Free will is an illusion
>all your choices are dependent on past experience
>all your actions are therefore not original and truly reactions
discuss
>believing in fate/determinism
>>27614882
>">doing x" amirite guys
purest form of debate right there
only way to prove it either way would be to time travel back, observe a situation without interfering, and then travel back again to the same point and see if anything changes due to free will
Here's a question for determinists (I am one)
Does random quantum behavior play into your worldview?
IE is this >>27614953 not necessarily a sufficient crucible for proving or disproving determinism
>>27614872
I do *what* I want
*when* I want.
>>27614882
>>27614985
Yeah definitely, randomness is always taken into account. The point is basically that you cannot control your future, you can only perceive it to be so
>>27615033
Well why do you "want" to do what you do? Is it not because you experienced something in the past that influenced your behavior?
>>27615039
but if you were to wind back time, would quantum randomness make each rewind fundamentally different?
Is anything really random?
>>27615033
A simple proof of this would be to look at "human" behavior, or any animal behavior for that matter. There is a definite pattern, and the outliers have not had similar circumstances in development, so they behave different
>>27615074
To feel good is the short answer, that's pretty much why anyone does anything I guess, without thinking too deeply into it.
>>27615033It's impossible to ever do something you don't WANT to do, even if you are a wagecuck whose life is miserable, you have to willingly show up for work because you WANT to avoid dying of starvation or disappointing your family etc etc. But that's a different discussion, and you missed the point of the OP
>>27615100
Yes that is exactly my point, you do not control what you want to do. Your desires are not your control, they push you in the direction you go. Desires are illusions of free will, they make you think you want to do something when in reality it wasn't your choice to want that thing in the first place
>>27615100
What's more is that even when you think you "beat" your desires (like stopped procrastinating) you really wanted to stop procrastinating, but you also wanted the other thing at the same time. It was just what your brain decided was most important at the time
Some might argue that this isn't true free will, but I look at it like this:
>the brain makes decisions
>the brain is the self
>free will is the self's ability to act on its own accord
>therefore free will exists.
>>27615132
I don't know doc, I think you're making this into something bigger than what it really is, no hostility. I hear what you're saying but it just doesn't jive with me. All I know is, if it makes me happy for a time, I'm going to do it as long as it hurts nobody else (besides shitposting) or doesn't harm me.
>>27615203
the brain doesn't act on its own accord though, its accord is based on previous tests of trial and error through years of evolution to form the biological computer used to make "choices" based on events around you
>>27615203
This is a good point
You can define the universe as being a mystery where predestination and free will aren't mutually exclusive
>>27614952
the irony in the post is worthy of this orignial comment
>>27615255
It does though. The brain may take those into account, but it is still the brain doing so.
>>27615382
it is ironic but it isn't wrong
stating the counterhypothesis is not a real debate tactic
>>27615421
But the brain, being a physical thing, must bend to the fact that everything is caused. On a physical level, every decision has its roots in the brain's structure at one point or another. The thought is that the brain, being a physical thing, is bound by the same laws of physics as every other thing and, therefore, cannot change its own physical state.
>>27615818
>everything is caused
That actually isn't true. Events do happen without cause.
>>27615875
Whut
There is only the first cause, and even that may turn out to be bullshit if everything is a circle
Do you mean random events? Like quantum disturbances? Are you sure they're random and not just impossible to predict because they're immeasurable?
>>27614872
>you have free will
>there is no RNG in the world so your free will always results in a logical conclusion
That's still free will
>>27615909
Radioactive decay, namely. Not all events are the result of cause/effect.
