In this thread, I will prove to you that free will does not exist. Imagine two six year-olds:
The first:
>born with 10/10 genetics; attractive, symmetrical features; tall
>has two, loving parents in a stable marriage
>born into wealth, lives in a nice house with a maid
>everyone at school respects him and wants to be his friend
The second:
>born with shit-tier genetics; ugly, unnatractive, deformed, manlet
>raised by a single mother who abuses him
>born into poverty, lives in a shithole apartment building with cockroaches
>everyone at school bullies him for his ugliness and he has no friends
The first kid grows up to be happy, well-adjusted, outgoing, and successful. The second kid grows up to be a mentally-ill, neurotic, shut-in loser who hates himself and wants to die.
Will this always be the case? No, absolutely not. Could the second kid wind up having a better life than the first kid? Possibly. But if the second kid fails to succeed, fails to live a happy life, can you blame him? Can you really sit back and say, "Brah this is all on you lmao stop being a lazy loser and making excuses lmao life is what you make of it lmao just be yourself lmao it worked for me XD"?
Free will is a lie. The only people who say otherwise are the people who have great lives and don't want to admit they did nothing to earn them. The people who don't want to empathize with losers, so they convince themselves that all losers are bad people who deserve to be losers. The people who are terrified of acknowledging they have no real upward mobility in life.
Life is horrible and unfair and you will die miserable and alone. This is the end of my post.
>>28940409
This is why I'm universally nice to outcasts. They didn't ask for it. It's a twisted joke.
Negativity isn't self-fulfilling if it's an accurate reaction to the bullshit around you. You're not lazy if the risk/reward ratio in your freakish life is casino-tier, and you refuse to let the house win. When people say, "be yourself!" they're disingenuously referring to the coalesced perceptions of others, but you can't control what other people think -- especially not without agency.
>>28940409
Fatalism, the last refuge of the neckbeard
>inb4 the compatibilists descend upon this thread
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPAslGZQjsE
>>28940697
Cool post. Now write another one, but this time, try actually writing a coherent refutation of my argument instead of just insulting me and calling it a day.
What a sad cliche of an OP.
You foolishly exclude a middle ground between free will and fate when clearly you are free to certain degrees. Obviously We can only move in x,y,z Direction (and poorly in the z Direction) and we only have a certain number of possible rotations, but a lack of complete freedom =\=> no freedom.
You're free within your fate. Yes, fate can be a bitch. Really, it's a bitch for most people. But if fate's going to be a bitch, the universe doesn't need another bitch like you.
>>28940902
arguing on the internet about stupid shit, the national pastime of the neckbeard
>>28941159
>he did it again
Here's your second and last (You) from me, guy.
>>28941184
You shouldn't have given any (You)s, dumbass. Stop enabling shitposters.
>>28940409
Free will is essentially a cowardly, inconvincing way not to have to think about ways to improve the world, instead blaming the world for 'not improving itself'. You remember that 'maturity climb' goat picture? It was generally retarded, but it got one thing wrong: a mature goat that 'blames itself for the world'. This is the responsibility that comes with rejection of free will.
>>28941345
>one thing wrong
*one thing RIGHT
>>28940409
> Free will is a lie. The only people who say otherwise are the people who have great lives and don't want to admit they did nothing to earn them. The people who don't want to empathize with losers, so they convince themselves that all losers are bad people who deserve to be losers. The people who are terrified of acknowledging they have no real upward mobility in life.
true. but the main reason is the higher ups in society perpetuate the "b urself" meme, because it keeps all the plebs in line, working hard and most importantly - blaming themselves when things go wrong, instead of the higher powers or circumstance. if they saw how out of their hands it really was there would be mass dropouts and riots
>>28941068
>you are free to certain degrees
You can never make a decision independent of your genetics, conditioning, and if applicable the effects of acausal quantum uncertainty.
For those of us who understand that free will is bullshit
how can we use this understanding to improve our lots in life, and make this world a better place?
Of course we wouldn't be doing it "out of our free will", but it seems like such a thing could still be done.
My genetics and conditioning cause me to feel the urge to use the knowledge that free will is a myth for good, not evil.
>>28941449
>not knowing that people will just agree with that but say that 'knowing this helps no one'
>>28940409
None of those things have anything to do with free will. One is fortune and the other is misfortune. Your fortune does not have anything to do with free will.
>>28941515
this
asdfasdf
>>28941479
But that's wrong. It can help people.
If you're always saying stupid things out of anger and it's causing you to be depressed and feel lots of regret, realizing free will is bullshit gives you the realization that you're not freely choosing to be angry. Something is going on in your head causing the anger, and if you figure out what that thing is and fix it, then the anger will abate, and therefore the problem of saying stupid things out of anger will abate.
It makes so much sense.
>>28941474
Hi anon. Good question. The thing to understand is that embrace/rejection of free will is hardly a matter of intellectual acknowledgement but is really exhibited in behaviour. In reality, you believe in free will even if you disacknowledge it if you blame people, tell them to 'just try harder', think that substances are 'harmless if you ensure that they are harmless', and so on. And conversely, you reject free will even if you declare its existence if every time you are wronged, you don't react to it as if that person intended to hurt you, but instead consider the situation coolly, wonder why they did it, and innerly ask yourself the question of what you could possibly fix in nature and nurture so to prevent such behaviour in the future.
tl;dr most people who profess rejection of free will don't actually do it.
Can't wait for the neckbeards to get to the bottom of this once and for all.
>>28940409
I wanted to go hiking in Georgia. I saved up money and did it on my own accord. How is that not free will?
>>28941541
I know, I'm >>28941551. I'm just citing a common reaction to that claim.
>>28941563
>I wanted to go hiking in Georgia.
What caused that?
>>28941563
Your decision to go hiking in Georgia was caused by previous events. That's all people mean when they say you don't have free will; it's not that you can't make decisions, that'd be retarded.
>>28941474
>how can we use this understanding to improve our lots in life, and make this world a better place?
But how can you improve your life if you don't have thefree willto do it?
>>28941627
Why do you need free will to improve something? A robot can improve things.
>>28941551
You make some great points here, kudos.
>>28941600
My interest in the outdoors. But that doesn't prove anything. I could have chosen not to do it and continued working. Or I could have went hiking in Oregon if I really wanted to. Now I want to buy a van, convert it into sort of mobile home and travel. You want to know why we have the world we do today? Because someone had the free will to make something that we now have today. They didn't just show up overnight.
>>28941627
>But how can you improve your life if you don't have the free will to do it?
You have to be compelled to improve it by some sort of stimulus. If/when that happens, you can't but improve it any more than a domino can help pushing down the next domino.
>>28941707
>My interest in the outdoors.
What caused that?
>But that doesn't prove anything.
It proves that your desire to go hiking in Georgia had a cause.
>I could have chosen [otherwise]
Why didn't you?
>>28941643
You say that you are destined to be one way, yet now you are saying that you can just change at a whim? Yet free will doesn't exist? That isn't how it works.
You'd need the will to improve.
>>28941474
Treating people like deterministic machines would greatly improve the legal system. We could focus solely on what reduces crime, instead of being obsessed with "punishing" "bad" people. Criminals are just malfunctioning robots; if we find what part of their software has an error and rewrite it, we can turn them into productive members of society.
We could also improve the educational system greatly; a lot of teaching revolves around the idea that people from bad cultural and genetic backgrounds can be taught to perform on the same level as everyone else, which is completely unscientific. If we accepted that people's genes and environment could put a cap on their future success, we could optimize their education for low-skilled jobs instead of trying to teach Jamal algebra and world history.
Those are just the first two things that came to mind, I'm sure there are others. In general, basing policy on truth is always the best option.
>>28941738
You can be destined to improve yourself, just like we were destined to have this conversation.
>>28941734
This. Belief in free will is, so to say, forgetting to ask the why of the why. WHY did you just want to? People have problems seeing just one step back.
>>28940409
nobody argues for free will anymore
if you had been born black in 1840 you would have been a slave and forbidden from even learning to read by law
how can you have free will when some people are born rich and others eat shit and die?
john calvin was right
>>28941775
>how can you have free will when some people are born rich and others eat shit and die?
Free will has nothing to do with social problems, it's a matter of physics. Causality is universal.
>>28941734
>What caused that?
Who knows?
It proves that your desire to go hiking in Georgia had a cause.
But that still doesn't mean it was caused by some predetermined magical force.
Why didn't you?
Because I wanted to thru-hike the appalachian trail.
You have no point. All you're doing is asking a bunch of 'why' questions which can go on forever but your argument has no substance. So you can keep sitting there thinking you are so enlightened while I work and try to get back onto the trail.
>>28941551
i like this poost
>>28941809
>But that still doesn't mean it was caused by some predetermined magical force.
Nobody's saying that, we're just saying it had a cause, and therefore was not "free".
>>28941767
>You can be destined to improve yourself
So why aren't you?
>inb4 "D-destiny doesn't want me to. N-Not yet!"
Free will has nothing to do with winning at life.
First of all life isn't a competition.
Secondly, free will is about making a choice. It doesn't matter if it's the "wrong" choice (not that there is such a thing). As long as you choose you have free will. And of course everyone makes choices all the time.
