Do humans have free will?
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/proceed-your-own-risk/201311/do-we-have-free-will
Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe this is an original comment.
Nope.
Get over it now.
>>26357111
at the quantum there's no certainty what path path a particle will take, inside or outside the body
to say the future is set in stone isn't true. weather it's our will controlling it I can't say
All the calculations your brain is going through is just a part of you
Free will just doesn't exist
>>26357111
In every sense that matters, yes. Free will is determined by physics, but we are still rational actors.
>>26357251
That only proves that we don't have a perfect model yet.
>>26357251
You're confusing determinism and fatalism.
Everything we do has a prior cause. Regardless of what goes on in the quantum world, we aren't really in control. We're more or less looking out the window while our brain is really in the driver's seat.
>>26357111
>people still think it would matter either way
holy shit
>>26357111
Parallel universes allow for all different decisions we can make.
>>26357439
this, in fact, is the only correct answer
>>26357251
one atom having one of its particle going rogue still isn't enough to fuck you over butterfly effect style
Not really but the fact that your brain fakes you into thinking you do in order to force itself to not stagnate means you might as well have free will.
>>26357307
People are often irrational.
>>26357251
Randomness isn't free will. If the hidden variables are found then a deterministic system also means no free will.
>>26357111
Basically no. There's no reason to want such a thing either, it really makes no difference. Realizing free will doesn't exist doesn't stop a society from putting away dangerous people, or from rewarding good behavior etc.
In fact, you can still blame people for their actions in many situations, but you can't attribute their actions to something outside the laws of physics.
This is about as moot a question as "is reality a simulation"
>>26357479
Hm.What's the real-life equivalent of Sartre not "following the rules"?
Rationally, how could free will exist?
Is there ever an action that takes place without a cause? Everything that happens can be traced back to something. The concept of free will doesn't even make sense.
>>26357609
Pretending God exists
Nope. Determinism.
>>26357616
Free will is a result of consciousness. What is the cause of that?
Are two connected neurons in a petri dish conscious? Why then would many be?
What stimuli makes a person spontaneously decide to do something differently than they normally do if most commonly used neural pathways are the supposed to be the strongest?
>>26357439
It matters because the sooner we stop believing in free will and realize that people are more like walking meat computers, we can start structuring society to eliminate the faulty or undesirable coding, and by coding I mean behaviors.
People don't just do things because they want to do them. All of your behaviors, preferences and propensities are determined by your biology or external sources. I mean, before you're even a teenager you have preferences on things like food, music and people. Given enough data about a person, you can probably predict their personality down to the letter.
If we saw people as computer programs, we could structure society to write the best possible code to produce the best possible people.
We have exactly as much free will as a tree does. A tree takes in nutrients from soil, receives sunlight, wind, etc.; its biological mechanisms react accordingly and its growth depends on these reactions. It may become crooked or sprout branches in certain places depending on what other types of tree are around it, what animals interact with it, how strong some season's wind is, and so on. Such is human life.
>>26357609
suicide
>>26357788
within the next 10 years neuroscientists will find the exact square centimeter of brain matter that is responsible for subjective consciousness, just wait
>>26357806
but why would we want to produce the best possible people
for what reason?
to end the biological impetus and create the perfect organism?
for what purpose?
>>26357788
>What stimuli makes a person spontaneously decide to do something differently than they normally do if most commonly used neural pathways are the supposed to be the strongest?
I don't know. But not knowing doesn't logically lead to the assertion of free will. It just means you don't know why you did what you did. Just because we don't know the reason behind our every action doesn't mean we did something just because we wanted to do it. That implies we're in control of our neurology and everything the brain does. We literally are our brains and consciousness is just a bi-product of the brain.
No matter how you slice it, free will makes no sense.
Yes :)
VERY ORIGINAL COMMENT
>>26357806
You must be very naive on the topic or very young. Belief in free will has never been a barrier to what you're describing because no researcher worth his weight factors in free will.
