also would disprove free will because we'd be at the mercy of probablistic quantum events directing our actions.
There's nothing particularly "free" about that.
>>24853421
Fucking A'. Explain to me how it matters if you can only identify the cause in retrospect? Up until the point of a decision happening there's virtually infinite possibilities that are, at this time, impossible to predict. It's true that the past can't be changed, but to deny the ease with which that it could've lead to a very different present is naive and edgy as fuck.
Which perspective is more objective? That of a human being, a sea plankton, or that of a dog?
>>24853503
JESUS FUCKING CHRIST LADS. QUANTUM
MOTHERFUCKING
MECHANICS
IS
AT
ODDS
WITH
GENERAL
RELATIVITY.
IT
IS
NOT
THE
END
ALL
BE
ALL
NOR
IS
IT
THE
"THEORY
OF
EVERYTHING"
>>24853532
Unpredictability does not imply acausality.
>the ease with which that it could've lead to a very different present
If everything is causal, then it actually couldn't have led to a different present. The idea that it could have "if things had been different" is simply based on a fictional, imaginary scenario that never actually existed.
If some things are acausal, then tautologically those events cannot be caused by anything, including our wills.
>>24850801
Oh great. It's this guy again.
>>24853364
Just because your consciousness ceases to exist when your brain does doesn't mean that the thoughts and emotions in your head aren't 100% real in this moment you dunce. Your thoughts aren't tangible things like atoms but to say they "don't exist" is foolish, look at how society has been benefited from the ideas of a few great minds
Yeah I am doing this to defend my own ideologies and I am being a self righteous cunt but I will not let you get away with thinking the case is closed on this matter, you are just as fallible as I am.
All that said, the human brain is an extraordinary thing and its ability to manipulate matter to our benefit is almost beyond belief, we know how magnets work now figure out how this biological supercomputer works and we might be one step closer to infinite resources, immortality, unconditional happiness, whatever it is that your heart desires.
>>24853593
Hah, actually I am probably the guy you're thinking of, and I'm not even OP. I did start a few no free will threads last week though, including that one that got to like 500+ replies. When I stumbled across OP's thread though I just had to chime in.
A difference between OP and I is that OP seems to believe in hard determinism more than I do.
I think acausal events might could exist. They can't give us free will though.
>>24853537
It wouldn't matter, as we're only capable of attempting to objectively judging the objectivity of various perspectives of objectively varying objectivity through the lens of our highly subjective, human experience.
>>24853494
>somehow a loosely defined "you", which we all know from our daily experiences, is not, then you have shown prejudice
>believes is true from his own experience.
So basically I'm saying there is no you to begin with. Everything 'you' associate with being 'you' isn't real. I don't know how to word this so I'll just say how you might be able to experience this for yourself. So start thinking 'who am I'? Okay so you've got that mental image or feeling or thoughts down right now of what you think you are. Now think 'then who is perceiving this'? You're next move will probably be something like 'well of course it's me perceiving myself'. But then go; then 'who's perceiving that'? and so on and so forth until it kind of unravels. It's really hard for me to explain the actual experience of enlightenment because it doesn't translate well into language (just look at religions) but once you realize that you are nothing and that everything else is nothing and because it's nothing it's everything and that everything comes from nothing, creation comes from destruction, existence from non-existence (referenced in the theory of the big bang, the bible in where god creates the world from nothing etc etc) and that because everything is nothing yet it reacts to itself you are the universe itself. See how badly it translates into actual words, it's an experience so it's really hard for me to pinpoint how to express it.
>but you gotta say these things or else you sound nutty friend
It's more than just those. Tell me parts about what you think are 'you' and I'll try to tell you what I mean.
If you can predict how every single atom will move then you can predict the future since everything is made up of atoms.
>>24853421
This infographic does establish a compelling case for determinism when you see nature as a machine in which you are just another part.
However, the self is capable of imparting change on its own accord I believe. It isn't necessary to ascribe causes as being independent of the self, it is the self which is all and all. It doesn't need to have some part of itself responsible for changing its environment, it is internally consistent, all and all.
This is why we believe ourselves to have free will, and don't feel as though we are being moved by forces outside of our control like a puppet.
This is a radical view in the West where equating the self to an all encompassing entity is akin to establishing yourself as some sort of high societal figure, because we are a society based on the division of selves in this way.
This is the doctrine of the Upanishads. And not of the Upanishads only. The mystical experience of the union with God regularly leads to this view, unless strong prejudices stand in the way.
>>24853657
>However, the self is capable of imparting change on its own accord I believe. It isn't necessary to ascribe causes as being independent of the self, it is the self which is all and all. It doesn't need to have some part of itself responsible for changing its environment, it is internally consistent, all and all.
Think of a "choice" you made today.
Why did you choose option A instead of option B?
Could you have chosen otherwise, of your own accord?
>>24853653
Actually man I agree with you, I completely understand what you're saying, I just don't see how this implies determinism? If anything this leads to me moving away from determinism and towards free will.
You are saying there is no you, but I think this is another side of the same coin I believe in, instead of saying there is no you, why not say that all of this is you?