>>28941839
>So why aren't you?
I am, though. But if I wasn't, it wouldn't matter. It would just be the way things are.
Free will doesn't exist because there is no 'self' to have free will.
If you watch this hour and a half long video, this guy breaks it all down and utterly destroys the concept of free will.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fecQUZ-ehKQ
All posts above and below this one are just dipshits that haven't done any enlightenment work so they don't understand what they talk about.
>>28941836
>we're just saying it had a cause, and therefore was not "free".
How is that not free? I had the will to do it. What if I wanted to stay at home instead?
>Nobody's saying that
That's what you're implying.
>>28941857
>As long as you choose you have free will. And of course everyone makes choices all the time.
You're misunderstanding what people mean when they say free will. Determinists believe in choice, too. Just understand that your choice was caused by previous events.
>>28941800
>ree will has nothing to do with social problems,
oh yes it does, can our poor illiterate slave choose to go to Harvard of his own free will by studying hard?
no, things others can do if the want to are closed off to him, you can't have free will if you are bared by law from expressing it
>>28941809
>Who knows?
So you don't even know why you're interested in the outdoors. You have an interest and you don't even know why you have that feeling. That doesn't sound like "free will" to me.
>But that still doesn't mean it was caused by some predetermined magical force.
It was caused by something, and that cause had a cause, and that cause had a cause, and that cause had a cause. This isn't "magic", it's cause and effect.
>Because I wanted to thru-hike the appalachian trail.
Then you apparently could not have done otherwise, because your desire to hike the Appalachian trail prevented you from doing otherwise. Meaning hiking in Oregon was not a real option--because your desire to hike the Appalachian trail precluded it, as the Appalachian trail is not in Oregon.
>You have no point.
But I do. Your decisions have causes, meaning they're not "freely willed". They're causal, like the tides, the growth of a tree, the howl of a wolf, or the rotations and revolutions of the planets. You're a physical object obeying the laws of physics.
>All you're doing is asking a bunch of 'why' questions which can go on forever
Bingo. Cause and effect.
>>28940409
That doesn't really disprove free will. That just says the actions of others can rob you of choice.
>>28941876
Yes, and you had the will to do it because of previous events. The stuff happening in your head isn't separate from the outside world.
>>28941809
>All you're doing is asking a bunch of 'why' questions which can go on forever
THIS IS EXACTLY THE POINT. This is exactly the point of science whose cornerstone rejection of free will is. That we dig as many factors in that causal confluence that effected your eventual decision as possible, so to then engineer and refine as per >>28941743. For instance, if we discover what makes people's brains want to travel, then we can -- off the top of my mind -- learn more about neurology of migrations so to help lemmings at their disastrous runs. Or learn what makes people prefer one site over another, so to make our town parks prettier and more relaxing. It's rejection of f.w. that enables such research.
>>28941657
>>28941827
Cheers.
>>28941857
Choice requires a person to choose. This concept of a person is quite literally erroneous. This whole debate is absolutely useless.
>>28941869
>He thinks he knows what enlightenment is
Enlightenment comes from within. Not from know what is and isn't.
>>28941895
Even if everyone was a millionaire, they wouldn't have free will.
>>28941857
>He thinks he controls his brain
>Instead of his brain controlling him
Hate to break it to ya.
>>28941800
>Free will has nothing to do with social problems, it's a matter of physics. Causality is universal.
does a 6 year old dying of cancer have free will in the same way you do? >>28941857
>Secondly, free will is about making a choice. It doesn't matter if it's the "wrong" choice (not that there is such a thing). As long as you choose you have free will. And of course everyone makes choices all the time.
what if you cannot make certain choices but others can, such as a man wanting to get pregnant or me wanting to go to the moon, i cannot express my free will, i only have limited options
>>28941956
>he thinks "he" and "brain" are separate entities
There's no controlling going on at all, just matter responding to the laws of physics.
>>28941938
Of course. Where did I say anything along those lines? I was merely stating that free will is a myth caused by the illusion of a self which of course does not exist.
>>28941943
i agree, i was just making a point of example of why free will cannot exist using extreme examples
>>28941959
>does a 6 year old dying of cancer have free will in the same way you do?
Yes, in that neither of us have free will, because souls aren't real.
>>28941924
>and you had the will to do it because of previous events
If I had the will and did it on my own accord that that is what free will is.
>>28941927
>This is exactly the point of science whose cornerstone rejection of free will is
And you know who else plays the 'why' game?Children.Not everything has a meaning.
>>28941907
>So you don't even know why you're interested in the outdoors
Because being outdoors fun. How about that?
>>28941999
>>does a 6 year old dying of cancer have free will in the same way you do?
>Yes, in that neither of us have free will, because souls aren't real.
i agree, i was making this point to the pro free will people
>>28942020
If you fucking ask 'what good is science', I think we can call it a day.
>>28941979
>All posts above and below this one are just dipshits that haven't done any enlightenment work so they don't understand what they talk about.
You're implying that you know what enlightenment is and that anyone who disagrees with you doesn't. But of course you'll just brush this off and say you never said that.
>>28942020
>If I had the will and did it on my own accord that that is what free will is.
So you're okay with your will being caused by previous events? If that's the case, then most people would call you a determinist. When people talk about "free will" they typically mean that their decisions aren't caused by any physical events and are made entirely by some non-physical consciousness/soul.
>>28942020
>If I had the will and did it on my own accord that that is what free will is.
What does "of your own accord" mean?
Does it mean independent of prior causes?
>Because being outdoors fun. How about that?
It's fun to you, and a lot of other people, including me. It's not fun to everyone; in fact, some people hate or fear the outdoors.
There is a cause that forces you to like the outdoors, and a cause that forces them to hate it.
>people still arguing for 'muh determinism' or 'muh free will' even though the self is an illusion
What are you people doing?
>>28942020
>>28941999
>>28941998
>>28941977
>>28941959
>>28941943
????????????????
Stop having useless debates about imaginary concepts.
>>28942056
Anyone who would argue about free will existing or free will not existing just because of determinism heavily implies that they don't aren't very consciously advanced.
>>28942020
>If I had the will and did it on my own accord that that is what free will is.
you don't do thinks of your own accord, you do them because of genes and programming
did you "decided of your own free will" to have the sex urge?
>>28942055
Of course science is for studying why things are but in this case it goes into philosophy. And philosophy is just wannabe science.
>>28942091
>in this case it goes into philosophy
How so? How is learning anatomic/evolutionary causes of your priorities and preferences 'philosopy' at all?
>>28942076
>What does "of your own accord" mean?
On my own will.
>Does it mean independent of prior causes?
Not exactly. However it goes back to the fortune/misfortune thing in>>28941515. I had the fortune of having an interest in the outdoors.
I could or I could not. That is what free will is. I don;'t need some hour long video to explain it wither.
>>28942090
>you do them
>implying there's a 'you' to do them
There's no you in a little driver's seat in your head making up all these choices. What, do you think you're a thought? That can't be because not only do thoughts disappear all the time but you aren't in control of what thoughts pop up.
>>28942091
Philosophy is trash. It's a set of beliefs one incorporates into their little 'knowledge graph' and lives by, it's no better than a religion.
>>28942082
>the self is an illusion
This sentence is kind of nonsensical. Who is perceiving the illusion? This is why I don't bother with thinking about whether I exist or not. It's too difficult to think about without ending up in a loop or a language failure.
>>28942020
>And you know who else plays the 'why' game? Children.
This is just guilt-by-association.
Children who "play the why game" are often trying to figure out how things really work. When they discover that you can keep asking why again and again, they might find it amusing. Others might find it perplexing or even disturbing.
Children are naturally curious.
Trying to find out "why" things happen isn't "childish" just because children ask why things happen.
>>28942090
>did you "decided of your own free will" to have the sex urge?
Now you're diving into genetics. Which is completely irrelevant.
>>28942164
>On my own will.
Could you define that?
>>28942215
By voluntarily doing so.
Next.
>>28942213
>Now you're diving into genetics. Which is completely irrelevant.
the fuck it is
>>28942275
>By voluntarily doing so.
You gave me the thesaurus when I wanted the dictionary. I'll be more direct: do you think your thoughts are not caused by anything? That they just pop out of thin air?
>>28942188
The funny thing is the hypocrisy (or just stupidity) of the very Buddhists who preach 'nonexistence of the self' to no end yapping about 'controlling the mind', 'mastering the mind', 'training the mind', ... as if 'the mind' was in any way a more sensical concept than 'the self'. They preach the very dualism they elsewhere deny.
>>28942193
>Trying to find out "why" things happen isn't "childish"
In this case it is because of people thinking that they aren't in control of anything, then wonder why they are on /r9k/ posting 'tfw no gf'.
>>28942282
What if I had the sex urges but I didn't want to have sex?
>>28942164
>On my own will.
Okay, then your statement >>28942020
there is redundant.
You said
>If I had the will and did it on my own accord that that is what free will is.
Now you have said that "of your own accord" means the same thing as "on your own will".
So your statement can more concisely be made thusly
>If I had the will to do something and did it, that is what free will is.