There are really three things to fully decode relating to human behavior, the neurology, the genetics, and the physics. Realistically, we'll end up with a good approximation of future behavior at best, or an absolutely useless model at worst (per chaos theory).
>>26357806
What's the purpose of doing so ? Everyone is still gonna die and everything is going to dissapear,
What if, bear with me, we had the technology to observe every single individual atom.
Now, I don't claim to be a smart man, but it's reasonable to assume that atoms will always interact with each other in predictible fashion.
So, given that, if we were to measure the atoms in someones head, couldn't we theoretically predict how they're going to react to any given stimulus?
Can't we do this with everything, down to the atomic level?
Can we, scientifically predict the future?>>26357111
>>26357931
>we had the technology to observe every single individual atom.
This is literally (physically) impossible unless you're analyzing a simulation and not dealing with people in our "reality". But for the sake of your argument let's grant it:
>but it's reasonable to assume that atoms will always interact with each other in predictable fashion.
Quantum physics has already shown otherwise.
>Can we, scientifically predict the future?
If there is the slightest bit of uncertainty (which is introduced with quantum phenomena), then the error in your "prediction" will propagate such that after the slightest bit of time the system looks nothing like what you predicted.
This is why we suck at predicting the weather. Look up the butterfly effect if you're curious.
>>26357889
>We literally are our brains
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_cognition
>>26357880
To better society. Reduce crime, poverty and disease. To have people making rational decisions based on logic and evidence instead of basing their morality on arbitrary guidelines set by ancient texts written by idiots thousands of years ago.
>>26357912
Belief in free will has been a barrier. Just look at our criminal justice system. Instead of creating conditions to reform people who are a product of shitty environments or unfortunate neurochemistry, they only seek punitive actions. Instead of doing things to fix the shitty parts of society that create criminals, they just blame criminals. That's like punching your mouth for coughing when you just have a cold.
And, I'm certain you could predict the behaviors of anyone if you knew the type of environment they were raised, all the things they were exposed to and whatever genetic predispositions they may have. Humans are predictable creatures to begin with. We're pattern seeking animals. Our brains are hardwired to find and stick to patterns. The less energy the brain has to relegate to deep, conscious thinking the better.
Do lamprey eels have free will?
>>26358032
The following quote from the wiki sums things up properly:
>Nervous systems do not form representations of the world, they can only form representations of interactions with the world
This is true, almost trivially true actually. Really though, this is just stating that cognition relies on external features. You can argue against this in a sense, but there's not much point because either way it leads you to ask:
Where would free will fit in? Physics denies the possibility outright. It has nothing to do with your cognition. Free will just doesn't exist, and you can't pretend it into existence either.
>>26358110
>to better society
again, to what end?
so people have an easier life?
so humans can live comfortably?
whats the point?
>>26358167
The point is whatever we choose it to be.
I mean, what reason do any of us have to live except for the reasons we give ourselves.
>>26358184
>the point is whatever we choose it to be
then why should we live for these people in the future instead of living for ourselves in the present?
so they can have choice unencumbered by the choices of other?
>>26357806
Dystopian as fuck
>>26358241
Because people have offspring and they want a better world for their kids. The more you minimize the amount of danger and hardships your offspring would likely face, the better.
I just don't understand how subjective experiences can arise from objective mechanical events
how does it makes any sense? Why does one mechanical reaction cause a perceived sensation, but another like a rube goldberg machine doesn't?
No, we don't. As more and more people realize this, there's probably going to be a game-changing paradigm shift in the way we relate to ourselves and each other, and I think it's going to be a good thing.
Check out this video from George Ortega where he goes into detail about this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8_D-dfUQ4I
>>26358110
Humans are emotional beings regardless of free will. They seek retribution, feel irrational anger, and do not care for the anguish of certain others.