Everything you do is a result of chemicals in your brain. You can literally change someone's behavior completely by injecting them with drugs. The "normal" drugs someone has in their brain as a default state is based on their genetics, environment, and experiences, none of which they can control
If you "decide" to move your arm, it already moved before you conscious decided to do it. Your brain calculated the action and sent it to your muscles, generating a thought of "oh, I want to move my arm" right as it happens
>>27614882
>go back in time as an observer
>everyone makes the exact same decisions they did the first time
there is no free will
>>27615954
Radioactive decay isn't causeless, just random
and at that,
How do we know it isn't caused by subatomic events we can't measure, and wouldn't happen the exact same way if we could rewind time without interfering? Moreover does this have any impact on free will in the big picture
>>27614872
To me, free will is one of the only things I know for sure exists. People who argue against free will on deterministic/scientific grounds seem to me to be the type of people who would argue against the cogito because it's circular.
"I think therefore I am"
"Oh, well Descartes, I have some news for you. Technically, that's begging the question. In effect you're saying 'Thought exists' and then to answer the question 'How do you know thought exists?' you're saying 'Because I thought it'. QED."
Whether people have a different definition of free will to me is another issue. A lot of modern philosophers, especially those espousing four-dimensionalism (which, I don't necessarily disagree with) define free will as 'being able to have done otherwise', which I don't think is a very typical definition. Once you do something, it's done, but you still chose to do it.
Unless it was a reflex, of course. See, that's another thing that leads me to believe free will exists, at least as it's more commonly defined. If free will as I understand it was 'an illusion' there'd be no difference between voluntary and involuntary actions.
Also, I guess it depends on how you define 'illusion'. A case could be made that the universe is all an illusion.
I remember when I was younger, and still believed in God, and believed God gave us free will, I tried to reconcile my definition of God with my definition of free will. I thought 'maybe God created the universe before he met all the criteria of God, he gave people free will and then saw what they chose. Then, having seen all the choices people make, he started the universe again, and could both know exactly what people would do but still have given them free will.'
Nonsensical? Yeah, pretty much. I think that's the thing about the free will debate, though, it seems to imply to me that there's something fundamentally odd about the universe. That it's just a gigantic contradiction machine.
>>27615954
>>27615909
>>27615921
No idea why you guys seem to think free will becomes automatically existent just because there are random events in the universe.
Your body is largely deterministic, and even your conscious decision-making processes have been shown to be rationalized after that fact in brain research.
To have free will, you'd need to have a priori control over some element that is exclusively controlled by you and your control over it cannot be influenced or predetermined by anything else.
Now, if you just want to call "free will" the relative inability to predict certain events or define cause and effect relations, then free will is a meaningless term in the first place.
>>27616079
What would a universe be like where free will existed?
>>27616107
If we aren't living in it, it's fundamentally impossible, or the closest thing to it would just be acting totally randomly
Not even God could possibly be free of the tyranny of determinism, if it exists
>>27616079
>To have free will, you'd need to have a priori control over some element that is exclusively controlled by you and your control over it cannot be influenced or predetermined by anything else.
true but only if nothing else in the universe can influence your decision, like morals, the laws of physics, etc
so I guess God would be free of the tyranny of determinism
>>27616122
Why does having free will necesarilly mean people will act totally random?
We can predict people's choices, but they still have a choice.
Here's a thought experiment: A computer so massively complex that it can accurately predict every future event based on prior events exists (basically Laplace's demon for the modern age). The computer is also programmed to answer any request completely and honestly.
One day you walk up to that computer and, intending to contradict it, you ask 'will I clap my hands three times in the next minute?'
>>27616030
Random yes, without apparent cause. And I would say it does, as it adds plausibility to the idea of free will.
>>27616079
But the thing is, if myself is the brain, then I do act for myself. It really just comes down to if you want to distinguish the conscious, aware self from the rest of the brain.
>>27616192
>Random yes, without apparent cause.
Grey zone
It is certainly caused by a massive nucleus but you're right, it is random, unless...?
fuck
>>27614872
Renamon is my favorite.
>>27616205
>grey
Learn to spell, faggot. This isn't Digimon.
>>27616213
Get out of here with your digimongers
>>27616122
ONLY God could be free of determinism; if God exists, it has to be free of it, otherwise it isn't God.