So as far as you're concerned, if you wanted to do something and did it, you did it out of your own "free will".
This conception of "free will" (I sure wouldn't call it "free will", but some people do) is compatible with determinism though. So I don't understand why you're arguing against determinism.
And I don't understand what benefit you gain from calling it "free will", which is a term that has other meanings (like the ability to have, ontologically speaking, chosen otherwise in a past situation)
>>28942297
>do you think your thoughts are not caused by anything? That they just pop out of thin air?
Of course they are. But no one knows why.
>I wanted the dictionary
Here you go.
>>28942319
>In this case it is because of people thinking that they aren't in control of anything, then wonder why they are on /r9k/ posting 'tfw no gf'.
This is more guilt by association.
Einstein didn't believe in free will. He was a determinist.
A lot of people who are complete wrecks believe in free will, and dig themselves deep because of it.
Example: The guy who has a problem with his anger, but keeps relying on "free will" to fix it:
>Next time, I'll just choose not to get angry!
Yet he keeps failing because he keeps relying on "free will" instead of looking for the cause of his anger and how to deal with that cause.
His compulsion to believe in the myth of free will becomes actively harmful to himself and those around him.
>>28942164
>I had the fortune of having an interest in the outdoors.
More like 'a thought popped up saying 'I like the outdoors' and then identification thoughts (that is, you identified with 'the outdoors') and accompanying emotions all born out of unconscious awareness' led to that belief of you liking the outdoors.
This 'you', this 'identity' is a fucking fiction. Get over it kiddo.
>>28942188
I suppose there's a lot of ways you can relay what your true self is. Some call it 'God'. Others call it 'Presence'. Others call it 'Nothing'. It doesn't really matter about think or doing when it comes to a post-rational mind, if you want to evolve out of your 'complicated savage' unconscious monkey/human hybrid state you have to start 'being'. Being is very different from doing.
>>28942275
Yeah I've already told you why there is no voluntary action on your part. I understand if you want to defend your sense of self aka the ego but it's pretty harmful to you.
>>28942213
>>28942282
The fact that 'you' think you're just a human or whatever you identify as is just a belief. And beliefs are nothing more than thoughts/ideas, fictions crafted from symbols out of thin air.
>>28942317
You don't seem to understand what the word esoteric means. I'm not a 'Buddhist' either. This isn't some belief you have to incorporate it's an actually very practical thing to apply.
>>28942317
Hi anti-buddha. Haven't seen you around in awhile.
>>28942378
>Of course they are. But no one knows why.
Of course they are what? Caused? Uncaused? Which one?
>>28942388
I am glad to have noticed to have been disappointed by the fat that it was my identity and not my point that was acknowledged.
>>28942384
>More like 'a thought popped up saying 'I like the outdoors'
Except that isn't how it works. You can look up how the outdoors is and then either think "I like the outdoors" or "I don't like the outdoors" and at the end those are just opinions.
>No voluntary action on your part
Why?
>>28942414
Caused.
If we have free will, why don't we just all choose to crawl into a hole and choose to be happy in it?
No bills, no work, no hassle.
Just choose to be happy and do nothing.
People say happiness is a choice--that you can be happy despite your circumstances, and all you have to do is make that choice.
So, why try to improve your circumstances? Just choose to be happy.
Free will = zero need for improvement in any way.
>>28942384
>claims the self doesn't exist
>replaces it with some vague horseshit about some distinction between 'being', 'doing', and 'being present' or whatever
>>28941775
and in the 1840s black slaves still had free will. for example if you were forbidden from learning to read, you could still try to learn to read anyways or you could just give up on reading. the choice would still be in your hands
>>28942527
Oh good, then we're on the same side. You're a determinist, btw.
>>28941919
>robbed of choice
>Freewill
Pick one
>>28942527
>>28942527
If all your thoughts are caused, then that means they could not have been otherwise. To cause something means to MAKE IT HAPPEN.
So that means that at any given moment in the past, you could not have had different thoughts than the ones you had.
It's simple logic.
>>28942551
That picture is so ironic. When I looked at it, my thought naturally (or perhaps nurturally) went into thinking which path appeals to the man more and why. Believers in f.w.'s thinking must be so impoverished.
>>28941895
he could choose to try, or he could choose not to. he still makes a choice
>>28942378
>But no one knows why.
Thought is a type of preservational instinctual self mechanism that humans have evolved to have over the years. By constantly having your awareness flood with thoughts that can't be located or (without training) turned off the little human starts identifying with the thought. Thoughts saying (I'm this, I'm that, this is this, that is that, they are this, they are that) constantly labeling everything in front of it has been an effective survival mechanism for the human in the harsh times of old. But there is no need to halt your potential these days.
You see your concept of the self is a result of years and years of indoctrination by your parents (who told you what is right and wrong, what you should or shouldn't do etc) to your teachers (who tell you that you are special, unique and exclusive to you and only you and also fill your heads with many different concepts over the years) to everyone else including the above whose unconscious identifying activity made you to believe that your 'self' was not only something that was normal for us humans but a fact of reality.
When in fact you're more like (or should I say you REALLY are) a mental patient who believes in things that aren't real or a child who is scared of the monster under their bed.
Whether or not you choose to do some self-inquiry work and experience these truths is up to you, obviously when it comes to wisdom and truth you can't just listen to someone say something and then add it to your little knowledge graph, that's again just 'doing' instead of the higher function of 'being'.
>>28942608
What on earth are you blathering about?
I am my brain. 'My self' is a synonym for 'my body'; 'the self' is a synonym for 'the body'.
>>28940409
of course free will is a lie when you put people into a system, but outside this system you could achieve anything you wanted, because multiple means would exist. can't get a girlfriend? rape or threats. someone bugging you? kill him. Need something? take it. unfortunately systems take away free will and give power to those naturally disposed to work well within the system
>>28942597
Correct! And regardless of which choice he makes, he still doesn't have free will.
>>28942648
Free will isn't what you think it is. If free will existed, you would have it even if you were in prison. It doesn't though, so you wouldn't have it even if you were the only man on earth.
>>28940409
>tfw I am the second one
>>28942641
>I am my brain.
If part of your brain becomes cancerous, are you cancer?
>>28940697
Should have just /thread here. It's the truth.
>>28940409
He chose to hate himself, though. If you're not aware of the alternatives doesn't mean your judgment is pre-written. Your arguments don't really refute the idea of free will, so i think you've meant the "just world" thing, which is redundant to debate because it's a literal fallacy.
>>28942711
For every sentence that contains a personal pronoun, to see if it makes sense, you have to replace the pronoun with 'the body'.
'If a part of the body's brain becomes cancerous, is the body cancer?'
Nonsense.
>>28942711
No, he is his brain.
>>28942584
I think free will belief is a very weird thing indeed...I really wish it weren't so dangerous and actively destructive though.
It perturbs me how so many people don't see how inherently, incredibly dangerous it is.
Ever notice how a lot of free will believers switch between compatibilism and libertarianism depending on which objections you raise, even though compatibilism and libertarianism are contradictory positions?
>>28942497
>and then either think "I like the outdoors" or "I don't like the outdoors" and at the end those are just opinions.
>No voluntary action on your part
>Why?
Because you did not make those thoughts pop up. Hell if you could do that then you would only think useful, happy and joyful thoughts wouldn't you? Sit down still for a couple minutes and see if you can just do that without thinking. You then see your absolute powerlessness.
>So what you're saying I have 10% free will?
No.
>1%
No.
>0.000000000000000000000000000001%
No. Absolute zero.
>>28942546
>vague
It's all just a language game a matter of fuckin around with the symbols of communication I have at hand. I don't know how to relate a specific experience to you. Our languages are very egocentric. But there's a kind of presence in you that's true and pure (sounding cliche here but it's true) that you just understand, when you increase your awareness you become more conscious of this presence. When I was speaking of doing and being it's kind of an esoteric thing where you may need the prerequisite experience/wisdom to fully grasp it.
>>28942758
Eh, the distinction between one being one's body vs brain is conventional. It's understood what is meant.
>>28941515
>>28941535
>your genetics, personality, and formative years don't profoundly influence the way you think, live, and make decisions
Come on, lads.
t.thread is cancer
>>28942758
Including the cancerous part, or is that part somehow "not him", even if it causes thoughts, feelings, and actions?
Is someone with a debilitating mental disorder have 'freewill' to be uneffected by it?
>>28940409
The majority of our behaviour is determined by our genetics and upbringing
It takes years of therapy to correct personality or behavioural faults. Some errors can't even be corrected, like one person being intelligent enough and exposed to unfortunate truths who can't bring himself to delude himself and reject those truths while others live in blissful ignorance
Life isn't fair
>>28942774
>Ever notice how a lot of free will believers switch between compatibilism and libertarianism depending on which objections you raise, even though compatibilism and libertarianism are contradictory positions?
I'm sorry, I wish I could reply, but I don't follow the regular discourse and I don't know what those terms mean.
I agree that f.w. leads to lots of blame, dismissal of one's and other's dangers ('they have their free will, they'll cope...'), and such, though.
