>2016
>still believing Free Will is real
>My Will Be Done
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=py_661PyhNs
>2016
>have sleep paralysis
>WAKE ME UP INSIDE
>(can't wake up)
>>25468935
I don't think free will exists on any objective level, but the illusion is strong enough that for all intents and purposes it might as well exist. An analogy I've used before is that it's like looking at electrical charges and fields. A sphere of electrical charge acts differently then a single point of charge. However, from a great distance the differences between the two are so minute that you can treat a sphere of charge like a point charge. Similarly, our actions have been determined since the creation of the universe, but there are so many variables and our conscience is so prevalent that we may as well act as if we have free will.
>>25469151
If free will does not exist, how would you explain qualia?
Qualia are things that you cannot describe in a way it not saying "it is what it is".
For example, try telling me, without using circular reasoning, what you see when you look at the color blue. You can't do that.
What does this mean and how does it relate to the idea of free will?
The existence of qualia means that there must be more to consciousness than the physical.
It also means that reality is extremely subjective, but I digress.
>>25468935
She is 100% FREE to sit on my face, and I WILL enjoy it
Ironically by disabusing myself of free will I have been able to act more like somebody with free will. I feel I no longer have any personal responsibility so now I just do things like walking into the middle of traffic because I just imagine my actions being entirely contingent. I have no idea how or why to filter any of my thoughts and behaviours and I don't even care. Getting rid of free will belief is the best thing for robots.
>>25468935
>death metal
slightly triggereddddd
>>25469921
You see the color blue because of the particular arrangement of atoms and how they interact with light. It seems like you're arguing more for the concept of subjective reality rather than free will. I agree with the former, and think the latter exists from a practical perspective.
>>25469993
> Getting rid of free will belief is the best thing for robots
i agree with this. anything which takes the edge off..
sometimes i imagine life is a dream
>>25470016
You misunderstand what I am saying.
I am not talking about the light having a wavelength of 470 nanometers.
I'm talking about the experiencing of the color blue.
Again, look at this and tell me what you see.
Pretend that I do not know what blue is, please.
>It seems like you're arguing more for the concept of subjective reality
I am arguing in favor of the separation of consciousness and the physical body.
Which is a perfectly reasonable point to take, if you consider Qualia.
>>25470164
fuck off Chalmers
>>25468975
>Not just changing your breathing speed
Newfag detected
>>25470188
The problem of qualia is thousands of years old.
>>25470213
no shit, freshman nigger. get fucked before i experience your rich inner life firsthand.
>>25470164
Huh?
What's the matter with free will, and what does it have to do with a blue square? You said "images.png" for the title, but it's only one image.
Is that what you mean? Sometimes people cross their eyes, and see two...but it's actually just one once their eyes return to normal? (unless they have a lazy eye or are permanently cross eyed)
Is "qualia" some weird word for being cross eyed?
>>25470164
I'm not sure how qualia factors into the concept of free will, but it's the first time I've heard the term. Could you elaborate a bit more on it?
>>25470262
That's some tasty looking b8 m8
>>25470274
DON'T let him drag you down to his non-physicalist level
>>25470294
you're tasty looking...m8.
:^)
you have 10 seconds to say why that matters
WAKE ME UP(WAKE ME UP lNSIDE)
>>25470274
>I'm not sure how qualia factors into the concept of free will
Think.
What does it mean if it does exist?
>Could you elaborate a bit more on it?
Qualia is the experience itself, think about what you feel when you burn yourself on something. The feeling of the burn is a quale, you can't explain it in a meaningful way to someone who has never experienced it. Basically all things that you experience, that have a word associated with them.
Colors are the most popular example, because you can't explain a color to someone who has never seen it, but at the same time it is possible to imagine all colors there are.
>>25470322
As long as the premise that Qualia exist is sound physicalism cannot be true.
>>25468935
>this is considered 10/10 by metalheads
>>25470552
I understand now, Quale Man (aka Doug) is the essence of free will.
So you're saying, as long as you cross your eyes and watch cartoons you'll have free will?
Picture related - it is a picture of quale man and his puppy dog, Pork-chopped
>>25470718
>is the essence of free will.
>So you're saying, as long as you cross your
Whoopsie daisy, I had forgotten the picture of Quale Man (aka Doug)
believing free will is such a normie habit. extroverts can not think deep enough
>>25470399
>>25468935
CANT KEK UP
>>25470784
Except that if you weren't an idiot, you'd see how flawed and meaningless determinism is.
>>25470784
What's you're MBTI then, mr expert of free will and normie?
>>25470784
>I lack social contact, that means I must be smarter than everyone else!