>December 21, 2015
2012 was 3.9 years ago
>>24853656
It's not possible, to my knowledge. I'm not going to pretend I'm some kind of expert on this subject but I think the only way we can predict where the protons and electrons will be at any given point in time is with a probability function (that might be the wrong term)
I'm not a scientist, just common sense. This won't be possible until there are radical improvements to our understanding of the nature of atoms.
>tfw /r9k/ is capable of reasonably intelligent discourse
>tfw /r9k/ could likely be a great benefit to society should they decide they want to be
>they choose to deny society their utility out of pure spite
Savage tbqh familia.
>>24853776
Well, this will be the last time I say this before going to bed but, general relativity says it IS possible while Quantum mechanics say that it isn't.
>>24853628
>society has been benefited from the ideas of a few great minds
But society itself is just a fabrication of the mind. It's not an actual real tangible thing.
>look at how society has been benefited from the ideas of a few great minds
Except those 'minds' like Einstein, Tesla etc etc weren't real just like yours and mine aren't. There's just simply no such thing, those weren't people that invented all those things that was a part of the universe reacting to certain stimuli inside of itself to create more things within itself. It had no free will because free will is a myth and the self isn't real. Even if the self was real and we ignored cause and effect leading you to do all these things, your ego still would be affected and essentially ruled by memes
>A meme (meem) is "an idea, behavior, or style that spreads from person to person within a culture".
The alphabet is a meme. You thinking that shirt you saw someone else wear and looked pretty good was a meme. Someone liking Asian girls over White girls is a meme. New memes are created every single day in essence the human ego is nothing more than an intangible illusory meme machine within a tangible body of existence. 'You' don't have any free will. 'You' don't even exist.
>you are just as fallible as I am.
How are you or I fallible on the matter if we both aren't real. Are we not just certain 'parts' of the universe reacting to itself, to it's own created stimuli? There are tangible truths here and illusions 'you' have attached yourself to in 'your' 'own' 'mind' no?
>infinite resources, immortality, unconditional happiness
I already know that
even if you defend free will in this thread you are just shitposting because of the reaction you had when you saw the op or a comment in this thread. you have no control whatsoever, despite the fact that you think you are lucid you are not. you never have been.
where will this chain reaction go from here?
>>24850801
WE WISH WE WERE DEAD
>>24853776
You know that chemists already computer simulations to predict interactions of molecules/atoms to prove their theory right?
Only down side is that you need a super computer to predict the movement of a few atoms.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQgydF-fXvc
also good luck predicting the movement of 10 moles of water with today's current computing powers
Arguing against the existence of free will is kind of ironic when you think about it. It becomes easier to just say fuck it and not think about it too much.
>>24853689
Whether I could have made a different choice is irrelevant to this argument, "I" am no less fundamental than my brain, and what happens is a result of the self willing that change itself, it is not necessary to ascribe a cause to it.
To fully understand this you have to understand
>>24853653
this guy
you have to let go of the traditional notion of self and realize what happens can all be ascribed to the self, by definition. It is all internally consistent and absolutely fundamental.
To say that something could have gone differently is not a critique of the "you", it is merely an observation that reality only happens in one way. Do you see what I'm saying?
>>24853699
>instead of saying there is no you, why not say that all of this is you?
Aha that's just the thing though all of the universe is me. You are me, I am you everyone in this thread is each other and so are all the particles that make up your monitor. Because there is no self and that everything in this universe is nothing but yet everything the universe is God and I am God as well as you. The chemical impulses and the like that drive 'us' to make these posts are us. Yet things that aren't actually real, things that are just illusions are just that, illusions. The fact that something real 'believes' that something unreal is real itself is a real fact, a real truth in a way. Basically imagine you'd been living your whole life watching these movies and you didn't know anything else but then someone taps you on the shoulder and tells you it's just shit on a screen and that everything in front of you is actually real, the particles in the projector that's showing the movie is real, the screen is real but the film that's showing on the screen is just made up of particles like everything else and that isn't real life and yet at the same time it is. It's like the opposite of the matrix, the 'you' inside of the matrix isn't real but the matrix itself is the most real thing that can even be real. Problem with all this and me communicating it to you is that even THIS is just fiction as well. I'm just using my mind to come up with words that'll make make you think and feel in a certain way and create your own memes that'll run you mind in a certain path. Which is why you just gotta experience it.
OP here, back to check up on the thread. Glad to see that R9K can discuss abstract ideas so intelligently and passionately. I love you all
now back to studying for my history final tomorrow in which I am obligated to praise Theodor Herzl and denounce Houston Chamberlain
>>24853928
Same anon, but I have to add an important point.
The brain is only realized by the same realization of qualia its function is ascribed. It is not incorrect to say that the conscious experience is fundamental, and everything must relate back to it, do you understand?
Everything we know about the brain, atoms, energy, it is all significant in that it is internally consistent within our "self." The way we know about all this is through qualia, which is existent upon itself. It must all relate back to the conscious experience, that is reality, to be IS to be perceived.
Whats the strangest thing about existing for you guys? For me it's not being able to know whether or not i'm a being that exists in a universe that holds "true facts" about the universe or it's all just an illusion.
I like you OP.
I'd like to be friend with you and discuss.
You sound cultured and i feel i can learn from you.