>>28942778
>there's a kind of presence in you that's true and pure (sounding cliche here but it's true) that you just understand, when you increase your awareness you become more conscious of this presence
This is just a feeling that a brain might come to feel, a pretty fucking inane one might add. Sometimes a brain zones off and gets lost in contemplating itself. This is absolutely no different, more important or significant than the truisms that it sometimes comes to enjoy a coffee or divide two numbers, or plan a trip. It's just something that happens to it. What's your point? How is it supposed to be anything special?
>>28942641
You're speaking from a purely concept based viewpoint. A so called 'rational' view point which is a very harmful view point if I'm going to be honest because if you only look through your symbols and concepts of reality you aren't going to get anywhere.
This belief that you're your body can't be true because all the cells in your body are constantly changing and have all changed since from when you were a little baby. Are you not the baby you were before.
There's another video destroying rationalism and another video that will help get you to a real in-field enlightenment experience. You will break down what you aren't.
If you take the time out of your meaningless mundane life to try and experience what the Bible refers to as Heaven I would strongly recommend it.
>For enlightenment
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oq4NDMNDzSs
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaV6S45AD1w
Why rationality is wrong.
>>28942728
Not being aware of options gives you the liberty to choose said options?
Wut?
>>28942861
>The majority of our behaviour is determined by our genetics and upbringing
Just the majority?
What is that other part determined by, then?
>>28942902
Environment. Causal events. etc..
>>28942728
>He chose to hate himself
Did his "choice" to hate himself have a cause?
Because if it did, he couldn't have not hated himself. So it wasn't a "choice" in that sense.
Remember--to "cause" something means to "make it happen".
>>28942819
Including the cancerous part, yeah. To say "he is cancer" is misleading, though. Only part of him is cancer.
>>28942920
Fair enough, I suppose I agree.
Maybe (supposedly) acausal quantum events do something here and there too. Do you think so?
Not like we get to use our "wills" to cause those acausal events...since that would be literally impossible.
>>28942876
>This belief that you're your body can't be true because all the cells in your body are constantly changing and have all changed since from when you were a little baby. Are you not the baby you were before.
...What? What does that have to do with anything? Your reasoning is as valid as saying that because a chair's constituent particles come and go and undergo chemical reactions, then you can address a chair by saying 'hey, you there, you are something more than the chair'. Because that's equivalent to addressing a person by saying 'hey, you are something more than the body'. It's a nonsensical non-sequitur.
>>28940409
free will gives people hope
The truth is that success is all about things you can't control, but this reality is too depressing. To keep the have nots from destroying everything we tell our kids it's all your choice and if you're a good little boy you'll find success. When have nots realize there is no hope they become niggers and fuck shit up for the haves
>>28942876
>>28942968
In other words, I have seen people bring up their apparent confusion between the two kinds of identity, 'structural sameness' and 'aggregate sameness' to allow me to quickly come up with two names, before, but I never saw how it is revelant. I suppose that 'all atoms in your body are replaced' just makes for a nice piece of trivia that it's nice to drop.
>>28942983
>free will gives people hope
It also gives people an excuse to ruin other's lives and their own lives, too.
>It's okay if I abuse my kids. They can just use free will to turn out okay.
>It's okay if I drink a lot of alcohol. I'll just use my free will to control my level of inebriation.
>It's okay to torture that guy. He made bad decisions out of his own free will and he really, truly could have chosen otherwise, so I'm justified in hurting him so I will feel good.
>>28942902
The fact is that much of behaviour is changeable to a degree.
By upbringing I guess mean the most important, formative years.
The biggest problem I find with people arguing free will is that they think it absolves them of all responsibility from their actions and ability to change.
>>28943036
Very well said. I'm glad people begin to see this.
>>28940409
I have an example. Did anyone in this thread actively choose to be conceived and birthed? I didn't
This thread is pretty autistic, useless and retarded. Yes, there's always an n - 1 "why". What's the point of discussing this?
Reminds me of 12 year old schoolmates when they started talking about death. No shit nigga we're all gonna die.
>>28942843
Most mental illnesses are born out of lies. Shit like depression are the ultimate lies. Mental illness is when you are out of touch with reality. If you just don't posses I suppose the 'normal' amount of intelligence for a human being you could maybe be considered a subhuman.
>>28942873
Experiences are just experiences for sure, you're right about that.
Let's say you're absolute nothingness. A kind of paradoxical non-understandable nothing that can't be understood by the the labels and beliefs we apply to everything but only through sheer intense experience. The joy of this oneness with everything, the joy of this truth, the joy of this pure state, this heaven is the truth of our human experience before it became diluted with all these beliefs and indoctrination shoved down our throats. It's like a sacred bridge that joins the nothing to the thing. Quite a bit more important than experiences like taste, touch, sight, thought, smell and hearing. It's truth as an experience.
>>28942968
The chair is not 'a chair'. Do you understand. That's a belief. You have once again cornered a little pocket of reality and labelled it something or another. It's simply and quite obviously not true.
>>28943024
Well I assume that when you say you're the body you assume that you're the same body you were as when you were a child. If that's the belief you hold then that has just been shattered with that little piece of trivia.
>>28942648
But you're wrong. Take human beings out of the system entirely. Rewind the clock back ten-thousand years. I come up to you and say I want to race you. You accept. I really, really want to win the race, but I don't. Why? Because you were born with longer legs than me. Because you have a better body type than me. Because you're able to take longer strides than me and go faster. So now, I can't do something I want to do because of factors entirely out of my control--my genetics and your genetics. I made the "choice" to beat you in a race but I couldn't follow through and I never will be. So how much of a choice did I really have?
>>28943036
The same can be said for determinism
>Child abuse is ok because only genes matter
>Lead poisoning isn't dangerous because genes are so powerful nothing can damage your brain
>It's okay to drink while pregnant
and so on
>>28943038
>The biggest problem I find with people arguing free will is that they think it absolves them of all responsibility from their actions and ability to change.
Do you mean people arguing against free will?
A problem I've seen from free will believers is that they actively try to stop people from looking into the causes of their problems, and instead suggest just using "free will" to solve the problems rather than discover the causes.
>>28942728
Are you actually that stupid to believe that people actually "choose" to hate themselves, you fucking dumb, normie retard? No one "chooses" to hate themselves. No one in the history of human existence ever would have picked hating themselves over liking themselves if they actually had a choice about it. Who would?
Goddamn, you people are just unempathetic sacks of shit trying to justify your hatred for other people who fail in life, and you're not even self-aware enough to realize it.
>>28943088
Schizophrenia has been proven to be a genetic disorder that can be diagnosed in an unborn fetus. Tf are you talking about?
>>28942810
Hello, my little newfaggot friend. "t." is not an abbreviation for "this." Time to go back to your containment website. Fuck off.
>>28943104
Nobody is arguing that environmental factors don't in combination with genetic factors shape the brain and compel human behavior.
>>28943139
They don't have free will, dude. Their beliefs (however insane) are compelled by their genetics and conditioning.
So try not to get so mad. They're just following their programming.
>>28943104
>only genes matter
That's not what determinists say though.
>>28943182
I know it isn't you fucking tard, I wrote 't' because I didn't wanna be bothered with "this comment isn't original" bullshit.
>>28943084
>What's the point of discussing this?
Hopefully, getting people to rather spend their efforts on learning behaviours' causes than blaming those behaviours.
>>28943088
>I assume that when you say you're the body you assume that you're the same body you were as when you were a child
You don't seem to have registered that there are two senses of 'same': one referring to exact same (sub)atomic composition, one to the general continuity of the frame. The more you know.
>The chair is not 'a chair'. Do you understand. That's a belief.
What on Earth again? Is what you're trying to hint at that we can change the definitions of words we use? Sure, but how does that justify your pretentious claim that 'we are something more than our bodies' at all? This doesn't follow.
>Let's say you're absolute nothingness. A kind of paradoxical non-understandable nothing that can't be understood by the the labels and beliefs we apply to everything but only through sheer intense experience. The joy of this oneness with everything, the joy of this truth, the joy of this pure state, this heaven is the truth of our human experience before it became diluted with all these beliefs and indoctrination shoved down our throats. It's like a sacred bridge that joins the nothing to the thing. Quite a bit more important than experiences like taste, touch, sight, thought, smell and hearing. It's truth as an experience.
You're just describing a chemical high, the brain definitely overreleasing certain chemicals, and then ascribing some religious significance to it, as betrayed by your indiscriminate application of absolutes such as 'pure', 'true', 'heaven', 'everything', and more. It's as common as the inability to realize its insipid neurological nature. You let your memory of your 'psychedelic' trip form a belief of some sort of delusional floating absolute, whatever that would even mean. You need to cull it.
>>28943212
I don't buy that for a second lol. Fuck off.
>>28942983
The illusion of free will periodically brings about hope and despair.
However hope and despair are but human emotion specifically designed to get to to the next moment. Nothing more than a little instinct we have in this huge, complex web of systems that create our complex being.
The problem in that lies in constantly thinking about going into the next moment or constantly thinking about the past. You make no room whatsoever for the present and so you piss away your life, unconsciously doing, doing, doing, doing, doing, doing, doing, doing, doing, doing, doing,.