Belief in free will is a single wrong assumption among the many that exist. For example, well over half the world things they have an immaterial soul. Most people who don't believe in free will or the existence of a soul are still deluded enough to think they have an "I"/"Ego"/"Center" that somehow exists separate from everything else. The list goes on and on, and there will certainly be wrong assumptions that we'll never be able to realize. Even once you eliminate all the false beliefs, you don't get anything that special out of it.
Theoretically, you could create decently accurate models of human behavior. You'll never achieve perfection (you just can't simulate the universe properly from within the universe), but sure you could do something along the lines of what you're describing.
The truth is research is moving us there anyways, and free will isn't something that's getting in the way of that understanding. You won't get rid of poverty just by realizing that the universe is such that people are in poverty. People can play that story both ways: "Oh they had no TRUE choice in the matter, they don't deserve such harsh circumstances" VS "This is what the deterministic course of the universe has ran us through, the universe can't be wrong, so this is exactly what should be happening". You run into unsolvable ethical arguments (because morality is actually relative) that don't get you anywhere.
>>26358134
I don't believe free will exists, and my response wasn't about free will. I just had a problem with your assertion that "we literally are our brains". The way your brain functions depends largely on outside-the-skull factors.
For example, if I give you a math problem, your brain will go through completely different processes to solve it depending on if you have a pen and paper, a simple calculator, a computer, or a nerdy friend nearby.
Cognition is one of the most, possibly the most, important function of the brain; its processes and results determine our personalities - who we are.
>>26358285
so you're saying humans should become less like animals to further our animal impulses
what of the people who have no offspring?
should they work the same in some selfless gesture of humanity?
>>26358326
That example you gave is determinism vs fatalism, not two different interpretations of determinism.
Determinism doesn't mean we can't avoid certain fates. Fatalism just means we can't avoid anything that happens no matter what we do. With determinism, we see how our beliefs and actions are influenced by the world around us and how we interact with each other, that's undeniable.
People can change, it happens all the time.We can just guide ourselves to the type of change we wish to see in ourselves.
>>26358338
I wasn't the guy who said we're just our brains so sorry to cut into your dialogue. I do agree with what you're saying. Psychologically, it's been proven. Biologically and Physically, it makes no sense for cognitive experience to be truly independent from external reality. Spiritually, this is pretty much the same idea as Indra's Net, which represents the inter-dependence of what we think are separate things.
Still though, what we're talking about doesn't influence the subject matter of the thread.
>>26358347
I don't fucking know, man. This is all subjective shit, and I honestly don't give a shit what happens to humanity. I'm just giving reasons for why people might want to create a better society by relinquishing the concept of free will and realizing our behaviors are controlled by things that aren't just inherent within ourselves.
>>26358402
I'm not talking about either determinism or fatalism in the post you're quoting. I'm talking about the accuracy of simulations of human behavior, as well as the lack of moral direction that being able to do any of this provides.
No. The man's circumstances and environment order it. His first act determines the second and all that follow after. But suppose, for argument's sake, that the man should skip one of these acts; an apparently trifling one, for instance; suppose that it had been appointed that on a certain day, at a certain hour and minute and second and fraction of a second he should go to the well, and he didn't go. That man's career would change utterly, from that moment; thence to the grave it would be wholly different from the career which his first act as a child had arranged for him. Indeed, it might be that if he had gone to the well he would have ended his career on a throne, and that omitting to do it would set him upon a career that would lead to beggary and a pauper's grave. For instance: if at any time - say in boyhood - Columbus had skipped the triflingest little link in the chain of acts projected and made inevitable by his first childish act, it would have changed his whole subsequent life, and he would have become a priest and died obscure in an Italian village, and America would not have been discovered for two centuries afterward. I know this. To skip any one of the billion acts in Columbus's chain would have wholly changed his life. I have examined his billion of possible careers, and in only one of them occurs the discovery of America.