It literally does not matter whether we have free will or it's just the perception of free will
prove me wrong
protip: you can't
>>24854023
Yea, we basically believe in the exact same thing then. Monism.
The only deviation here is how we choose to feel about it.
>Because there is no self and that everything in this universe is nothing
It can be said to be everything as well, it is all internally consistent, it all relates back to itself in the end. You have the right idea, I get it, its just you insist on thinking its nothing, but I'm saying it is everything.
Since we're basically just arguing semantics, its cool to see someone with the same realizations as me otherwise.
Many people will immediately think "oh, all of this is me? Than I must be like such a special snowflake lol," but in reality it changes nothing. You are still who you are in society, but there is something greater at play, it doesn't have any effect on how you will be treated by others, it just affects how you view the world, and your place in the universe as a whole.
This thread is this weeks hallmark of NEET achievement, truly a meeting of the minds, reminds me of the old arguments between Niels Bohr and Einstein.
We NEETs truly are the foremost intellects of the era.
>>24853825
Well meme'd friend.No, seriously. Nicely put.
>>24851107
there are not autistic.
undertale is autistic or homestuck.
This is a good thread, except for the fucking smug Reddit looking fucker in the OPs image.
I bet he only cares to debate about such things so to reinforce his societal conventions.
Free will exists, so remember, it is all up TO YOU, to be responsible for your actions.
Mess up, and the bbc will be waiting, as per the universe!
t. Black Science Man
>>24854160
I don't think we even experience "free will".
>>24854160
If by matter you mean change anything not relating to the change caused by the discussion, then yes, this makes sense.
>>24854316
You swallowed the atheist starter pack pill friend.
Come back when you age a bit
kek
>all these pseudo-intellectual virgin neet autists arguing semantics
>"hurr ur not real u dont exist ur just a meme"
"quantum mechanics proves it guys! I just finished reading an article about it on wikipedia."
>>24853152
you just went full fedora
>>24850801
You realize you're also a human?
>>24853825
I guess I see your point. However, your thoughts and emotions are the result of chemical reactions, processes and electrical impulses in your brain.. maybe your thoughts and emotions aren't tangible on the purely physical, observable plane, but there is another plane (consciousness) that exists independent of your physical being. I am almost positive if you remove your brain your consciousness ceases to exist, hence me not believing in an afterlife.
I think if we can figure out how this brain thing works we can unlock the secret to everything humanity has ever desired and then some.
>>24854363
Philosophy Major BTFO by NEET wisdom.
Care to address any specific arguments being made, or are you just here to vent, wagie?
>>24854208
This is r9k, not an international scientist's summit. Of course we're not going to have the answers. Not even the most educated man in the world does. Quit posting the blankie frog, my fee fees are hurting.
>>24853925
Not at all. The implication one derives from the conclusion is that we are being controlled. By what, everything.
>>24850801
oh oh what stops you from killing everyone then
chemicals? based on what?
>>24854418
What arguments?
>>24851279
denying free will is far more stemlord than accepting it.
>>24854468
Neuroscience.
>>24854409
>I think if we can figure out how this brain thing works we can unlock the secret to everything humanity has ever desired and then some.
Thats a pretty big IF right there.
>>24854160
see
>>24854436Robot overlord
>>24854494
This, its actually expected out of a STEM major in my experience.
>>24854468
I do believe in free will, but IF the universe was deterministic then >>24854498 would answer the question.
Neuroscience is a useful to tool like all sciences and should always take precedence over arguments about the fundamental role of consciousness, because even though its fundamental, the parts within it are still of it, and are very important.
It is all internally consistent.
>>24854498
>>24854436
this leads fucking nowhere.
So is the illusion of free will really just "cause and effect"? Or what?
>>24854409
What causes those reactions and stimuli?
How can you KNOW there is no metaphysical entity puppeteering your body, how can you know there is no soul?
>>24854563
dont argue with positivist nihilists, you're gonna lose your brain and their calcified mess they call a brain will still remain just as retarded.
>>24854563
I can't. That's the thing, nobody can. All we can do is stroke our dicks and speculate in threads on this taiwanese kayaking forum.
As remarkable as it is, the human brain is limited. I can't rule out grand design. I can't even tell my head from a hole in the ground.
>>24854598
you can stick your head out of postmodernism and nihilism and study theology that would be a great start
Regardless of whether or not you believe in free will we're all equally powerless in regards to our thoughts, opinions and being in general. It's kind of sad.
>>24854557
Nobody has the answers, princess. Not even Einstein himself had them. You can drop that aura of superiority now.
>>24854598
You can't?
So basically you guys who deny free will are like a cult, huh?
JOIN US NOW AND LEARN THE SECRETS OF HOW NOBODY IS TO BLAME FOR WHAT YOU DID AND HOW EVERYTHING IS DETERMINEDS BY FATE, right?
>>24854563
>>24854580
This tbqh.
>muh atoms
>muh brain
These things are not ends in themselves, it would be like seeing the individual parts of a machine and not realizing that there is a greater whole composed of all the parts working together.
It may seem contradictory, but these atheistic guys are dogmatic just like religious people in many ways.
The only difference is they are open to new ideas that are experimentally verifiable, which is obviously a great thing, but it can't be used to draw conclusions about things like free will. I really hope you guys get what I'm saying.