Birth of a autist
>>25469151
I agree. I think everyone lives as if there is free will already though
I hate myself for it but I'd fuck Amy Lee till my dick fell off
>>25470817
the idea that there needs be some telleological basis for humanity seems presumptuous desu family
>>25470893
Why hate yourself for it? Her music is edgelord shit but she is pretty
>>25470899
where just space dust, maayynnee, floatin in a sea of clouds and other space dusts - the crimson chimney
>>25470899
The idea that you know everything about how the universe works does too.
I'd love to see someone try to refute this.
>>25469993
>Ironically by disabusing myself of free will I have been able to act more like somebody with free will. I feel I no longer have any personal responsibility so now I just do things like walking into the middle of traffic because I just imagine my actions being entirely contingent. I have no idea how or why to filter any of my thoughts and behaviours and I don't even care. Getting rid of free will belief is the best thing for robots.
You seem to be conflating a lack of free will with fatalism.
It could be the case that you're predetermined to walk into traffic, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea.
>>25468935
> still having no control over your life
> letting yourself get fat
Your inaction is your own down fall.
>>25468935
>death metal
hmmmmm
Who's that qtp2t?
>>25471378
To refute this, you need to refute that consciousness decision making is bound to your brain, which is trivial.
Let's me show you:
Suppose there is a person locked in a room their entire life.
In this room there is no color, however everything about color can be learned there.
At some point the person is released.
P1: The person knows everything physical there is to know about color.
P2: When the person leaves the room, they experience they have previously not known.
C1: Therefore not all knowledge is physical.
C2: Therefore Physicalism cannot be correct.
>>25471645
Amy Lee. Shitty musician but she is qt
>>25471378
was that written by angsty 12-year-old preteen? The grammar is atrocious.
I'm not going to bother "refuting it" as I was affected negatively by the creator's sub-par ability to write.
>>25471737
I don't see any problems with the grammar at all. Even if there were some grammatical issues that wouldn't necessarily invalidate the argument.
>>25471657
>To refute this, you need to refute that consciousness decision making is bound to your brain, which is trivial.
Even if it weren't bound to your brain, how could that possibly give you free will?
Either all events are caused by prior events, in which case there is no free will
Or some events are acausal, meaning our wills can't cause them, so those don't give us any free will either.
Bringing in spirits, ghosts, souls, or whatever doesn't in any way refute the argument.
>>25471657
Isn't that Plato's Cave? Or am I thinking of something entirely different?
>>25471657
>This person lacked certain knowledge
>Hence thoughts are not chemical reactions
You have refuted absolutely fucking nothing.
>>25471378
This is pretty much the real point of the discussion, but it always gets moved to some retarded shit.
There's basically two scenarios, brain is deterministic, in which case whatever you do was the only thing you could have done given your environment, or brain is non deterministic, in which case it's random.
>>25471776
There are a few grammatical errors in your post so I can see why you'd miss them at first glance.
>says "effects" instead of "affects."
>places periods after closing the quotation marks
>Says "if" but not "then" - causing comma splicing on multiple occasions
>Sentences that could very easily be joined by a semi-colon (assuming the creator has gotten that far in remedial English, of course)
>Overall I'd give it a C- (again, assuming he's in a remedial course or just a retard (don't wanna be too mean since they bag our groceries after all))
>>25471966
>places periods after closing the quotation marks
That's not wrong. It's British style.
>says "effects" instead of "affects."
Okay, I'll give you that.
But this isn't a grammar class.
all this is mental masturbation you try and use to escape your feels, but it doesn't work.
what works is common positive steps, take consistently.
> exercise
> CBT
> write journal
> talking to people/getting help
> meds
> set small goals and try to do them
real talk tbqh, get on it and stop wasting your time
philosophy should be banned for depression fags.. all it does is help you to make your situation worse
>>25471837
Plato's cave is different, it deals with another issue.
It's another fun thing that works well enough, though.
>>25471876
I thought that these final conclusions were trivial.
But I'll go over these really quick.
>P1: Physicalism is false
I proved that one just now.
>C1: Consciousness is independent of physical events
>C2: If consciousness is independent of physical events then it does not matter whether the brain is deterministic or random, because decisionmaking does not rely on physicalities
>>25471931
>in which case it's random
Why random?
>>25471827
>Either all events are caused by prior events, in which case there is no free will
>Bringing in spirits, ghosts, souls, or whatever doesn't in any way refute the argument.
This is wrong.
Assume a "meta-mind" of each person exists, this meta-mind freely controls the events leading up to decisions being made.