"God" is a concept of transcendence and boundlessness. Everything else must just fall under the control of something else to even be defined vaguely.
The question of free will is fundamentally about semantics related to randomness.
>>27616192
>Random yes, without apparent cause. And I would say it does, as it adds plausibility to the idea of free will.
Why would it matter if the decay is random or have cause. In either circumstance it doesn't mean you can actually change it
>>27616233
americunt pls
>>27616254
any 5th dimensional being would be free of determinism
>>27616079
Yes free will is meaningless.
You want to go further down the rabbit hole where all the energy in the universe fizzles out and literally everything in meaningless?
It's all about relativity. Your choices affect your life. Even if you're choices were never going to be any different that does not invalidate the first claim.
>>27616180
>Why does having free will necesarilly mean people will act totally random?
Just the closest thing I could imagine in that post, not to be taken too seriously
>thought experiment:
"this statement is false"
Same idea, it's just a trash scenario that can't ever be, or if it could be, there's many different imaginative ways to explain it
You can have free will and predetermminism at the same time.
They are not mutually exclusive.
Example: you are the creator of a quantum universal simulation. Evolution takes it course and you eventually get human simulations. You are able to move time forward at any speed you desire - backward's too. The outcome of the time line is always the same if you do not interfere. You have seen the future - the humans still acted of their own free will to get there, they are still free agents.
Knowing the outcome of something does not take away free will.
>>27616267
what the hell do you define 5D as
>>27616192
>as it adds plausibility to the idea of free will.
I don't think it does much for it. A half-life is definable because all of those random events bubble up into a macroscopic predictability. The brain and "self" seem to operate at macroscopic levels, and there's no real reason to believe they don't; if carbon atoms decay randomly in your brain, it's not as though willed it to happen.
>But the thing is, if myself is the brain, then I do act for myself. It really just comes down to if you want to distinguish the conscious, aware self from the rest of the brain.
Even if you separate the conscious self and consider it some superior emergence of the brain, it's still being influenced by external and internal events; just because the reaction is hard to predict, does not mean it should be attributed to some thing that does not obey any rules called "free will".
It just seems silly. I still think it's nothing but a construction of language that makes little sense when examined. It's likely we're not even discussing remotely the same idea when we say "free will".
>>27616261
That's not really what I meant. Radioactive decay just shows that events so occur without any particular cause. You can extend that further to the to enable agency in something capable of decision making.
>>27616337
Well wouldn't the predictability from outside sources take away from free will? Would it truly be your will?
>>27616450
>that events so occur without any particular cause. You can extend that further to the to enable agency in something capable of decision making.
No you can't just extend it to mean whatever you want.
Everything not being entire deterministic does not necessarily mean you have any free will.
I think determinism is a different issue to free will and discussing both at once is confusing the issue
>>27616471
If a supreme god-computer can predict everything you will do in a way that it can KNOW with 100% certainty what you will do, how you will die, it doesn't remove your own self-control
>>27616267
Why stop at 5 dimensions anon? If there's a sixth dimension, 5th dimension God is just another holographic illusion, and so on and so forth infinitely.
>>27616297
>Your choices affect your life
The question is whether or not they should be called "choices" in the first place. There is no question that whatever emerges from your "internal" interaction with external things will affect your life.
>>27616337
You're not providing any definition of free will, so your example is sort of pointless. The free will in your model is just a portion of a predetermined reality. How is it anything but an illusion? You're arbitrarily separating the same thing to satisfy a conclusion you want to make.
life is an illusion dont you realize that
try meditation if you dont think you have free will
>>27616559
Actually if it were possible, it does prove the non existence of your self control
What it doesn't remove is the illusion of your self control
>>27616559
No but your entire being a series of lines of code that are just a lot of computer equations mean you have no free will all actions are just the conclusion of some math that was caused by some other math
>>27616583
Predicting is not controlling
The two are very different
So, KNOWING is distinct from controlling. Fate may know, but we control. They can coexist
>>27616597
Let me ask you a question. Is it still a decision if you always make the same one, every time, a million times over?