I don't want to sound like a pastor, I'm still an atheist I guess because I don't believe in a PERSONAL god.
>>24854618
Not at all.
This what you believe because you baselessly deny free will.
If free will exists, then people must be able to make decisions without something causing their choice.
A simple decision you could make is if I ask you to choose a random number between 1 and 100. If I asked you to do this 1000 times and looked at the distribution of the numbers you chose, it wouldn't be uniform between all the possibilities and so not random. If the numbers chosen weren't random then there must have been a reason you chose in a certain way.
If people cannot choose even a number without something causing their decision how can they make any other choice without a cause behind it? And if something caused you to choose a certain way how was that your free decision?
>>24854638
let them implode into their inner void.
thinking completely out of bound is deadly.
>>24852154
religion is a means to control people and make them do what you want. Its literally in the bible "the sheperd and the sheep".
>>24854563
If there was a soul, spirit or metaphysical entity we are still reflections. Is that not the point of spirit? To manifest itself into the material?
>>24854669
See >>24854638
>>24854658
True randomness does not exist.
Also a couple things that would falsify this would the language used, because certain numbers take more effort to say than others, you'd need a normalization curve for your "experiment" to make sense.
>>24854686
no. open your theology/occultism books. dammit.
>>24854638
what does free will mean to you? Can choices be made the are independent of the universe? The universe follows physical laws, would it be wrong to conclude that since we live in a universe that follows physical laws that we also are bound by these physical laws? if so what does free will mean when "choices" are the product of beings that are bound by physical laws?
>>24854719
you know NOOOOOTHING
but im not here to teach you neither.
>>24854719
wait a minute.
Is this shit basically "wahh wahh i can't fly" or some modern equivalent thereof?
That's fucking retarded
>>24854697
Alright I'll bite, if there was a spirit "realm"... where all things are that have been and could be intrinsically. Then why are we here?
>tfw give long, well-thought out replies arguing free will and still people ignore them
>>24854746
I'm sure you can think of lots of convincing explanations yourself, just pick the one you like most and roll with it.
>>24854746
Because we are playing a game.
We waited for an eternity for our chance to play, and now that we are here, we are afraid to do anything.
>>24854736
Could you give me an example of an act of free will?
I remember figuring this out when I was like 10. Still mindblown that people would argue against this.
However, free-will could be redefined to include the feeling or perception of free will.
Oftentimes it feels like I don't actually make decisions, but that I observe myself making decisions, and that that part at least has free-will in a way
Seriously, reflection is I believe the core of free-will, if it even exists. The ability for us to step back and go "hey what am I doing, what is this that I am even looking at, hearing, touching, etc".
>>24854773
burden of proof is on you, you claim they don't exist, whatever they are.
>>24854638
ALERT
WE'VE BROKEN THE AIRHEAD
THOUGHTS TOO RADICAL
THE GOYIM KNOW
SHUT IT DOWN
>>24854782
Not that anon but are you retarded? Burden of proof is always on someone to prove the existence or something, which in this case is free will
this is the most retarded meme
it means you didn't choose to write your post or hold the opinions that brought them about. you didn' choose to reason and come to the conclusion that free will doesn't exist
and neither did, I'm not choosing to type this sentence or reason through how retarded this and you reading this have no control over your reaction
in fact this isn't really a debate at all. you can't choose whether or not you accept free will exists, or not. you have no control over it. whether you accept it or not is out of your control. whether you respond to this post or not is in no way determined by whther you want to no it just happens
I mean if there's no free will, then why are you trying to convince others it doesn't exist? not like they have any control over believing you or not. they can't reason or come to conclusions. I didn' choose to write this post or have the opinon that this idea is fucking retarded. you aren't choosing to read it. you have no control over your response, and we're basically just wind up toys chattering away
makes you wonder, if there's no free will then what is the point of consciousness? why has the brain wasted energy on producing consciousness when it has no effect absoutely none whatsoever on your action. your organism could just as well do without it and STILL produce the same actions. consciousness is a mere epiphenomenon, a waste, a side effect. yes the brain uses all that energy that you ingest on producing something which has NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER on your action
>>24854171
nah you're right but I was saying how because everything is nothing it's also everything that feels great
feels great being nothing because you don't have to worry about pain or death or illness or anything
you just experience everything instead of thinking and feeling about everything
I'm only able to do it in short bursts though, gonna be a bit before I can achieve it permanently
although I would add that calling 'yourself' isms and the like only adds fuel to the ego
>>24854146
well you're seeing truth through a human body just like a bee sees truth through a bee's body or a blade of grass experiences it all
>>24854230
I was thinking in the shower just a few minutes ago how I kind of confused even myself because I worded the experience in such a weird way but thanks pal
>>24854409
dude everything you want to know about this subject are spoken about in 30-1 hour long videos by this youtube channel called actualized.org, I know i'm shilling here but it really is just straight up easy enlightenment without any of the bullshit attached to it you'd find from somewhere else
>I think if we can figure out how this brain thing works we can unlock the secret to everything humanity has ever desired and then some.