>>28943084
>I don't like this subject, therefore talking about it is useless
That's not how things work bubba.
>>28943220
No, you fuck off dumbshit.
>>28943243
Ya it is.
>>28943234
Thinking about the future and the past in addition to 'being in the present' all the time is what sets apart humans from animals and Buddhists.
>>28943182
>>28943212
>>28943220
>>28943250
Oh my god dudes. cut the bullshit and come debate free will.
>>28943084
>WAAAAHHHH STOP TALKING ABOUT WHAT I PERSONALLY DON'T FIND INTERESTING
You sound both stupid and abrasive. Fuck off and hide the thread if you don't think it's "useful."
Don't reply to this comment.
>>28943104
No, it's not about just genetics. Did you even read the OP? It's genetics and your upbringing and your environment combined. Child abuse is part of your upbringing. Fetal Alcohol Syndrome would be part of your genetics. Those things aren't "excused" by determinism--they're condemned.
Who /hard incompatibilist/ here?
A hard incompatibilist is one who contends that both causality and acausality are incompatible with the notion of "free will".
>>28943217
>>28943088
Also, you should probably understand that I could very easily induce such a high in myself. 'WOAH THE SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE THE NON-THINKING'. It's just pretty unhealthy in addition to frankly being boring. It is a delusion after all. Not being a Buddhist, I have the self-awareness to recognize that it's just my brain going haywire and know better than to objectify it as some sort of existing property or quality of reality that it is possible to tap into or however you'd retardedly phrase it... but still it's not very healthy to accustom your matter to glue those particular sets of concepts together. Meaningful reasonings await instead.
>>28943385
How does that work? Not knocking it, just interested. I've never heard anyone argue that acausality and free will were incompatible.
>>28943234
To add to that the best moments moments in our lives that have invoked peace, joy and love have been moments where we've been more focused on the present.
>>28943088
Also need to add that you are not the joy of this experience itself but the actual nothingness that holds the experience itself. And by experience I mean every THING. Anything you can call a thing is an experience. Everything is born out of nothing.
>>28943165
If you have a reasonable level of consciousness you can work your way out of deception with cold hard truth. I once tested myself and created a state where I saw things that weren't there and didn't see things that were there, audio and visual. I managed to get myself out of it by bringing myself back down to reality. The state lasted a week or two IIRC but it's definitely possible or at least I made it possible.
>one to the general continuity of the frame.
But this is the true self that I have described earlier on. You are now what you have always been, even before the birth of this body and the death of it's cells.
>>28943289
No. That is wrong.
You have not stopped being a savage.
You have merely complicated your own savagery.
>>28943385
>muh labeling
>muh philosophy
time to evolve, my chimp friend
>>28943434
>Also need to add that you are not the joy of this experience itself but the actual nothingness that holds the experience itself. And by experience I mean every THING. Anything you can call a thing is an experience. Everything is born out of nothing.
Boring. Not the 'idea', just that ADHD language that you use. Maybe if you're 14, reading Buddhist sites is appealing, not sure. But at some point, such pseudoprofound morpheme-juggling just becomes tired.
>more focused on the present
The old low Buddhist trick where the 'teacher' hammers into your head 'don't think about the past or the future, think about the present, think about what's in your hand, think about what's before you at the table, only think about the present moment', and if -- *IF* -- the person complains, 'but what about future planning? and what about thinking about the past so to derive meaningful conclusions from it?', the teacher commits equivocation of 'oh, that obviously is being in the present too, being in the present doesn't mean that you don't think about the past and the future COMPLETELY'?
To be honest?
It got boring too.
>>28943385
>A hard incompatibilist is one who contends that both causality and acausality are incompatible with the notion of "free will".
So a /not a cockgobblingbraindeadfaggot/?
"free will" is retards, if an action is Willful it can't be Free and if it is Free it can't be Willful
>>28943433
Hard incompatibilism contends that if all our actions have causes (and those causes have causes, and so on), we don't have free will because all our actions, wills, and thoughts are just the product of a big domino effect, and if some of our actions have no cause, that doesn't give us any free will because we have zero power to cause those acausal events, since by definition an acausal event can have no cause.
Say an acausal event happened in your brain that compelled you to type aldkhfalkdhflkads instead of actual words. The hard incompatibilist would not consider your aldkhfalkdhflkads outburst to be "freely willed", but rather the product of pure chance.
>>28940409
But no one is disputing that society is unfair, that doesn't disprove free will.
There is a natural capitalism at work starting from childhood, "beautiful" children receive more positive attention, become more confident, better leaders, more opposite gender attention, etc., this snowballs until what is known as "Chad" and "robots", at their very extremes.
Robots could have turned out to be alpha males if their parents would've done something different. I wouldn't be posting on a Chinese shadow-puppetry website, i would be the one you call Chad. Everyone has that potential. Your parents could've fed you better and you'd be taller and have a bigger dick. Etc etc. But my understanding is that free will is about how much choice you have going forward, and not how much your past and present was of your control.
>>28943606
>Robots could have turned out to be alpha males if their parents would've done something different.
But could their parents actually, of their own accords, done differently?
If not, then their parents had no free will.
If so, then what prevented them from doing so?
If something prevented them from doing otherwise, then they didn't really have free will. To prevent something is to MAKE it not happen.
>>28943550
...Yes, the following is the core equivocation of the Buddhist 'being in the present' manipulation:
>I'm going to connote that (being in the present as thinking about the past/the future at all is bad).
>I'm going to state that (being in the present means the tautology of always doing the right thing and not thinking about the past/the future 'excessively').
Understood it for ages, but it's nice to clarify perfectly.
>>28943606
>you have no control over what kind of body or mind you wind up with
>b-b-b-b-but free will still totally exists, guys!
We're not just talking about your socioeconomic status. We are literally talking about your genetics, your personality, your mental health, the way you perceive yourself and the world. That's a whole hell of a lot of things that you don't have any control over, but which exhibit an immense effect on you, your decisions, and your life.
>>28943550
>Boring. Not the 'idea', just that ADHD language that you use. Maybe if you're 14, reading Buddhist sites is appealing, not sure. But at some point, such pseudoprofound morpheme-juggling just becomes tired.
You label it as pseudo-profound I think you can figure that out for yourself but if you want me to dress it up in a more 'rational-minded' way and then tip my fedora it ain't happening.
What you said after that is a state after you achieve more presentness. Right now you're in an unconscious state of doing, a state where you honestly can't be present, can't be still. You're addicted to thinking about the future and past and this fucks up up royally.
Like a relationship that's based of needy interests (a kind of one where participants are like 'I can't live without you' 'I need you in my life' etc etc, a very egoic form of love, a fake love in which they cling and attach to something purely out of ego) will ultimately fail or cause great suffering whereas a peaceful truly loving relationship is just two people wanting each other in their own presence, their own 'life' (I don't want to use the word 'life' here because that's another can of worms alongside the 'I/self' and 'the World' but you get what I mean).
It's being addicted to this state is like having a hammer that just won't turn off and constantly makes noise. It is not you who is using the hammer it is the hammer using you.
Once you are out of your addiction to something it is only then that you can return to that something and use it as please without the neediness, the attachment, the useless painful clinging with all your egoic might.
>>28943590
Oh right. I've argued something similar before when people bring up quantum stuff, that "random will" isn't "free will". I guess I'm a hard incompatibilist as well.
Fellow free will nonbelievers:
How should we bring the fact that there's no free will into the mainstream?
We could really improve the way society functions if more people understood that there is no free will.
School would be revolutionized.
The mental health system, too.
Criminal justice system, COMPLETELY turned on its head.
Free will belief is costing all of society a lot. We are wasting so much time and resources, expecting the magical elf of "free will" to fix things.
Stopping belief in that elf = focusing on what needs to be FIXED, both within ourselves and in the societies in which we live.
Anyone else get what I mean by this?
>>28943735
>implying I haven't heard all that crap thousands of times
I know. I know. The retarded dare of 'if you refuse to get still (quiet your mind, stop arguing, ...), I am arbitrarily going to deny you the status of "enlightenenment" which I pulled out of my ass'. The arbitrary redefinition of 'true consciousness' and 'true presence' as paying attention to the self-absorption of 'dude have you ever thought about your own thinking lmao'. The 'being in the present' ambiguity I described in >>28943550 and >>28943677. The retarded 'no true letting go' whereby you claim that if you let go in the RIGHT way, then it can only cause peace & love. Again the heavy-handed comparison of thinking to 'noise' so to backpedal into '...I only meant EXCESSIVE thinking, srs' as soon as you're called out on it.
Trust me, I've seen this all. Multiple times. You are wasting your time by pulling those on me. Find someone else.
>>28943819
>How should we bring the fact that there's no free will into the mainstream?
Push it as the next step of being an edgy atheist with funny memes. The new rebellious teen thing should be to reject free will. These ideas spread memetically so more discussion, more shilling
>Anyone else get what I mean by this?
Yes totally, I'm glad to see so many rational robots posting about the matter.
