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
Prove libertarian free will exists or alternatively that compatibilism is a good thing (and define what you mean by "good")
Your move, free will believers.
>>28460402
Depends on how you view time and the universe as we know it. WIthout getting too crazy into other higher dimensions, do you agree that we have in the universe as we know it: length, width, height and duration of time?
They are each their own dimension, each existing in their own frame in higher dimensions. This means every moment from your birth to your death is in synchronous existence in the universe. What we do is act on our free will in our own time, which is already technically determined in the fourth dimension.
It's a "good" thing because it's fact. Absolute truth.
>>28460490
So you're a determinist and a compatibilist, and agree that libertarian free will is bullshit?
>>28460505
Compatibilism IS determinism. Free will is compatible with determinism, you just have to imagine our universe and it's higher dimensions and ultimately what it exists in.
>>28460539
>>28460490
How would a universe without freedom differ from ours?
Where specifically is, in ours, freedom?
>>28460559
What?
A universe without freedom? Freedom is a socially constructed idea: the ability to do what you want when you want to. A concept has to be thought up by a living being.
>Where specifically is, in ours, freedom?
What do you mean by this?
>>28460402
>prove
Stop forcing your ideology onto people.
The Lord wills it.
>>28460490
>it's a fact
>facts are absolute truth
Looks like we have an illiterate STEM sperg here.
>>28460585
>the ability to do what you want when you want to
What if you want something but don't want to want it?
>>28460585
Just explain to me what a universe without freedom would be like in contrast to ours. Maybe then your argument would become coherent to me.
>>28460490
Free will is totally an illusion. As far as neurobiology goes, your synapses learn from experience, resulting in reward or pubishment for certain actions. Naturally, you'll be more inclined to do the things tha bring you pleasure (or less pain).
>>28460640
>Just explain to me what a universe without freedom would be like
A universe without freedom is a universe without life.
>>28460597
DEUS definitely doesn't VULT, my friend.
>>28460610
I don't know, you tell me.
>>28460674
>le science
STEM sperg reductionist leave now.
>>28460687
>I don't know, you tell me.
Well, I would say that means you don't have free will.
If we had free will we could choose all our desires, and choose not to have the ones we don't want.
Meaning we could get as much pleasure from crawling into a hole and letting ourselves rot as we could from contributing to society and leading people to mindfulness and all that stuff.
And ANYONE would have that ability if they had free will.
They could choose to feel just as happy by being homeless and living with cancer in a ditch as they would by being a healthy young man with a beautiful wife.
Because they could just choose to want to live in a ditch with cancer.
>>28460687
>A universe without freedom is a universe without life.
Would there be freedom of will in a universe where all life is bamboo
>>28460781
You think changing your mind about something isn't free well? Kek get outta here.
Our future is already determined when you get into higher dimensions. Just learn about it for fucks sake.
>>28460674
>you'll be more inclined to do certain things based on neurons firing
In your own words you've just entirely described free will as true. You may be INCLINED to do whatever because you prefer it, but you have the ability to not want that and generally have te ability to not choose to carry out those actions still.
If free will doesn't exist then why are you trying to convince anyone about anything?
>>28460800
I'm not sure I understand your train of thought with that question.
I think you're seeing some implications of there being no free will that I'm not seeing.
Please elaborate.
>>28460785
Since the question you asked me basically boils down to "is bamboo conscious?" I'm gonna have to tell ya to fuck right off bud.
>>28460813
if I thought there wasn't free will, I'd just kick back and not really worry about anything because that's just the way it's meant to turn out and there's nothing I can really do
>>28460402
Whether or not it really exists, it cannot rationally be denied since it is presupposed in the concept of thought itself. A being's rational faculty must be absolutely free in order to apprehend truth, and the capacity to understand truth is a necessary property of the mind. Therefore to deny free will is to deny truth, and to deny truth is contradictory, for a denial always assumes the reality of falsehood and therefore truth. So, even if we are not free, to believe that we are not free necessarily results in logical incoherence.
>>28460836
What exactly do you mean by "kick back"?
Do you mean you'd stop eating and drinking?
Stop going to the bathroom?
Stop working for money?
Or do you mean just take a more relaxed attitude toward life?
>>28460846
>Whether or not it really exists, it cannot rationally be denied since it is presupposed in the concept of thought itself.
I've seen no argument proving this.
>>28460819
>Since the question you asked me basically boils down to "is bamboo conscious?"
It actually doesn't. But: you said a world without freedom of will is a world without life. I asked if a world where all life was bamboo would have freedom of will.