If you become enlightened you can find the truth to literally every thing, hell if you meditate on anything you can as well, I figured out all of religion on my own just by breaking it down as well as some other stuff. Like when you're enlightened for example you experience everything more fully, the smallest bit of energy can feed you for ages that's how Jesus was said to feed all those dudes, he did it by enlightening them.
>>24854796
1. no u
2. Look, the entire argument is based on [thing] does not exist. It's on the person saying that [thing] does not exist to define what [thing] is.
>>24854746
Lucifer trapped our souls in mortal coils. Follow the divine law, jesus christ the savior, whatever, and maybe you'll have a ticket outta here if you dont fall for all the soul-corrupting sins. or else you'll reincarnate on earth again in the next life.
(that's a WIP theory but it makes far more sense than any of the nihilistic shit i get from here)
>>24854654
This anon makes a perfectly valid point. Unless we can design an experiment to test our hypotheses our speculations are just that, speculation. It would take someone much more intelligent than myself to figure out how to conduct an experiment on matters as complex as these.. it might be beyond human capability. I don't know. I am limited too.
>>24854800
There is no point. That's the point. None of this "matters". There's no significance here. Something led you here, something led me here. Why argue against free will? Because my brain chemistry, the past, and my surroundings induced me to. Did I "choose" to post this reply? Yeah I guess, but that has nothing to do with proving or disproving free will.
This whole debate is fucking stupid. However I'm still amazed at people that don't understand predetermination and how it's 100% fact
>>24854822
That's like saying its up to atheists to disprove God. Are you a christfag or something?
>>24854861
>Did I "choose" to post this reply? Yeah I guess, but that has nothing to do with proving or disproving free will.
wut
are you saying you could of done otherwise?
>>24854861
Still waiting on a formal logical proof of determinism with none of the premises requiring any less than a minute of thinking to knock down.
>>24854874
It's up to atheists to define what they call "God".
How can you argue something does not exists if you refuse to define it?
>>24854877
No. Everything I do was going to happen. Unless God or some force I do not understand rolls time back and makes the "big bang" or whatever happen in a different way, ultimately at 12:41am here I would be shitposting in a Mongolian table tennis forum
>>24854800
Once you realize there is no free will you are free to look at other fellow primates the way one looks at the behavior of a dog. All you have to do is give up the pathetic semblance of "control" imprinted upon you.
feels good to be immune to postmodern philosophies.
>>24854902
Most atheists that aren't dumbfucks will not attempt to disprove a God. What they do is merely state that there is zero evidence of the personal Gods defined in the bible, koran, torah, etc
>>24854888
how exactly do you refute determinism? I'm legitimately curious.Inb4 muh quantum physics
>>24854823
Reincarnation happens after everytime you have a thought. The 'devil' is your ego, the thing 'you' think is 'you' presenting 'you' with illusions. 'Christ' is truth and 'God' can be interpreted as either the controlling part of the brain that makes all the plans (referenced in many religions as God's plan), the universe itself or the truth of no-self.
Make no mistake if you still have an ego, if you still have thoughts, still have fake emotions, still experience suffering you ARE in hell. It's not a physical place with hellfire and brimstone but it's the suffering that comes with not being enlightened and experiencing everything without an ego or illusions, just pure truth hitting you 24/7. You can escape at ANY time from this prison, you just gotta jailbreak your mind and remove your limitations.
Hack the world nigga.
>>24853628
>your thoughts aren't tangible things
That's false. That's like saying electrons flowing through a computer chip to indicate data aren't tangible.
People who believe in free will feel just as sure of their beliefs as those that don't believe in free will.
>>24854938
I dunno how I'd refute it, define in premises, would you?
You know how to refute any argument, right?
You look at all the premises and knock down the ones that are weak.
For example once you introduce the idea of a metaphysical self all formal definitions of determinism fall apart.
>>24854940
Enlightenment is an illusion. If you believe yourself to be enlightened you are going to fancy your logic infallible when in fact it's nothing more than pseudo scientific buddhist jargon. A crock of shit, in essence. I don't and won't stomp out buddhist philosophy and ideology completely as there is a lot that can be learned from it, but enlightenment is in the eye of the beholder. There's more than one human being on earth right now who fancies themselves enlightened and I promise your grand view of the universe and how it works isn't even close to the same. The only way to be completely enlightened would be to have infinite knowledge, which is of course impossible
tl;dr you're delusional
what's even the point of this debate?
if determinism is true then you have no control over whether you believe it or not
>>24854888
so, you're saying that your desire for a proof against determinism isn't something you really want it's just something that has happened? you had no control over it and couldn't have desired anything different? and whether one comes or not and your reponse towards it is already pre-determined?
and even if you stop wanting it that was predetermined as well?
seems like you're not really saying much of anything. if everything is predetermined then we're not really having a converestion we're just like robots reacting to inputs and I'm not choosing to type this I couldn't stop writing this sentence if I tr
but even there where I did stop was predetermined as well it was always going to happen
and same with pressing enter twice
and same with your response, and my response to that, and everything we ever do
as proof, how do you respond to this argument
>makes you wonder, if there's no free will then what is the point of consciousness? why has the brain wasted energy on producing consciousness when it has no effect absoutely none whatsoever on your action. your organism could just as well do without it and STILL produce the same actions. consciousness is a mere epiphenomenon, a waste, a side effect. yes the brain uses all that energy that you ingest on producing something which has NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER on your action
if there is no free will then why would consciousness arise through natural selection? if it has no function then why would it be selected for in evolution? you'd thinkit would be selected AGAINST because it costs so much energy to produce.