>>25472073
>meds
The pharmaceutical industry is corrupt as shit. The FDA barely regulates generic drugs.
Most people don't need to be on psychotropic drugs. There is often a profound disconnect between the way the FDA (which has its own problems) says drugs should be taken and the way professionals actually prescribe them.
There have been repeated huge problems with generic drugs not being equivalent to the name brands and some generic brands not being equivalent to others. And the supreme court ruled that you can't sue generic drug manufacturers, no matter what.
Meds are a mindfield and best avoided.
>>25472112
>Assume a "meta-mind" of each person exists, this meta-mind freely controls the events leading up to decisions being made.
What do you mean by "freely" controls? As in, free of causality?
>>25472016
It's always grammar-time when I'm online. Watch out!
>>25472073
This is actually really good advice for pretty much anyone on here feeling depressed/alone. I don't necessarily follow it, but can see how this would be more beneficial than letting things fester.
Bee-boo-boop
>>25472135
The "meta-mind" is capable of free will.
>>25472112
>I proved that physicalism is false
You didn't prove shit.
>Why random?
What else would you call something non deterministic? Note that we are claiming it's non deterministic in essence, not just "we can't measure all the variables"
>>25472115
Then don't use pharmaceutical drugs? Psilocybin mushrooms are actually a good choice in treating mild to clinical depression when taken in smaller/pre-threshold doses.
They're also easy to grow and are legal for personal use if you live in New Mexico.
>>25468935
A big fan.
>>25472168
>The "meta-mind" is capable of free will.
You mean it's capable of making decisions free of prior causes?
>>25472171
>You didn't prove shit.
I did, I'll do it again, slowly.
Physicalism asserts that all things are physical.
There is certain knowledge that cannot be obtained by physical means, that is limited to experience, that was proven in >>25471657.
What does that mean?
It means that not everything is based in the physical world. That in turn in turn means that physicalism, which is defined as "everything is based in the physical world", is false.
Determinism only works if you can assume physicalism to be true, which we can't do, I just refuted that it is true, right?
There, this was the same thing, but more slowly.
>>25472313
This is the definition you're using?
Then, according to you, someone who decides to wait at a red traffic light has not freely made the decision.
>>25472115
iv had good results on st.johns wort and 5htp
>>25472149
yeah, the tough thing is when you're depressed all you want to do is brood and make it worse
>>25472395
>This is the definition you're using?
That's one definition. If you're using a different one, please, let us know what it is.
>Then, according to you, someone who decides to wait at a red traffic light has not freely made the decision.
Bingo.
>>25472395
>There is certain knowledge that cannot be obtained by physical means, that is limited to experience
See your problem is that you go over the fact that an experience isn't a physical thing like an idiot and assume you're correct.
An experience is an incredibly complex chemical reaction of the brain, and that's literally all there is. Hence why we can dream or hallucinate.
>>25472441
>See your problem is that you go over the fact that an experience isn't a physical thing like an idiot and assume you're correct.
Absolutely, I am asserting that qualia exists.
If you can refute the existence of qualia, my entire argument falls apart.
>>25472494
I can't refute it because it's a baseless assumption with no evidence, while we have plenty of evidence for things being physical.
The best I can tell you is "a man without a brain that can experience a feeling has never been observed, in fact, those men are dead, hence the brain must play an important part I'd say"
>>25471966
>>25472016
Actually, "effect" works in the sentences where it is used. It was probably unintentional, though. "Effect" means "to cause to happen".
>>25470164
I see blue.
>Pretend that I do not know what blue is, please.
Blue is the color that you see when you see that image.
Did I do any good?
>>25472606
>Blue is the color that you see when you see that image.
Unless you're color blind and then it becomes
>Blue is the color that you don't see
although wouldn't color blindness be proof of physicalism?
>>25472553
Qualia are not baseless assumptions.
You know that they exist, you have experienced qualia yourself over and over and over again.
>>25472606
>Did I do any good?
You just demonstrated qualia.
>>25472606
>although wouldn't color blindness be proof of physicalism?
No.
This is where qualia start getting interesting, qualia are not objective.
A color blind experience different qualia from a person whop can see all colors clearly.
Now let's take this a step further, alright?
Instead of saying that a person is colorblind, let's say that they, when they see "green" they experience what you would consider "blue", but they still refer to it using the word "green".
What does that mean?
>>25472647
They still see blue, their blue is just different from your blue. Colorblindness is a defect of the eye and widely understood, so we can actually know exactly which color they would perceive when translated into our vision system. Supposing both individuals in this experiment have a similar brain "image processing" and the defect is only of the eye cones that is. If the defect was of the brain, we don't really know enough about those yet, and both men would need to be dead to even examine the brains too.