If there can be a world that has life, but no freedom of will, then you still owe me what would be the minimal difference between a world with and one without freedom of will.
>>28460856
it depends on how I'd feel at the time, because obviously I'd just reason that that's the way I'm meant to feel and so on
>>28460878
You just sound incredibly confused really.
>>28460794
You can't choose what you do and dont like, though. You'll experience something and it may permanently alter how you respond to that stimulus in the future, but your conditioning at that time is totally separate from your perception in the future.
>>28460892
I am, because you're making a confused argument.
Look, it's very simple.
I ask you: how would a universe without freedom of will look differently from ours?
And ideally, you give an answer that doesn't fall apart the second I bring up plants.
>>28460925
My answer was that plants are capable of thought, therefore aren't capable of expressing the human concept of freedom.
You're an idiot, your thread is shit and you should feel bad.
>>28460402
I like how with pot, the web starts out nice but at some point it just goes, "Fuck it, good enough."
>>28460879
So, why would there not being free will preclude me from wanting to discuss the idea of there not being free will?
Perhaps I'm just in that sort of mood.
>>28460948
>>28460948
>aren't
oringinu
>>28460948
>You're an idiot, your thread is shit and you should feel bad.
this isn't my thread
>My answer was that plants are capable of thought, therefore aren't capable of expressing the human concept of freedom.
And what is your answer to my original question, which was: how would a world bereft of freedom of the will look like, one where maybe there is will, but no free will?
>>28460966
Don't expect a straight answer from him. You'll just get some flim-flam about "higher dimensions" and a bunch of moved goalposts and personal attacks.
>>28460966
And again, I already told you a world without the concept of freedom by definition has to be a world without life on it to create that concept.
Why are you asking if the universe itself has free will? As far as I know it's not a conscious being, but what do I know right?
>>28460989
>some flim-flam about "higher dimensions"
And I wouldn't except serious posts from someone that unironically says "le science."
its irrelevant because everything that is going to happen will happen, and everything that has happened happened
in the end whether we have free will or not means nothing, the outcome is the same
>>28461006
Show me where I mentioned science.
>>28460597
>>28460709
That's you m8.>>28461030
>>28460990
You're confused about necessary vs. sufficient conditions.
>>28461046
>Everyone who disagrees with me is the same person
freewill doesnt exist
doesnt mean libertarianism is unachieveable though
>>28460953
I guess it wouldn't, but I'd just think most things were pointless
like why even care about anything if it's just predetermined?
>>28461055
It's obviously you. If you can't comprehend science, then forget about it. Don't bash what you don't know, you'll just look like a complete idiot.
>he thinks free will exist
normal megadetected
>>28461054
Life itself doesn't guarantee the capacity to comprehend the concept of free will. You have to have higher intelligence to do that, hence why we don't see bamboo walking around conversing with us.
Again, besides repeating answers I've already given you to the same question you keep asking over and over you're just confused. And that's okay.
>>28461070
>like why even care about anything if it's just predetermined?
Because you'd be predetermined to care about it. It would make you feel good to care about it, so you would.
I don't believe in free will. When I eat a burrito I still care that it has hot sauce on it because that hot sauce gives me a rush, man. The fact that I think it was either predetermined to give me a rush, or that that rush is the product of indeterminsitic quantum events if such things exist, doesn't really mean it doesn't give me the rush.
I still taste the hot sauce and I still enjoy it, even if I was predetermined (or quantum determined) to.
>>28461076
Ok, I am through debating with you, man. You suck at arguing and you're just throwing out a bunch of random gobbledegook. You're like the guy at a party who thinks he knows so much stuff but really doesn't and can't even hold a coherent conversation.
>>28461116
so basically we just keep doing the same thing and free will not existing doesn't really matter?
>>28461103
So what was the moment in time where free will first appeared
>>28461116
Yeah science sure is a bunch of random gobbledegook, you got me there anon.
Good debate.
>>28461131
The moment a human being thought about the concept in our case, but as for the first instance in our universe? Unknowable.
>>28461006
You're the 'le science' poster, you realize this yes?
I'm just the medium that translates your ideology to prose.
>>28461076
>if you insult muh ideology then U dont understand it!
Said every freshman STEM sperg ever.
I have a decade of experience in the field, you have none.
>>28461141
Yes it is, you only deny this because you hold your ideology dear.
Ask Schrodinger's cat.
If it's alive or not.
>>28461126
No, it does matter because I don't judge myself or others as harshly for things.
Let's say I needed something and you didn't give it to me.
Because I don't believe in free will, I'm not going to resent you as much for it as if I did.