>>24854940
>you just gotta jailbreak your mind and remove your limitations.
that's what the devil would say
i used to somewhat come to my very own conclusions about the world, thinking in the void when i was younger but in the end it leads completely nowhere and you cannot deny religious scripture nor ancient civilizations and all that shit.america's puppeteers are jewish, what do they know?
>this thread got me like
>>24854986
I stand refuted. I don't know how you're going to take electrical impulse from neuron to neuron and translate that into a thought process though. Good luck with that. They might as well be intangible. Well, I guess they're not intangible because they come out in the form of language, body movement, organ function, emotion, etc. The brain is nothing more than a biological supercomputer as I currently understand it. The consciousness it creates and how it does so remains a mystery, regular computers are not sentient beings as I'm sure you're aware.
I think it's funny that regardless of our beliefs we will continue to react to stimuli in ways we have no control over till we all eventually die.
>>24855021
what the fuck are you even talking about?
This is mostly gibberish now famalan. Are you trying to immitate how philosophers sound or something?
i just want a formalized definiton of determinism and if possible with a formalized proof attached, so I know what I can attack.
If you define the a
>>24855019
to be truly enlightened is to have found the right track. not to have infinite knowledge.
>>24854998
Ok I'll admit that the main problem with me is that I don't even understand what free will is supposed to mean. It just seems like a religious meme that was made up to justify the fact that people were going to hell because it was their choice to do so.
It just doesn't make sense to me. As human beings we take outside stimuli, put it through a processor, and are usually free to turn that into an action (meaning there isn't some force or something preventing us from doing shit). If that is free will, then that is fucking retarded, and there's no point arguing against it, because we do have the perception like we make our own choices
>>24854914
>ou are free to look at other fellow primates the way one looks at the behavior of a dog
except I'm not, am I? whether I look at other people like dogs or not is already determined. and if I accept free will doesn't exist I haven't changed my mind through reason or antyhing like that, because it was always going to happen I had no choice or control over it. in the same way I have no choice in writing this sentence and you have no choice but to read and even if you don't read it that was predeterined as well you have no control
it's like these retards say hurr no freewill we should change the justice system because of it. and it's like well whether we do or not we have no control over it what happens was always going to happen we have no control or force in changing it we don't really exist we're just like strapped into the roller coaster of consciousness being taken for a ride we can't change where it goes or how fast
it's just a stupid retarded idea that ends up not saying anything at all. because "everything is predetermined" was itself predetermined to be said, as well as your reaction to it, and reactions to your reaction
I mean if we have no control at all, then it seems conversations aren't really possible. because I have no control over what I say, and neither do you. I am not typing this sentence because "I" don't exist, and neither do you.
so you end up not saying anything. if you don't exist then you can't even say that you don't exist.
>>24855061
Here's another example of the tangibility of my consciousness: If I had my head smashed in with a hammer a good few times it'd heavily affect my thought processes or kill me outright.
Step up senpai.
>>24854994
The thinker thinks and the prover proves,
It is still simply cause and effect.
>>24855019
>If you believe yourself to be enlightened you are going to fancy your logic infallible when in fact it's nothing more than pseudo scientific buddhist jargon.
Someone who's enlightened doesn't believe anything at all. Being enlightenment isn't about belief or having a philosophy it's just straight up truth.
>but enlightenment is in the eye of the beholder.
All people who have enlightment experiences come to the exact same conclusions.
>There's more than one human being on earth right now who fancies themselves enlightened and I promise your grand view of the universe and how it works isn't even close to the same.
It's always the same, people who are truly enlightened all say the same things even if it's worded in a different way with different esoteric phrases being thrown in.
>The only way to be completely enlightened would be to have infinite knowledge, which is of course impossible
That isn't what enlightenment means though, but through meditation or enlightenment you can find the answer to any question.
>>24855029
if you're still thinking you're still suffering
do you want to really see the truth?
turn on your light and look to the left
>>24855094
>dude, i posted concentric rings!
>that's fucking DEEP!
>that could be like... an album cover!
>yeah man....
>>24855064
as I suspected, most people who espouse determinism don't even understand the implications of what they're saying i.e. they're idiots
>>24855106
>if you're still thinking you're still suffering
of course
>turn on your light and look to the left
what
>>24855063
but you don't think, because there is no "I", is there?
>>24855129
He was being fake deep. He means that there is no truth, because there is nothing to your left.
>>24855087
Yeah, I do understand it's tangible in that respect. I mean you can't break it down into smaller parts and isolate what neurons firing to which cause certain thought processes, emotions, how an ego is formed, etc. Of course it's tangible in that respect, that's just common sense.
>>24855085
Most believers in determinism don't try and draw some grand lesson in it. Yes, our choices have already been determined technically since the beggining of the universe, if there is a beginning. However, I myself will admit that due to human limitations there may be some grand secret of the universe that I am unable to understand.