>>28943819
Not sure how it would be possible to bring it into the mainstream. Half the population probably doesn't have the meta-analytical ability to understand the argument, and the other half probably has emotional objections to the idea. I doubt it'll happen, especially considering the current demographic trends which will shift IQ downward in the coming century. Maybe if we talk about it enough it'll meme itself into existence like /pol/ did with the alt-right. I have noticed that the opinions in these threads has shifted to a majority determinist position, compared to how it was a few years ago here. Perhaps that could be considered progress.
>>28943735
To add: truth is relative. Whether to use the tool of the mind at a certain time should be a conscious activity on your part born out of the awareness you can muster not a constant ringing in your ears.
Use it wisely, don't leave it on all the time as TL;DR
>>28943819
>How should we bring the fact that there's no free will into the mainstream?
Enlightenment is rapidly becoming more and more prevalent. We're in the age of information where these things can be easily discovered.
>We could really improve the way society functions if more people understood that there is no free will.
Once people understand that society is but a convenient fiction of the mind along with all the other fictions and tools our relationships with one another will be improved dramatically.
>School would be revolutionized.
Yes, as I've said in an earlier post the education system is very harmful to a child, namely the shoving individualism and all these other concepts down our throats.
>The mental health system, too.
Covered this as well, indeed.
>Criminal justice system, COMPLETELY turned on its head.
Crime in a conscious society would be non-existent most likely. The need for fictions like laws as well perhaps.
>both within ourselves and in the societies in which we live.
Indeed both the internal world must be mastered alongside the external world. By focusing only on the external we deal with problems by snipping the top of the weed instead of pulling them out by their roots entirely.
>>28943983
>truth is relative
You are wrongness.
>>28944009
(Actually, there's probably no person alive who could understand the joke here, that of my reply being a gross, sensational, meaningless oversimplification just as 'truth is relative'... Still.)
>>28940409
>subject is about free will
>post is about circumstantial moral luck
???
To be honest, OP, you can either sit and become an expert in how tough you have it, and how much better others have it than you, or you can just get on with your life and make the best of it. In that sense you absolutely do have a choice, and you have chosen and submitted to misery.
>>28943912
It isn't really "shilling", more so just telling the truth and continuing to tell the truth. Shilling has a nasty sort of ring to it, really.
But I think your idea of talking about it more is helpful. Why don't you start a no free will thread sometime?
I've started a few too (although I'm not the OP of this one).
Meme "magic" does work.
>>28944088
>In that sense you absolutely do have a choice, and you have chosen and submitted to misery.
What caused him to make that choice and not the other one?
>>28943983
>Whether to use the tool of the mind at a certain time should be a conscious activity on your part born out of the awareness you can muster not a constant ringing in your ears.
This is like saying 'whether to help people find jobs at a certain time should be a conscious activity on your part born out of the awareness you can muster not a constant ringing in your ears'.
True on the literal level, but a heavy-handed manipulation implying that most of the time, helping people find jobs is somehow a product of ill judgement.
Buddhists in general slowly join the so far relatively narrow ranks of people whose manipulations are so heavy-handed, it's actually disappointing.
>>28943896
> I am arbitrarily going to deny you the status of "enlightenenment" which I pulled out of my ass
It's just a word that means you have realized the truth of your existence. That you understand who you are. You do not understand who you are, you are mentally ill and thus while you are in this state we say enlightenment as a word for the endgame for which we are developing ourselves for. And that endgame is liberation from lies.
>'dude have you ever thought about your own thinking lmao
You don't think about it, you sit still and develop the ability to quietly observe. By becoming the observer you separate from the thought, ego, self more and more, you create that gap in consciousness that allows truth to blossom. Like watering a plant.
>The 'being in the present' ambiguity I described in >>28943550 and >>28943677.
Didn't you understand my counter to what you said in >>28943735?
>if you let go in the RIGHT way, then it can only cause peace & love
The gaps in consciousness yes. The more you open these gaps the more truth can shine through.
>Again the heavy-handed comparison of thinking to 'noise' so to backpedal into '...I only meant EXCESSIVE thinking, srs' as soon as you're called out on it.
There's a difference between thinking you don't want to pop-up, insane labelling that's out of control as opposed to approaching the mind as just another tool to be used.
>Trust me, I've seen this all. Multiple times. You are wasting your time by pulling those on me. Find someone else.
I'm shattering everything you say. It's child's play, friend.
>>28940409
Kids like the second have grown up to be rockstars pretty often, I mean have you seen some of the weird, ugly, psychologically damaged people in that biz?
Free will exists but it has to be sought after and earned, you have free will when you decide to go against the hand you've been dealt in life.
>>28940409
Sure if the second kid was still a fucking teenager I would feel bad for him, but there's absolutely no reason for him to blame all his problems on shit that happened 20 years ago. Past a certain point if he doesn't change for the better it's his own fault.
>>28940409
I'm always interested in how normies react to free will being applied to machines. Can a computer have free will? If not then it's a matter of explaining how the brain functions as an electrical machine.
If they say yes then it's just a matter of explaining how any computer displaying 'free will' is just operating based on deterministic rules and dice rolling. Software/hardware makes it harder to think about these concepts.
>>28944100
Yeah I know shilling has a bad connotation, I don't think discussing free will in this manner is anything akin to propaganda. Creating threads is pretty nice, I think there's some threads like this on /his/ sometimes. /r9k/ is a pretty good destination also, it seems like there are more people who understand determinism here now.
>>28944165
>you have free will when you decide to go against the hand you've been dealt in life.
That's not possible because the "hand you were dealt in life" includes the precise structure of your brain and its level of neurotransmitters, which is what enables your thoughts and "decisions".
No matter what you're doing, you are playing the hand you were dealt.
>>28944116
I have no idea. Maybe he's intellectually lacking, lacks the strength of mind, or is simply uncaring or lazy. My point was that, despite what you've been forced to deal with, you always have the option to try to improve your lot (but relating this to /r9k/ is like smashing your head against a brick wall). I doubt that the sole cause of this is because he was just too damn downtrodden, that's just not good enough, that's how stupid tumblrinas operate. Not having a dig at you by the way, if it came off that way.
>>28940409
This doesn't prove free will doesn't exist at all, it just proves that you're not an intelligent person.
>>28944186
>Past a certain point if he doesn't change for the better it's his own fault.
What do you mean by "his own fault"?
Are you implying that he could have done otherwise of his own accord at some point in the past?
>>28944009
By saying that I meant that usage of truth is relative to the situation not the eternal truth itself. Hope I cleared that up.
>>28944129
Are you retarded you aren't able to comprehend putting a tool that's out of your control that's causing you a insane amount of suffering into a useful tool that turns on and off when you want it?
I bet you love imagining six year olds OPjust had to get that out, I actually agree with you
>>28944215
>Maybe he's intellectually lacking, lacks the strength of mind, or is simply uncaring or lazy.
If any of those causes have causes, then he could not but have been that way.
If he's dumb, something is causing him to be dumb. And there's a cause to that cause, and a cause to that cause. So he can't help but be dumb.
If he's careless or lazy, something is causing that. And something caused that, and something caused that. So he can't help but be careless or lazy.
It unquestionably has something to do with the structure of his brain and its balance of neurotransmitters.
If you alter neurotransmitter levels in someone's brain, it can make them very motivated, or it can make them very lazy, or it can make them very angry.
It's a bunch of chemical reactions, like more complex versions of baking soda and vinegar.
>>28944147
>>28944259
>It's just a word that means you have realized the truth of your existence. That you understand who you are. You do not understand who you are, you are mentally ill and thus while you are in this state we say enlightenment as a word for the endgame for which we are developing ourselves for. And that endgame is liberation from lies.
You're just dropping insults ('ill', 'in falsehood', 'not understanding', 'unfree', 'lagging behind' -- there's more of them than meets the eye, kudos) until you shame me into accepting the arbitrary bullshit you've concocted of true enlightenment means accepting that experience nothingness blah blah I don't even remember'. Or was it accepting the scummy, taoist manipulation of 'true rationality is knowing when not to think', which I explained in >>28943677? I forgot.
>You don't think about it, you sit still and develop the ability to quietly observe. By becoming the observer you separate from the thought, ego, self more and more, you create that gap in consciousness that allows truth to blossom. Like watering a plant.
Addressed in >>28943677. This is the point at which you're called out on your connotative manipulation and move on to redefine, 'butbutbut what I meant by "cutting down the incessant mental noise of thinking" is just rational application of powers of observation, honest'. Which is a fucking nothing too, by the way. It eludicates no fallacy such as 'no true' or 'in moderation' or 'in itself' or 'it depends on you'.
>There's a difference between thinking you don't want to pop-up, insane labelling that's out of control as opposed to approaching the mind as just another tool to be used.
More of the same.
>you aren't able to comprehend putting a tool that's out of your control that's causing you a insane amount of suffering into a useful tool that turns on and off when you want it
And more.
You're running in circles. Are you using your rhetoric in some actual sect? Honest question.
Existence of free will doesn't matter
The thing is, you use the lack of freewill (that you could never prove nor disprove) as an excuse to your pathetic life.