Now, then, no man ever does drop a link - the thing has never happened! Even when he is trying to make up his mind as to whether he will do a thing or not, that itself is a link, an act, and has its proper place in his chain; and when he finally decides an act, that also was the thing which he was absolutely certain to do. You see, now, that a man will never drop a link in his chain. He cannot. If he made up his mind to try, that project would itself be an unavoidable link - a thought bound to occur to him at that precise moment, and made certain by the first act of his babyhood.
>>26358434
k
well, regardless of whether we have free will or not, we at least have the illusion of it, so I think I'll just keep living how I want instead of for the greater good
>>26358402
Couldn't you day that you were fated to change?
That by "changing" you were actually continuing along the set course.
>>26358338
How are we not our brains? If something fucks with your brain chemistry, then you can become an entirely different person. "You" as you know you would not exist if not for your brain. Nothing outside of the brain is doing the thinking for us or firing off neurological pulses.
The only reason you have a sense of self is because of your brain.
>>26357439
Why wouldn't it matter?
>>26358536
because you won't act any differently regardless
>>26358462
>well, regardless of whether we have free will or not, we at least have the illusion of it...
Do we, really? I don't think we do.
I don't know what my next thought is going to be.
Orange.
It was "orange".
I don't feel like I "freely willed" it to be orange. It just came to me.
>>26358590
Orange ya glad it did?
>>26358577
That's not true, though. I do behave differently based on the fact that I don't believe in free will, and my behavior while no longer operating under free will belief is influencing the lives of the people around me.
So it does matter.
>>26357788
>Free will is a result of consciousness.
Brain scans have repeatedly shown that "decisions" are made long before the consciousness mind is even aware of that there's a decision to be made.
http://io9.gizmodo.com/5975778/scientific-evidence-that-you-probably-dont-have-free-will
>>26358603
Good one bro
>>26358590
Okay, now look at your fingers. Pick one of them, then will it to move. You will be under the illusion that it was your choice.
Nobody said it was a permanent illusion.
>>26358590
so it's not of your own, albeit possibly imagined, free will that you're having this conversation with me?
>>26358606
Scientists have also found that our consciousness perceives things 80 milliseconds after they've already happened.
http://www.salk.edu/news-release/we-live-in-the-past-salk-scientists-discover/
When you see something, you're not seeing it as it is in the present. You're seeing it as it was just a moment ago.
>>26358604
>based on the fact that I don't believe in free will
but if free will exists, then it's of your free will that you believe that
hell, if free will doesn't exist, then your "beliefs" have no say in how you act, so it'd be the same as if it did
>>26358635
I wasn't under that illusion even when I wiggled my finger just now.
I read what you told me to do and did it. It happened to be my right index finger that moved.
I don't feel like I freely chose it. I wonder why it wasn't my left finger. Maybe it's because I'm right-handed.
But no, it didn't feel like a "free will" choice. Felt like something I did based on environmental factors (your influence).
>>26358438
I admit you can't predict every outcome of human interaction or every behavior someone will exhibit in any given instance. But, as I said before, people are predictable, pattern seeking animals, for the most part. Having a better understanding of why we do what we do will help us make better informed decisions about ourselves. There are tons of things that disrupt rational, critical thinking like superstition and religion. If people better understood the causes and sources of our behavior, they'd be less inclined to rely on things that hinder intellectual progress.
>>26358478
Eh, you could. But determinism and fatalism are still two completely different things. Determinism is kinda like saying you were born with a neurological makeup for psychopathy and raised in an environment where you were largely neglected and exposed to tons of violence and on your 21st birthday you killed your mother. Fatalism is like saying you're going to kill your mother no matter what kind of life you have.
>>26358484
>Nothing outside of the brain is doing the thinking for us or firing off neurological pulses.
External factors can determine which neuronal pulses fire off to where, which circuits activate or lay dormant. It "does the thinking for us" in that it determines how our thinking/cognition gets done.