>>25472762
Qualia exists as a convenient abstract concept explanation, much like how software exists in a computer, they do not exist as anything metaphisical is what I meant.
>>25472762
well how would you know if their their green is my blue in the first place?
Or is that the point?
>>25473108
nevermind it seems >>25472780
already had the answer
>>25473108
That's the point.
How do you know that your qualia are any more "true" than anyone elses?
>>25473209
Qualia is not a physical issue.
>>25472834
>they do not exist as anything metaphisical is what I meant
I am not asserting that they do.
I am just pointing out that you, like everyone else, are experiencing qualia.
>>25473447
>How do you know that your qualia are any more "true" than anyone elses?
By extension you could ask
>how do you know that anything is true when everything you know is based off experience and what you experience can be manipulated via your senses?
I do like solipsism over physicality.
>>25473447
>I am just pointing out that you, like everyone else, are experiencing qualia.
But in that case that doesn't address our previous discussion of physicality at all, so why would you bring it up?
>>25473447
couldn't you just say that color is a construct of the mind much like how the mind changes vibration into sound?
Unrelated but I've seen them live seven times
>>25470353
This
Humans will continue to act as if free will exists whether or not it actually does
>>25468935
When I was an edgy teenager, my ultimate sexual fantasy was a threesome with her and Cristina Scabbia
What a shit thread
Especially the kid convinced that the mind isn't the body
Goddamn low-level philosophy is such a flytrap for spiritually naive people
> muh determinism
> muh series of cause and effect
>>25468935
If free will doesn't exist then I don't have a choice in what to and to not believe in, now do I?
What a fucking shit thread.
Anyone no if she has broken up with that fat psych guy already? Daddy needs some Eva lovin
This >>25469951 is literally the only sensible post in the ENTIRE fucking thread.
>>25475143
What is it what all the facesitting these days? Female beta-uprising?
>2016
>still caring if free will is real or not
You'll never find an answer or any worthwhile results from thinking about this, all philosophy is subjective
>>25475275
it's the same thing when you want to touch a nice pair of boobs, or a great ass
I just want to do it with my face instead of my hands
also I want to experience it with more senses, not just touching, but smelling and tasting, and also visually it's closer as well -> more details, etc
what's not to like?
>>25475311
this is why I hate smug pseudointellectual pretentious philosofags here
easily the worst fucking "fandom" out of everything else here
>>25475078
the way I see it is that,
your decisions are made off opinions, those opinions are formed from experiences and knowledge learnt, you had no control over whether or not you had the chance to learn that knowledge or have those experiences in the first place.
i.e. believing that comp science is better than medicine, if you were born in a country without computers then you wouldn't be able to have that opinion.
Your decisions like it or not are influenced by your environment, genetics and knowledge at the time.
Another example could be
>2 potential prude grills interested in you the alpha male
>you are choosing which girl you want to go out with
>however if you were born ugly, short, a different race, autistic or in a place where you couldn't contact those women in the first place, you wouldn't be able to choose either since neither would be interested in you/ wouldn't know that you exist
In this case your genetics influence how people interact with you which can influence on the decisions you make since being rejected all the time can make you bitter towards the opposite sex.
>>25470164
>I am arguing in favor of the separation of consciousness and the physical body.
Which is a perfectly reasonable point to take
>perfectly reasonable
It's much more logical to accept the fact that consciousness is generated by a physical organ within our skull, which is subject to the laws of physics just as a computer, or our liver is.
>>25475311
>Thinking this requires philosophy
People facing this from a philosophical point are just faggots. It's like trying to use philosophy to understand how computers work.
>>25475311
why not care? It's not like it's any less important than anything else since nothing is objectively important.
>Assume you have a book that contains everything you did and everything you will do in the future
>You have a choice to open it or not
>You open it
>In the book it said you will open the book
>THAT MEANS FREE WILL ISN'T REAL YOU GUYS
Philosophers are completely retarded.
>>25474378
I thought my posts were pretty good
>>25475559
Good subjectively or objectively ?
>>25475573
Is there such a thing as "objectively" good?
>>25468935
what a fucking qt3.14
>>25475311
This isn't simply a philosophical matter. It's also one involving morality and ethics and neurophysiology.
Humans are more or less organic computers. Our brains are simply processing data received from genetics and the outside world. You literally can't have any sort of personality or preferences without something telling you what to like, think and do. Your will is basically whatever you've been programmed to do by your biology and your experiences.
>>25475525
No, but you are.This comment was determined to not be original.