You didn't try. Or i'm just le normie :PP
>>28944186
So when you turn 18, does your mind just wipe all of your memories clean and turn you into a blank slate? Do you get a new body? Do you get new parents? No. Your genetics, your physical appearance, your abilities and disabilities, your upbringing, your mental illnesses, your personality disorders, your history of abuse, your low self-esteem from a lifetime of bullying--those don't just go magically go away, nor do they leave you in a state where you could forget about them. To suggest that someone's misery is only acceptable up to a certain age is frankly just retarded and ignorant.
>>28944295
This is true on a higher level. However, in the plane that we exist on it's better for your well being to act as if you do have free will, even if doing so itself is not really your choice if you get what I'm saying.
>>28940409
>muh free will debate
Jesus. Smh.
>>28944238
If he is having emotional problems, he can choose to fix them.
If he is having social problems, he can choose to fix them.
If he is having monetary problems, he can choose to fix them.
If he is having "body image" issues or whatever, guess what? He can choose to fix them.
So yes, I'm implying that he could have used his own will or initiative to fix his own issues, because who the fuck else will? If this guy is still a loser 20 years after the fact it's NOT his parent's fault.
>>28944331
>Existence of free will doesn't matter.
Realizing free will doesn't exist does matter. It enables us to look for the CAUSES of maladaptive behaviors and harmful aspects of society and fix them, rather than attributing the maladaptive behaviors to "free will".
>The thing is, you use the lack of freewill (that you could never prove nor disprove)
It's already been disproven. It's incoherent.
>>28940409
Your hypothetical has nothing to do with free will.
Will your first character have more opportunities and a better opportunity for a better life than your second?
Certainly but that has nothing to do with free will.
Free will is by definition the ability to consciously choose between competing courses of action; nothing more, nothing less.
Certainly a 19th African tribesman divorced from civilized life cannot become an aeronautical engineer but that does not preclude freedom of choice with regards to the many options available to him at any given time.
You've made the mistake of substituting one question (are equal outcomes readily achievable between two individuals of differing backgrounds) for another (is free will possible).
>>28944391
If he breaks his arm, can he choose to fix that?
>>28944295
if you take the standpoint that its all in the brain anyway, then yes we have no free will, but then we have none of anything than chemical reactions and electrical impulses. i was arguing from a less red-pilled standpoint, telling the OP to discover the parts of his mind which will help him. Emotional improvement is possible. Yes, everything is pre-determined by the structure of the brain anyway, but being someone who's brain isn't built properly and can not ever be happy is rather rare and in the vast majority of cases of depression, isn't the cause of the negative feelings. Discovering the parts of the mind, whether its via drugs, life choices,m or some other circumstances, which provide contentment and happiness and confidence is very possible to most. Problem is that you'll never find it if you sit behind a monitor all day and discuss pepe and suicide.
>>28944329
Also, it's a pretty obscure feel to know that the debate about free will is probably doing well in the background, but at the same time knowing that I am once again alone at the general frontier of human misconceptions, and that people who've rejected f.w. are by and large not ready to dismiss 'you must let go of thinking'.
>>28944406
do you know what a cast does?
>>28944225
How does it not prove free will doesn't exist? Your success in life is determined by factors outside of your control. Your life is already heavily shaped before you even take your first breath of air. Your upbringing and formative years seal the deal. Your body and your brain are outside of your control. The decisions that you make are dependent on your genetics and upbringing. Your ability to follow through with those decisions is dependent on your genetics and upbringing. Your personality is dependent on your genetics and upbringing.
But please, by all means, tell me why you think I'm an unintelligent person for making this point.
>>28944445
How exactly do you choose to fix social problems? Honest question.
>>28944395
>Free will is by definition the ability to consciously choose between competing courses of action; nothing more, nothing less.
Under that definition if someone slips you an horrific drug that causes you such an overwhelming desire to cut off your fingers that you actually do it, then you cut your fingers off "out of your own free will"--despite being under the influence of drugs you did not consent to take.
>>28944445
I'll give you a clearer option. If he is MISSING an arm, can he choose to fix that? Can he grow a new arm by thinking about it?
I don't believe in free will in the philosophical sense because in all the cases i can think of, everyone is just doing what seems like the best idea at the time. It's basically just heuristics.
I mean, what would free will even look like?
>>28944391
>Dude just stop being sad lmao!
>Dude just change how society functions lmao!
>Dude just stop being poor lmao!
>Dude just be confident lmao!
Do you realize how stupid - just how utterly fucking stupid you sound right now? There are things you simply cannot change.
>>28944329
>until you shame me into accepting the arbitrary bullshit you've concocted of true enlightenment means accepting that experience nothingness blah blah I don't even remember'.
You don't have to believe a SINGLE thing I say. You don't know if I'm lying, telling the truth or just plain wrong. I just want to provide you with the motivation to find the truth I'm talking about.
>This is the point at which you're called out on your connotative manipulation and move on to redefine, 'butbutbut what I meant by "cutting down the incessant mental noise of thinking" is just rational application of powers of observation, honest'
You cut down on the useless thinking with careful mindful observation. Was that not written clearly enough?
>More of the same.
I've repeatedly used the tool anology, I used it there again so that it might just hammer into your dense skull. I seriously am questioning why you aren't getting any of this.
>>28944481
>to consciously choose
Your hypothetical involves utilizing mind altering drugs to subvert normal conscious thought processes.
Reading comprehension dude...
>>28944510
I'd say monetary and body image problems are semi-actionable in that you can easily lay out a definitive plan to solve them. Emotional and social problems otoh are so abstract that they are virtually out of your direct control. You can try to fix them by making life changes, but it's not something where you can say "by next month I'll be a social, outgoing person"
>>28944460
>>28944510
You can choose to get help. Get therapy. Better yourself. There are systems in place to help the poor stop being poor in every developed country in the world so they can make it on their own merits.
>>28944498
Yeah, there are some things you can't change, but none of the things I listed are thing you can't change.
>>28944395
>Free will is by definition the ability to consciously choose between competing courses of action; nothing more, nothing less.
Consider the fact that the ability to "consciously" choose things has been predetermined for you, your competing courses of action have been predetermined for you, and your capacity to indulge those actions hass been predetermined for you. How much free will do you really have?
>>28944506
>in all the cases i can think of, everyone is just doing what seems like the best idea at the time
This is true. It was the realization that everyone is utilitarian that was the kernel of rejection of f.w. in my case as well.
>>28944526
You literally restate your error for the third or fourth time while ignoring my description of it. I always draw a line in discussion at just reposting myself. I consider it finished.
>>28944394
I think there is a a tendance you can observe between pasts situations or states and "maladive behaviors", "harmful aspects of society". A general tendance on the societal scale.
But determinism has no place in your personnal life. I truly think you resort to "freewill doesn't exist'' to excuse things and not explain them.
>>28944563
So he can't fix his arm, but he can fix his head? The evidence doesn't support that.
Regardless though, this has nothing to do with free will. Whatever a man chooses to do, that choice was decided by previous events. Whether he chooses to improve himself or he chooses to shitpost on r9k, that choice was never free (from causality).
>>28942693
it's alright buddy, you're not alone.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IJzYAda1wA
>>28944506
Exactly. We're all operating on the hedonic imperative and just doing what seems to make sense at the time. We're just trying to minimize our suffering however we best know how.
>>28944599
>I truly think you resort to "freewill doesn't exist'' to excuse things and not explain them.
Although personal productivity is hard to judge online, people who reject free will have unfailingly been more polite than believers in it.
>>28944599
>But determinism has no place in your personnal life
Why would it not apply to your personal life? Determinism holds everywhere equally because it's a universal principle of physics
>I truly think you resort to "freewill doesn't exist'' to excuse things and not explain them.
Resorting to free will IS PRECISELY THE THING which excuses people from explanations. Questions of motivations, calculated consequences, genetic factors, all of it gets swept away in favor of "he wanted to".
So much for explaining things
>>28944599
>to excuse things and not explain them.
What's the difference?
>>28944567
If I argue that I possess free will then you will say that I was predetermined to argue that line of thought and you were predetermined to rebut it.
If I allow your argument to change my mind you will claim that it was not a choice I made but one programmed into my mind before I was born.
Either the comment you just made was programmed into your dna prior to your birth (or perhaps cosmically imbued into your soul as your beliefs dictate) or you have free will.
Given that your argumentation proceeds by presupposing what you set out I would say that you're an idiot NEET high school drop out who fancies himself a bit smarter than he actually is.
>>28944600
Lmao you're comparing regrowing a limb to kicking depression? K
Itt: maximum tippage
>>28944596
It seems what you define as 'redefining' is using analogies and going more in-depth on a certain subject. I haven't redefined anything I've said, I haven't countered anything I've said, I've merely expanded upon it with more and more text and more and more analogies because your low intelligence can't comprehend what I say just like that.
>Are you using your rhetoric in some actual sect? Honest question.
I wouldn't say I follow any religion or belief or society or anything like that at all. I'm just a guy talking to a loony trying to get him to stop hating the pursuit of truth. If you're not willing to do anything about your suffering that that's the fate you've got but oh well the opportunity was and will be here for you for every moment after this one to do some self-work and figure out who you are and a great deal many other things.