>The only reason you have a sense of self is because of your brain
Here's the key point, the self can only exist in relation to other things. A brain brain floating through the void would not have a self.
>>26358659
LSD showed me this too once.
On acid I tried to perceive "now", failed and realized that "I" can only approach it asymptotically from the past, or make predictions that will never approach the moment.
1/x^2 appeared in m mind, I was in love with calculus, drank a glass of juice and forgot about all of it minutes later.
>>26358697
>but if free will exists, then it's of your free will that you believe that
But it doesn't exist, and it's an incoherent concept to begin with.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joanVUoXY0s
>hell, if free will doesn't exist, then your "beliefs" have no say in how you act
No, that makes no sense at all. My beliefs influence how I act. That doesn't mean I have free will.
My beliefs are a link in the causal chain.
>>26358718
I actually meant to reply to
>>26358670
>>26358484
The concept of me could exist without my physical form ever existing. Just like how Darth Vader exists or God exists.
>>26358536
Because nothing inherently matters.
>>26358635
I chose not to move my fingers.
Bravo r9k, this is truly the most intelligent board on 4chan
>>26358659
>so it's not of your own, albeit possibly imagined, free will that you're having this conversation with me?
No.
>>26358705
>A brain brain floating through the void would not have a self.
How the fuck would you know something like this? There aren't any given instances of a brain floating in a void.
Also, those external factors aren't thinking for us, they're just stimuli. "You" are your brain. I don't even see how you can argue this logically. You calling your brain "it" is literally your brain calling itself it.
Yes. I chose to post this shitty post.
>>26358732
why do you believe with such certainty that free will doesnt exist?
because the universe controlled you to?
did it pick you to be it's advocate to dispel the notions of the ignorant?
>>26358755
>I chose not to move my fingers.
Because?
Currently working through this, on tape.
>>26358782
well then, I'm glad the universe has linked us together in this moment and given me a bit of dopamine to make me feel better
>>26358803
>why do you believe with such certainty that free will doesnt exist?
I'm operating on the principle that things that are incoherent don't exist. Free will falls under the umbrella of incoherent things. It's nonsensical.
>because the universe controlled you to?
Yes.
>did it pick you to be it's advocate to dispel the notions of the ignorant?
Well, "pick" is an odd word because I don't think the universe has free will either.
>>26357111
I have free will to make any decision
my free will is vastly limited, influenced, and controlled by external factors
my will is not my own, but instead an amalgamation of many different things.
>>26358834
I'm glad too. Evidently the laws of physics compel me to want people to be happy, at least generally.
You're telling me that you're happy (or at least, happier) in turn has just now CAUSED me to be happier too.
>>26358786
How do you have an idea of self without an idea of other? Chekmate
>>26358858
>things that are incoherent
so you'll believe anything someone makes you feel is coherent?
>well pick is an odd word
so through your arguing of semantics, I can affirm you do believe you were chosen to talk with me on the internet about this matter
>>26358887
and your comment made me happier too
this cycle is comfy
>>26358803
You're a culmination of your biology, neurophysiology and everything you've ever experienced with the external world since you were born.
Your beliefs and opinions are informed by the interactions you had with the world around you and natural human predisposition. Everything that makes you "you" can be traced back to something that isn't you. You would've been an entirely different person had you been born to different parents, born in a different culture, born in a different era or met different people throughout your life.
You didn't choose to be who you are. You're a product of the life you've lived.
If you truly have free will, then genuinely loathe something or someone you love just because you want to without any given reason or external influence. I want you to be genuinely repulsed right now by something that brings you joy or elation. If you're truly free to do what you want, then stop believing in free will.
>>26358923
>so you'll believe anything someone makes you feel is coherent?
No. Just because something is coherent doesn't mean it's credible.
>so through your arguing of semantics, I can affirm you do believe you were chosen to talk with me on the internet about this matter
Again--"chosen" is an odd word.