I'll reason that you couldn't have done otherwise of your own accord at the time. So I'll be like, "Sucks that he didn't give me that floobidy-flobbidy, but that's just the way his brain was working at the time, based on his genetics and his environmental factors".
I'd still be unhappy about whatever consequences I had to suffer because you didn't give me the floobidy-flobbidy, but I wouldn't hate you as much for not having given it to me.
>>28461163
true that m8
>>28461180
but couldn't you apply the same thing to yourself and just get angry anyway?
>>28460674
how can people choose to do things they know will hurt them
>>28461210
STEM spergs aren't known to be consistent.
>>28461210
>but couldn't you apply the same thing to yourself and just get angry anyway?
I'm not sure what you mean, sorry.
>>28461226
Example? (I'm not the person you asked the question to, dunno if he's even here anymore but maybe he is).
>>28461272
like you could say that you had a responsibility to blame other people less, but you could also say that if you don't do that there was nothing you could do about and you were just bound to get angry
>>28461154
So there were human beings before that point, who then did not have freedom of will, as they had not thought up the concept yet?
>>28461299
Well, yeah. But not believing in free will blunts that because I instantly think, "Wait...but he couldn't have really done otherwise of his own accord. He's just as much a puppet of his circumstances as me."
That thought makes me feel fraternal and it gets rid of a lot of anger, and I like that.
I actually don't want to feel angry. It feels kind of good, but more bad.
Anger overall is a bad feeling emotion.
The fact that I don't believe in free will channels my thoughts in such a way that I feel a lot less anger, and that works out into an overall good.
What good would it do for me to feel more anger? Almost none. It would largely just make me suffer more.
>>28461300
Distant ancestors of humanity yes. Do you not believe in evolution?
>>28461355
Also what do you think of Socrates' idea that "nobody does wrong willingly" or something alone those lines?
>tfw don't live in america
>tfw none of these terms are used at all
>>28461364
So the parents of the first human to think up free will did not have free will?
And that made them less than human?
>>28461375
I'm not familiar enough with that to give you a good answer, I'm afraid.
>>28461411
It's the same sort of idea as your determinism making you more sympathetic, except to me it makes a bit more sense because with the Socratic one you can't just in the end say that you were meant to feel a certain way anyway and it's pointless to worry.
>>28461400
Free will came into existence at some point in our evolution, it would have had to otherwise we wouldn't have it.
As a concept it only then existed when a human thought of it.
>>28461434
Sounds interesting. Do you have a link handy?
>>28461474
http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/~davpy35701/text/plato-nobad.html
>>28461452
Speaking as somebody who has degrees in philosophy and neuroscience, and is currently teaching a class on freedom of the will, you're making the worst arguments I have ever read on the topic. You seem either incapable of or uninterested in making a rigorous argument.
Consider:
>>28461154
>>So what was the moment in time where free will first appeared
>The moment a human being thought about the concept in our case
>>28461452
>Free will came into existence at some point in our evolution, it would have had to otherwise we wouldn't have it.
>As a concept it only then existed when a human thought of it
.>>28461474
It's in the Protagoras. Look up Acrasia.
>>28461502
>>So what was the moment in time where free will first appeared
>The moment a human being thought about the concept in our case
Should have clarified by posting >>28461452
earlier. Point still stands.
>>28461517
Stop confusing the concept and its referent. It's making your argument near indecipherable.
So what was the first being with free will like? And what were its parents like?
>>28461489
Thanks bro, I'll check it out. Might not be able to read it and digest it in enough time to get back to you in this thread but I really appreciate you sharing it. I will read it.
>>28461502
And really? You have a degree in philosophy? That was a waste of money, bang up job, dipshit.
I've yet to see any argument against what I'm saying.
>>28461528
>So what was the first being with free will like? And what were its parents like?
Who fuckings knows? We'll never know. When I say in our evolution I was talking about life's evolution. It can be argued some animals have free will.
>>28461562
> That was a waste of money, bang up job, dipshit.
Well I'm being paid to teach the subject now so I guess it worked out fine.
>Who fuckings knows? We'll never know. When I say in our evolution I was talking about life's evolution. It can be argued some animals have free will.
You said:
>A universe without freedom is a universe without life.
Here you are saying: there was a universe, which had life, but no free will. So now I am asking you again: how precisely differs a universe with from one without freedom of the will?
>>28461621
A universe without free will is a universe without life that doesn't act on free will or can't comprehend free will. "We" started out as non-organic molecules, which turned into organic molecules that became the building blocks of life as we know it.
I'm not going to pretend to know the exact moment free will came into existence, but I am saying as a concept it had to be thought of.