>>28944539
>Your hypothetical involves utilizing mind altering drugs to subvert normal conscious thought processes.
And that's perfectly fine, because you often can still experience the weighing of pros and cons and take a course of action even if you're under the influence of a drug. It's simply that the drug in this case created pros that ordinarily wouldn't have existed (the gratification of the subject's urge to cut off his own fingers--both a gratification and an urge the subject would not have had had he not been given the drug). But they were still pros AT THE TIME.
>Reading comprehension dude...
My reading comprehension was fine.
Your definition of "free will" means simply the ability to make a "conscious choice". You said nothing about whether the subject was on a drug or not.
So under your definition of "free will", even a psychotic person capable of weighing pros and cons still has free will.
>>28944693
Yes, that's how analogies work.Hint: I'm not saying they're the same thing.
>>28944718
So?
You can take a drug that allows you to make a conscious decision but that lowers or heightens your proclivity for a course of action (no different than being severely hungry, sleep deprived or tired from physical exertion) or the drug is powerful enough to impede conscious action (as would be reasonably seen).
You moron.
>>28944459
These are all statements, not facts. Free will is the capacity for choice. It has nothing to do with any of your inane, pseudo-intellectual ramblings.
>>28944690
>Given that your argumentation proceeds by presupposing what you set out I would say that you're an idiot NEET high school drop out who fancies himself a bit smarter than he actually is.
What compels so many free will believers to resort to personal attacks against those who don't believe in free will?
Rather than debate the issue on its own merits using logic?
It's remarkable how common it is.
>>28944776
>Free will is the capacity for choice.
Incorrect. Determinists do not deny the capacity for choice. Free will is the belief that choice is acausal.
>>28944658
I think this is a "what is there to be done" kind of thing. Is everything pre-determined, obviously the answer is yes. However, it is objectively harmful for you to make life decisions with that sort of view point.
>>28944811
>However, it is objectively harmful for you to make life decisions with that sort of view point.
No it isn't. Why do you think that?
>>28944824
Assuming that you don't have control will make you less likely to make positive life changes.
>>28944792
>What compels so many free will believers to resort to personal attacks against those who don't believe in free will?
By your line of thinking what compels me is my genetic makeup.
The words I type on this screen were predetermined before my birth by your line of thinking.
That you're a fucking idiot isn't something you can help nor can you help that you're feeling saddened and ashamed at your own ineptness for all this was written into the dna of us both by your own admission (which you did not consciously choose to make)
>>28944693
Do you have any idea how little we know about the brain?
>>28944770
>So?
So my objection still stands. Under your definition, a person who has been given mind-altering psychosis-inducing drugs has "free will" if he can weigh pros and cons and take a course of action and feel aware during this whole time. It wouldn't matter how ludicrous or insane the pros or cons were.
Under your definition, you could have a whole army of drugged-up maniacs committing all manner of atrocities, and as long as they felt that they were weighing pros and cons and doing what seemed right at the time, it would all be through their "free will".
It's absurd.
>You can take a drug that allows you to make a conscious decision but that lowers or heightens your proclivity for a course of action (no different than being severely hungry, sleep deprived or tired from physical exertion) or the drug is powerful enough to impede conscious action (as would be reasonably seen).
"Impeding conscious action" would seem to refer to something that would simply cause the person to fall asleep.
I'm talking about someone being given a drug that would alter their desires profoundly, to such extent that they would behave in a dangerous way. Under the definition of free will simply being the ability to weigh pros and cons and then act based on what seemed on balance to be the best action, even a drugged up maniac could have free will. It would just have to feel to him that he were weighing pros and cons, even if the pros and cons he weighed and the action he took were radically different than those he would be presented with had he been in his right mind.
That's why your definition of free will is insufficient.
>You moron.
Why are free will believers so toasty? Scroll up and down the thread.
The free will skeptics overwhelmingly have actual arguments. The free will believers consistently throw in little silly jabs and innuendos.
>>28944794
>Free will is the belief that choice is acausal.
If a choice is acausal it can't be the result of a person's desire, motivation, wants, needs, or brain state, or even a soul or spirit. I don't think that could be said to be "free will" either.
>>28944850
>Assuming that you don't have control will make you less likely to make positive life changes.
I've found the exact opposite to be the case.
>>28944898
>Why are free will believers so toasty?
Because we're predestined to be you moron.
That was sarcasm- I don't think you'll pick up on that given the bile you just splattered across my screen.
Learn how to read and reason before coming onto a text based discussion board of all things you stupid fuck
>>28944877
So because of how little we know, regrowing a limb IS comparable to kicking depression and social anxieties?
No, that still has fuck all to do with anything.
>>28944854
>By your line of thinking what compels me is my genetic makeup.
Not just your genetics, but also your conditioning.
>More personal attacks
You're being very defensive about this, like something you hold very dear and sacred is being challenged.
>>28944938
(Besides -- let me interrupt -- the fact that pragmatic consequences of holding a belief should bear absolutely no weight on whether we accept it, only its... well, rejection of free will isn't exactly a 'true' position, so let's say... applicability.)
>>28944948
You could spew out all the insults the laws of physics force you to spew out and it still won't give you free will.
>>28945020
Chuckled at this for some reason. Good job.
>>28944776
How are those not facts? Are you saying that a person isn't shaped by their genetics and upbringing? Are these opinions? Do you call anything that you personally disagree with inane and pseudo-intellectual? Lastly, why are you being such a cunt to me when I've presented my points to you respectfully and without insults?
It's people like you that bully people like me and then turn around and blame us for feeling bad about ourselves.
>>28944968
>You're being very defensive about this
You're willfully misinterpreting derision as defensiveness.
You're a fucking idiot.
Your arguments have more holes than swiss cheese.
>but also your conditioning.
If I have no free will than conditioning would merely act upon my genetics but it would not alter my free will or lack thereof (that you're incapable of picking up on this says a lot about you; namely that you're a fucking idiot).
>>28945020
And you would be predestined to reply to those insults and nothing would really matter- wow what a sick burn.
>>28944948
HAHAHAHA holy fuck my dude, take a breath. Look at how you're acting. Are you choosing to behave like this?
>>28944985
There's a difference between accepting the truth of something and internalizing it. I'd argue, from personal experience, that actually internalizing the non-existance of free will would result in depersonalization. On some level, even if you "believe" in determinism, you don't really hold to that belief on a more functional level.
>>28945035
He's probably some normie, they argue by insulting and opinioning instead of refuting the point.
>>28940409
it's like when you roll dice and it lands on a certain face depending how you throw it. Our lives are like a big dice throwing but with way more variables
>>28945035
>Lastly, why are you being such a cunt to me when I've presented my points to you respectfully and without insults?
Whatever the specific reasons are, he can't help them. He, like the rest of us, is a pawn of the laws of physics.
If the neurotransmitter balance in his brain were different, he may well have been nice, but the chemicals swirling around in his head and interacting with the blobs of jelly up in there compelled his hands to type mean things that your brain would then process, which in turn caused the release of some chemicals and energy to swirl around up in your skull and make you feel icky. Yes, this is a great simplification but broadly speaking it is what happened.
When I take a step back and look at this whole thing I just have to laugh. Maybe you can laugh with me.
>>28944776
This is correct.
Like I said earlier, the OP is conflating free will with something entirely different.
>>28944794
>Free will is the belief that choice is acausal.
Fucking idiot.
Read a book sometime won't you- if a choice is made it is not acausal.
If it is made (keyword made) then by definition it has a cause whether that be a conscious choice or something predetermined
>>28945082
> Look at how you're acting. Are you choosing to behave like this?
Look at how you're acting you cretin.
Go cry into your piss jars.
>>28945035
>Are you saying that a person isn't shaped by their genetics and upbringing?
No, he's saying that being shaped by your upbringing in no way precludes free will.
Again, you're conflating two very different things.
>Lastly, why are you being such a cunt to me
Not the guy you're replying to but he's being a cunt to you because you're an idiot. Your argumentation is shitty; you regularly substitute one phrase, "free will" (which I'm not convinced you know what that means) for another line of argumentation (your upbringing influences the shape of your life).
>>28945084
>I'd argue, from personal experience, that actually internalizing the non-existance of free will would result in depersonalization.
Even though I wrote >>28941551, I'm actually inclined to agree. Going 'full analytical' would indeed mostly reduce you to realizing your bodily needs. Though then, you would still talk with people, and possibly even earn money and other people -- so maybe such constant awareness that you're just a machine that transforms sensory input into motions isn't that exclusive with functioning. There should be research done about possibility for such chemically incuded state to coexist with regular life -- perhaps it would be the optimum.
>>28945202
*and help other people
>>28945082
Not him, but of course he isn't. Not "freely" choosing, at least.
His rage is the product of a bunch of chemicals swirling around in his skull. This is what we're up against...the fact is a lot of people have a brain arranged in such a way that it forces them to be dicks.
Kind of sad. If I believed in free will it would be way more upsetting than it is, though.
>>28945182
oh ok i did not know that thank u for ur loads of knowledge master