I believe that the laws of physics have compelled me to talk to you about this matter.
>>26358960
>do what I tell you to prove there is no free will
nah, and besides, I don't specifically think there is free will, I don't really care, because to me at least, it doesnt matter
>>26358786
This entire argument is kinda fucked from the start because we didn't begin with any definition of what the "self" is. I assume you're talking about "you" as in your unique personality. This can only exist in relation to other personalities and material things. You can't develop your unique and personal reactions and perceptions and feelings about stuff without external stimuli forcing itself on you. The "self" cannot be a brain alone, you cannot be you as a brain alone.
Brain-centrists, man
>>26358898
There is no checkmate. You proposed a situation that has yet to happen, so you don't know how the brain would respond. I don't know if the brain would make itself aware of its own existence inside of a void and neither do you.
>>26359000
I wasn't telling you to do what I want you to do. I was telling you to prove yourself correct. If you want to test whether or not you have free will, then there's your opportunity. Also, don't conflate freedom with free will.
>>26359011
My initial statement was the self is a product of the brain, which aligns with what you're saying.
>>26359064
>I was telling you to prove yourself correct
I suppose it would fall to me since you can't prove yourself correct either
>>26359015
He >>26358898 is not me btw. And my brain in void thought experiment was not the basis of my argument. But consider, for example, being racist and lonely is probably part of your personality. If your mind had no idea niggers existed, or even what its own race was, how would it be racist? If it could not conceive of the situation of rejection by females, how would it become bitter? And so on with all aspects of your personality
>>26358996
>I believe that the laws of physics have compelled me to talk to you about this matter.
so you do believe you were "compelled" by forces beyond your control that you are talking to me about this
how do you feel about "greater beings"
the thing about philosophical questions is that people don't even try to define things as clearly as possible to start with
>what's the right thing to do?
>what's the meaning of life?
>do we have free will?
why do you think math has achieved so much and philosophy so little? if you want to be useful, try to reduce all philosophy to mathematical logic in some way that people don't argue about it much
>>26358826
Ortega and his co-host Enel did a 2-hour review/critique of that book. It's on Youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pJXt3LclcY
>>26359094
Well that's a bit of circular logic right there.
The self is a product of much more than the brain, see >>26359111
>>26359159
>why do you think math has achieved so much and philosophy so little?
Philosophy has achieved a lot, though. Human rights laws are grounded in philosophical principles (not saying they're perfect though).
>if you want to be useful, try to reduce all philosophy to mathematical logic in some way that people don't argue about it much
I'd actually like to see more logical formulas used in philosophical debates online. I think they should start teaching symbolic logic early in school.
pic unrelated
>>26359111
>>26359197
Are you retarded?
My argument from the very beginning that who you are is determined by what influences your brain. I never implied the brain manufactures your personality out of nothing. You're just deconstructing what I'm saying and attacking two different points as if I made them separately.
>>26359159
Also I agree that definitions are super important.
>>26357111
Of course not. Free will is a code-word for souls, and souls don't exist.
>>26359270
No need to become rustled :^)
You began with the argument that the "self" / what makes you "you" lies entirely within the brain, between the ears.
>>26359304
>Free will is a code-word for souls
Even if we have a soul, that wouldn't give us free will.
Whether in the material world or in a supposed spiritual world, either everything is caused by the state of things the moment before (meaning there's no free will), or some things are uncaused (meaning those uncaused things can't be caused by our "wills" or by us in any way).
Even if they exist, souls aren't free will mechanisms.
>>26357111
Can you fucking kill yourself with this question already?
>>26359407
>he has no interest in discussing fundamental questions of human existence
And you wonder why you're alone
>>26359390
>I understand something that doesnt exist
>>26357111
We're not doing your intro to philosophy homework for you OP.