>>28461676
I'd like to add people like Sam Harris like to separate the self from their bodies for whatever reason not realizing they are their bodies, specifically their brains.
They like to say things like "we can predict what you want by looking at your brain" Well what the fuck? You ARE your brain.
>>28461694
You'll be fucking amazed when you come about the philosophical topic of the "person".
>>28461676
>A universe without free will is a universe without life that doesn't act on free will or can't comprehend free will
This is a non-answer.
You've made clear life is not a sufficient condition for free will. So we are comparing two universes with life. Then, your answer becomes:
>A universe without free will is a universe without ... free will ...
>>28461737
>You've made clear life is not a sufficient condition for free will.
It more certainly IS a condition.
>>28461752
The emphasis is on "sufficient", not on "condition".
Why does this have to be so though? Please put in a bit of effort.
>>28461752
I'd like to keep debating but it's super late. It's truly a fucked up thread when science can be bashed but fucking METAPHYSICS is discussed casually.
>At any given point in time your brain is in a certain specific physical state
>There are fixed laws of physics that you have no control over that will determine how your brain state changes from its current one from moment to moment
>Experiencing the sensation that "you" caused your actions is inevitable based on the activity in a certain part of you/your brain
>discussing the concept of free will and then "believing" whatever you end up in that moment is inevitable based on current state + physical laws
compatibilism is only useful in communicating that if the body is not physically being restrained or threatened/coerced it can act on its predetermined motivations, or states that would be most likely if it were not in a coerced environment.
For instance, I have no "free will" to fly or travel to antarctica in less than 1 minute, because it is just not physically possible, but I do have "free will" to eat a snack right next to me if my brain would over the course of the immediate future follow state transfers to get me to that point, but if some government or statist fag tried to handcuff me from moving my arm or threaten me at gunpoint and my brain still has the desire to eat but now it is being overrided by other things then my compatibilist free will is compromised even further than what it already pitifully is
>>28461694
>They like to say things like "we can predict what you want by looking at your brain" Well what the fuck? You ARE your brain.
If a tumor starts growing in my brain, is the tumor also me?
>>28461889
I'm in bed now.
Sure.
>>28461889
>you are not your brain
>you are not your ego
>"""YOU""" are the capacity to consciously subjectively experience, not the experience itself
>>28461836
Being physically restrained by another person doesn't restrict your "free will".
Free will is the ability to choose between the alternatives that are available to you. It's implied that these alternatives may be very limited by external circumstance.
>>28461955
>government thug walks up to anon
>hold gun to head
>another thug comes up behind anon and handcuffs him, then chains up his legs and puts him in a straight jacket
>anon bravely exercises his "free will" to """choose""" not resisting because it's implied his alternatives are very limited by externnal circumstance
>"Thanks for CHOOSING to be my bitch anon, now let me lock you up in prison and force feed you while you agonize over what facial expressions you want to make since you have no other alternatives to move any other muscle"
>g-good thing you still have free will r-right?
>>28460874
If thought exists then rationality must exist. An essential part of rationality is capacity to have concepts which originate in one's own mind, not some outside force.
Any attempt to conceive of rationality in terms of an outside force determining it immediately contradicts the idea of rationality and ceases to be meaningful, since it would act according to the laws and nature of that outside force rather than it's own laws and nature, and reason, in order to be reason, must only act in accordance with the laws of reason and nothing else, i.e. reason always acts according to reason. Therefore the freedom of one's rational powers is an axiom of thought.
Doesn't the crack spider pop a cap in that bitch's ass or something? Lol
>>28462076
You act as if people think that "free will" is something good and wholesome in itself. The debate over free will is whether or not we have it. Even a choice that's made uncoerced by others is obviously limited in itself by factors like - what are you choosing, what are the alternatives, how many alternatives there are, etc.
This doesn't negate the reality that it's "I" who chooses these things.
>>28462105
>if thought exists then rationality must exist
unproven assumption that is actually not true, whole argument is useless.
there are organisms RIGHT NOW that are experiencing thoughts/mental sensations but yet are not magically changing their brainstates or any other physical state of the world because of the mental events they experience
you are confusing correlation of experienced thoughts as causes of the next experienced thought (which is determined by PHYSICAL states of the brain that are not caused by mental states experienced)
>>28462162
>everyone being robbed or raped RIGHT NOW is CHOOSING to suffer through it and it's no different from them choosing to wear red clothes today
>>28462225
I'm not saying that. I'm a compatibilist. A person being robbed is a victim of circumstance, but they maintain their free will in the sense that they can refuse to hand over their wallet. The other person can exercise their free will by deciding on whether or not to stab the other person.
our laws are deterministic outside of some quantum weirdness but humans are complicated enough that it's hard to imagine we dont have free will
I really dont understand why some people really want literal free will when on any personally appreciable level we functionally do have free will
>>28461807
>>28461804
>fucking METAPHYSICS is discussed casually
You mean by you?