There's no reason to feel like determinism makes this have no meaning. Jokes on you if you thought life had a meaning in the first place though. Literally none of this actually makes sense. Have you ever just stepped outside of yourself, and looked at everything around you and truly try and make sense of it? Colors? Sounds? Time? etc? None of it actually makes sense m8, but at least we get to observe this whatever the fuck it is and have thoughts and shit, and that imo is what gives life meaning, if anything
>>24855149
But you can, we just haven't yet.
>>24855129
you already know all you need to know
there was a story:
a student was sitting down
his teacher came over and asked him 'have you finished eating?'
the student says 'I have'
the teacher then says 'then you should wash your bowl'
and in that moment the student was enlightened
>>24855081
Neither do I understand what you call "free will".
I don't understand what you're even trying to deny here.
And what you can't talk about is completely worthless.
You should be able to formalize to define determinism of you knew the formality behind logic. And you can do that on your own time.
I just want you to think about the following: If determinism is not real, what does that mean?
>>24855087
What happens after you die, does your consciousness really end?
>>24855116
As expected, most people like me, who deny determinism and post on taiwanese tapestry forms are actually illiterate
>>24855142
yup, the truth is really that there is no truth
so just experience reality instead of pondering about it, truth is not found in thought but in reality itself
>>24855168
It continues for a solid 5 minutes before every cell in your brain dies and begins decaying back into the earth.
It would violate thermodynamics to have each consciousness have its own energy that is uniquely created and remains in existence forever.
My question for those who believe in enlightenment is this:
What of the mentally retarded? They are incapable of achieving this "enlightenment" as they cannot absorb the proper stimuli to achieve it. They just "are". What do you make of this?
>>24855085
Letting go of free-will doesn't automatically stamp "NIHILIST" on a persons forehead. I think it has the potential to do just the opposite... everything finally gains breath and true meaning. One realizes everything is one big pulse, an enourmous and unfathomable wave.
>>24855168
Ok, do you understand what YOU call "free will"?
it's literally a meme m8. it means nothing. Every definition of it is fucked up
How do I define determinism? I define it like this, and I've stated this earlier:
If the universe has a beggining, let's say some multitude billions of years before, at the moment that a big bang, if it exists, "started" the universe, at that very second, EVERYTHING that is happening now was already determined. By this I mean, if somehow time were to be turned back one year, literally everything that happened from 2015-2016 would happen again, a perfect replica: Trump would keep memeing, ISIS would keep killing people, you and I would keep shitposting, and in fact shitposting the very same way, breathing the same way, saying the same things
So there ya go, my rambling definition of determinism
>>24855192
Well.
You have two options now, you can pick whichever you prefer:
1. Prove that thermodynamics is absolute and that it applies at all times in every place. (this is impossible)
2. Deny all forms of metaphysics and that it does not exist at all times in every place. (this is even more impossible)
What's it gonna be, either is fine?
>>24855224
well poor them
>>24855244
I'd rather work with what I have than jump to metaphysical conclusions. Your game has a board but not all of the pieces.
>>24855167
i dont get this story
>>24855259
So both at the same time, then?
Go on I'll wait.
To use your gameboard analogy: maybe you don't have all the pieces.
>>24855288
And yet you are claiming that you do, and adopting an ego-soaked shitty tone while doing so.
>>24855224
Don't know, I'm not a retard. What's the difference between a retard and a normal human mentally? If they experience just like your average human then it's fine but if not I suppose they are no different from an animal.
>>24855268
student is wasting thoughts on the fake mental image of the past and the future when he could be enjoying and experiencing the current moment
something like that
>>24855244
Anyone can play this game. prove that you exist. (you can't)
>>24855236
>Ok, do you understand what YOU call "free will"?
it means you could of done otherwise. I could of not responded with this post but I did. if we rewind the universe 5 mins and press play the universe could be different (i.e. I might not of posted this)
>>24855341
> if we rewind the universe 5 mins and press play the universe could be different (i.e. I might not of posted this)
Really? On what basis do you believe this? That's fascinating you're the first person I've talked to who believes this.
>>24855330
>Anyone can play this game. prove that you exist. (you can't)
well what if I travel to your house and hit you? how is that no proof?
>>24855326
Look, it's an unwinable game, it's designed that way on purpose.
You cannot prove either of those two statements, which is exactly my point.
You cannot deny with absolute certainty that consciousness doesn't go on after your body dies.
>>24855330
Descartes is good enough for the likes of you.
>>24855352
>That's fascinating you're the first person I've talked to who believes this
most of the world believes this
>Really? On what basis do you believe this?
because I'm choosing to write this and then I'm going to choose to click the post button. I could just as well not choose it, but that is what I choose to do
you could say hurr you were always going to do it. but then that would mean you were always going to say "hurr you were always going to do it", so that would breadown what a conversaion is. it would mean that there is no "you" and there is no "me" so nobody would be saying anything.
and yet, we are.
>>24855330
I can't.
For all you know I might be a phantom of someone long gone.
>>24855363
Because(You can't)
>>24850801
the only people who keep the free will meme alive are shitposters like you
kill yourself
>>24855393
But that's the beauty of it... a cosmic paradox.