>>26359452
I don't think colleges are allowed to discuss this stuff. After all, liberal ideology rests on the assumption of free will
>>26359443
The idea that a soul could somehow give you free will makes no logical sense, even if souls do exist. That's the point I'm making.
Realizing that free will is incoherent doesn't require a materialistic worldview.
>>26359159
>Whatever you think is right
>There is no true meaning
>No
which makes my previous two answers are a little more amusing.
Math is a tool. Philosophy is an idea.
Without a goal, what use is a tool?
Philosophy has overthrown governments, it motivates people to do things.
>>26359504
>applying logic to an immaterial object that, again, doesnt exist
>>26359612
>applying logic to an immaterial object
That's foundational to theology and most religions.
>that, again, doesnt exist
You can discuss the internal consistency of things that don't (or perhaps don't) exist, anon.
>>26359670
>That's foundational to theology and most religions.
yes and?
>You can discuss the internal consistency of things that don't (or perhaps don't) exist, anon.
not if everyone isnt aware of what you believe a soul to be
anything with such a hazy definition can't come under any kind of scrutiny so long as the scrutineers don't agree on a common ground
>NEETs and losers have a tendency to believe they do not have free will
STOP THE PRESSES!
>>26357479
what's the moral of the story then? the end confused me
If some omnipotent fella knows precisely what you're going to do tomorrow, doesn't influence you in any way. Someone's simply going to be really, really, really damn bored being a literal know-it-all while you get to make your own choices in relative ignorance.
In a very literal sense, all events are deterministic, including our daily choices. We live in a material universe where all phenomena can be explained. Everything that happens is inevitable, and if you have perfect knowledge of everything in the universe, you can predict every single event until the end of time.
But the system is full of chaos, which makes determinism irrelevant from the human perspective. There are too many factors to make accurate predictions.
Everyone has free will in a classical sense, in that their actions in the future, beyond a point, can't be accurately predicted. Much like the weather. No one knows what you will do, not even you.
Any time we feel like we didn't really have a choice is just a black swan incident usually. Yes if we had knowledge that would be impossible to obtain, we would have acted differently. But that's a meaningless notion.
>>26357111
You have to be free first before free will means shit.
Arguing over free will is pointless.
If we do or do not have free will we still don't know what will happen tomorrow and will act as if we do have free will. Is there a difference between having free will and not having free will?
>>26357111
As long as you're ignorant of your future, you act by free will.
>>26362149
I assume people fretting over it are worried about how close they are to instinctual animals.
>>26362168
I don't think that's a fair comparison or argument because it's not about being animals, it's about the illusion of choice, people want the safety of control, it also gives meaning to their actions and the actions of others. And even if it was the argument at hand we are animals.
>>26362192
In hindsight a spider spinning a web is probably a better thing to say than instinctual animals, unless that's basically the same thing just with a different wording
I shouldn't be up at 4 in the morning lol I feel like an idiot now
>>26357111
Well, what is free will?
I understand what random will would be like, and I also understand what a deterministic will would be like.
I don't really understand what free will would be like.
>>26362251
Think your argument stems from viewing instinctual actions ad 'bad', that we're above being animals and have an imaginary line drawn between animal action and human action when objectively there is no line for we are still animals, just not like the rest of the animal kingdom.
i used to believe i have free will, until i realized that i was diagnosed with Tourettes syndrome.
some of my actions neurologically aren't my own and the only thing i can do is suppress urges.
how can you explain the subconscious brain if we really do have free will? this is something i never understood.
your subconscious acts outside of your awareness of it, is that a part of your free will too or?
being "guided" to do shit out of instinct or the subconscious mind doesn't seem like free will to me.
If pic related is your definition of free will we don't have it.
If you define it as just having choice then we do.
>>26359160
I like these guys, a shame george is religious
Determinism must be false, since physicalism must be false, therefore humans may likely have free will.
>>26357111
Not in a sense people want it to be. If there was something like conscious free will I wouldnt be such a loser right now.