>>28460402
>stating that there isnt free will
Oh the irony
>>28462172
>unproven assumption that is actually not true
I am conceiving of thought as essentially associative. That is, a being cannot think if it cannot think about anything. This necessarily requires the capacity to be consciously aware of logical relations between things, i.e. rationality.
>there are organisms RIGHT NOW that are experiencing thoughts/mental sensations but yet are not magically changing their brainstates or any other physical state of the world because of the mental events they experience
If they are not conscious of their thoughts, then whatever they are experiencing are not thoughts, but rather sensations. Humans are the only animals who can reflect on themselves by means of rationality. Other animals can only act on sensation and therefore are not free.
>you are confusing correlation of experienced thoughts as causes of the next experienced thought (which is determined by PHYSICAL states of the brain that are not caused by mental states experienced)
That might be true, but my argument is that it's irrational to believe that, since you would be denying reason and therefore the basis on which you hold the belief.
>>28461955
Being physically restrained restricts free will a priori by tautology.
>>28461889
The tumor is a part of your body, obviously. It is possible that it could influence your will by changing the biochemical mechanisms by which your decision are made. However, because the tumor is detrimental you should have it removed, similar to how many pedophiles wish they could remove the sections of their brain responsible for their attraction to children, etc.
>>28461737
There are an infinite number of possible universes where organic matter is created but will never have free will, although I'm not sure what you guys are arguing about.
>>28461528
I'm sure there is a difference of opinion on what constitutes choice, ergo rational thought. There might even be some point in the future where people look back on us as we look back on single celled organisms. In any case, there would be a line drawn in which thought becomes rational enough to be considered free will. The offspring would probably only be slightly more rational than the previous generation but passes the line, so to speak.
>>28462364
>thought = rationality
> no it doesn't. A being can experience a subjective sensation of something without necessarily experiencing strings of sensations and thoughts along with the experience that they were for reasons
> oh, no no no, I'm defining thought AS rational thought so rational thought = rationality
>not conscious of their thoughts
thoughts are by definition conscious experiences...so are sensations...
>humans are the only animals who can reflect on themselfs
what are monkeys? What are dolphins? What are elephants?
>That might be true, but my argument is that it's irrational to believe that, since you would be denying reason and therefore the basis on which you hold the belief.
EXACTLY, I am having this conscious experience that brain states are caused by physical state transitions and NOT my mental experiences preceding them, I'm not saying I hold my belief due to reason I hold it due to my physical brain makeup, which is giving me the experience, so it is denying reason as the basis but that proves my point even more
>>28462506
I'm asking about the necessary and sufficient conditions for free will.
In what kind of world would free will be impossible?
Free will does exsist.
You are free to determine how you excersize your will.
>>28460402
>there are high schoolers who still think "free will" is a profound conversation
just google intro to philosophy and take some classes, faglord. i can't even believe you're trying to confuse this shit with legitimate science. it's almost like someone trying to explain that newton invented gravity.
>>28462690
>no it doesn't. A being can experience a subjective sensation of something without necessarily experiencing strings of sensations and thoughts along with the experience that they were for reasons
I think I need you to explain what you mean by this better.
>oh, no no no, I'm defining thought AS rational thought so rational thought = rationality
Rationality must be included in the concept of thought because otherwise thought could not be conceived of in any meaningful way. What is thought if not the awareness of logical associations?
>thoughts are by definition conscious experiences...so are sensations...
I didn't word that very well. I'm saying that if non-rational animals experience anything, they are not conscious of the experience since rationality is a necessary condition of consciousness.
>what are monkeys? What are dolphins? What are elephants?
What is this based on? I'm genuinely curious.
>I'm not saying I hold my belief due to reason I hold it due to my physical brain makeup, which is giving me the experience, so it is denying reason as the basis but that proves my point even more
But you are using reason as your basis, since you are making an inference, and thus using your rationality. In other words, if you thought that there was no good reason to hold your belief, then you wouldn't hold it. That is what is called reasoning. The belief however undermines reason, and there your grounds for holding it. That's my point.
>>28460402
Most people unconsciously admit that libertarian free will isn't possible, so they resign by changing the definition of free will into "being able to think rationally" (compatibilism) and voila.