Does that other option or outcome even exist?
>>27616628
Why wouldn't it be? How can you define a free will for which input doesn't always equal the same output? That would incorporate randomness, necessarily, and that means it is not willful.
>>27616597
Its not a prediction if its accurate every time. What you are describing is knowing exactly what is going to happen, and how can it be your will if its already been decided?
To establish that as reality you would have to dismiss the illusion of free will as being not real, but it is real by the definition of reality I care about because it concerns me. And that is what most people consider reality too, so true that they don't even stop to consider the contrary.
And by the way, the notion of atoms and their constituent particles being wholly responsible for the changes we see and call reality is innacurate because they aren't actually rigid balls that have motion simply because they have to as per physica, that only applies at the level we live on. Truthfully there is no more reason why the self at this scale has lesser of an ability to impart change on its own accord than the smaller particles its made up of.
That makes a lot of sense to me and is my view of this whole thing, anyone comment?
>>27616663
see >>27616651
asdf two six three
>>27616651
Thats the point free will doesn't exist.
>input doesn't always equal the same output?
You can't pick the input, so you have no control on the output.
Is he still uu or did he sneak back into ou yet?
>>27616559
Actually it does, because if the computer can predict what you're going to do with absolute certainty, then "you" is just an artifact of your brain moving along a set causal path, and there is nothing fundamental that can be called "self" in any part of that process.
>>27616597
>predicting is not controlling
No, it's evidence of the fact that something is controlled by some other process or processes.
>Fate may know, but we control. They can coexist
What are we controlling then? We're not controlling our reactions if they are predictable; that means they have some sort of presumably causal relation. If there is no relation between any of these internal events at all and it's entirely or primarily random, then you're still not controlling anything, because there's no longer any continuous self to make a choice in the first place.
Free will is a semantic construction, and it's paradoxical.
>>27616699
This guy gets it
>>27616708
He is still UU, its because he doesn't have good speed compared to Garchomp or other high tier dragon damage dealers so he gets shut down quick
>>27616699
The point is that free will might not exist, but it may as well exist, too, for all the difference it makes, because, either way, we agree fate does exist.
Deciding whether free will can coexist is a matter of semantics
>>27616578
Actually, my fat hippie friend, I prefer to see life as a property of sufficient complexity.
>>27616909
I kind of agree with the other guy, that life is an illusion and all
>>27616931
In what sense can life be an illusion?
How do you define that? Is there someone creating the illusion on purpose? Can it be an illusion if nothing changes when you assert it is an illusion, rather than the alternative?
>>27616931
But literally everything is an illusion that is a result of humans trying to define the things around them. Your ideas and personal definitions are just interpretations likely based on other interpretations, because actual objects (if they exist) are fundamentally imperceptible. Even mathematical definitions of things like light are not light itself; your vision, based on the interpretation of light, is not light itself, etc.
I think you get what I'm saying, famalama. Life is a spook, things are a spook, this conversation is a spook.
>>27616332
How convenient for you that any arguments against your position are just 'trash' and you don't have to address them.
>>27617821
Not him, but you're very clearly having trouble understanding what other posters are talking about, and seem to be more concerned with proving your idea of free will exists than discussing or exploring it at all.
>>27616180
>One day you walk up to that computer and, intending to contradict it, you ask 'will I clap my hands three times in the next minute?'
Computer could wait until the last split second to answer you.
Computer could also answer you and be absolutely correct; nothing in your post makes that impossible, unless you believe free will must exist.
This also doesn't prove free will exists. Your actions are still predicated on previous inputs. Your clapping your hands or not at all is based around the existence of the computer being what it is and doing what it does. You're inventing a paradox that is constrained by causality and thus actually disproves free will a priori. Good job.