>>24855393
>you could say hurr you were always going to do it. but then that would mean you were always going to say "hurr you were always going to do it"
yes
>so that would breadown what a conversaion is
What? no it woudn't, because we still feel like we get to choose things and that so do other people, which feels nice
>it would mean that there is no "you" and there is no "me"
Wat? Again such a weird conclusion, just because things are determined doesn't mean that the vessels through which predetermined things happen somehow don't exist
>and yet, we are.
No disagreements here. Though I can't be certain you exist I'm certain I exist because I can perceive some concept of me existing
>>24855327
there's not much to gain from this story
most are aware of the value of living the current moment i think, but thinking prevents us from going down a pitfall, but it can also make it even wider.
i know for a fact some philosophies are to be completely avoided, no discussion about them if possible, and even merely entertaining a thought about them is very dangerous
we must not live out of bound with the organic way of life (as opposed to the mechanical, rational way of life) nor think out of those bounds
or else yes, thinking will prevent you from actually living life
Philosophical shitposting is my favorite kind of shitposting
>>24855259
You make another valid point. However with the "pieces" we currently have our understanding of the laws of physics are broken, we have a separate theory for macro and micro (to my knowledge, I could be wrong here..). We need a unifying theory of the entire universe both large and small before we can make any rash assumptions. It might be beyond human comprehension, perhaps the pieces you're playing with are as close as we will ever get. I understand they are the LAWS of physics, they're observable and the results can be replicated time and time again. Like I said, we need a unifying law before we can make any rash assumptions.
Throwing out the pieces and looking for new ones might be the solution, the pieces we have aren't solving the puzzle. The question to me is whether it is even within human capability.
>>24855168
>What happens after you die, does your consciousness really end?
I think so, yeah. I'm not omnipotent but the way I think of it, if your brain stops receiving oxygen you go unconscious. If it stops receiving oxygen for long enough it dies, and you have been unconscious since shortly after you stopped receiving that oxygen. I think it's equivalent to before you were born. I can't rule out reincarnation because we are made of atoms and we came into existence once or grand design because a theoretical omnipotent being with extraordinary power could have set this incredibly complex chain of events in motion. I don't have the answers, man. I just have "mouthbreather" logic, and it is my hypothesis that sometimes mouthbreather logic is best logic.
Agents espousing thoughts they contain under the assumption that they exist in a universe in which the thoughts they contain accurately represent the universe in which they exist and are not simply illusions. How do you know your experiences are not illusions created by a Boltzmann brain?
>Being happy that other people didn't choose to not believe in free will
>>24855509
boltzmann brain as a concept would also be an illusion
>>24855509
>don't think about anything cuz we could just be a speck on a flower being carried around by a giant elephant
Is there anything better than high school drop out neets trying to justify their failure with philosophical ideas they got from Wikipedia?
It's weird how there are robots who spend 12+ hours a day arguing and shitposting here but refuse to spend an hour a day on a real hobby or learn a skill.
You guys ever have near-death experiences? I have, and when they happen I swear that time literally slows down (at least my perception of it dd), and it felt like an out of body experience where I was observing myself reacting in a certain way.
That experience gave me the really ugly feeling like I knew the near-death experience was going to happen, that somehow I not only sensed it, but that I always knew it was going to happen
Not sure how its related to this debate but just wanted to share
>>24855562
were you on drugs
Being born an agent that believes they have free will must be nice.
>>24855555
QUINTINO HAS SPOKEN!
>>24855555
>5
>quints
Fuck you, but also damn
/thread
>>24855555
quints speak pure lies, I see no argument here, just an aura of superiority with some ad hom thrown in
you're gonna have to step up
>>24855581
if free will doesn't exist, explain ironic shitposts
>>24855555
Nice waste of quints, but I guess it was meant to be. And in what world is shitposting and aruguing NOT a real hobby or skill. Go back to Disney Land with your memes.
>>24855581
you should do one thing: kill yourself
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/
Required reading.
>>24855555
WASTE.OF.QUINTS RRRREEEEEE
I do believe in free will, but why you gotta ad hominemenem m8?
>>24855610
>but I guess it was meant to be
>>13.8 billion years ago
>>big bang is about to happen
>>BOOM it happens
>>at that very moment it was determined that at 1:32:31 pacific time on December 9, 2015 that some normie shitposter would get quints
The universe is unfair desu
>>24855581
We do have free will. You're just a kek.
>>24855899
>IF I BELIEVE IT HARD ENOUGH IT WILL BE TRUE, EVEN WITHOUT ANY PROOF LOL
Congratulations, I don't know if free will is real either but spouting "YOU DO :^)!!!! LOL KEKS!!!" and portraying your uneducated opinion as fact is ludicrous
If this is bait 10/10
>>24855928
I contributed enough in this thread, I'm tired of your fucking poison.
Go get lost. Stop projecting your lack of free-will on everyone else. You sack of shit.
>>24850801
>retarded determinists think their false ideas are relevant
>>24850801
>Blames fate for having no motivation to do anything in life
kek good one OP
>>24850801
mfw i read free wifi
>>24855957
>IF I BEEEEEEEEEEEELIEEEVE HARD ENOUGH FREE WILL IS REAL EVEN IF THERE'S NO PROOF AND NO WAY TO TEST IT :^)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is literally what you are doing friend
