>Still believing in libertarian (contra-causal) free will
Literally, how?
How can you defy causality out of "your own volition", when "your own volition" itself is causal? Or if things are indeterministic at the quantum level and somehow that filters up to force your thoughts on the macroscopic scale, then "your own volition" is random and not controlled by a homunculus "you" but rather the acausal movements of subatomic particles?
Free will is a myth.
And you don't NEED to believe in it. All the "you need to believe in free will even if it's not true" arguments are THE SAME as the "you need to believe in God even if it's not true" arguments.
>You need to believe in God/Free will otherwise life isn't worth living
>You need to believe in God/Free will otherwise you'll do terrible things
>You need to believe in God/Free will because it FEELS like God/Free will exists
I could go on.
Free will belief is MORE stupid than belief in God though. At least "God" could be used to refer to some "higher power". The concept of a higher power is not incoherent.
The concept of libertarian free will IS.
>>28982832
So I should stop worrying about future issues because I have no control over my environment and reactions?
>>28983097
>So I should stop worrying about future issues because I have no control over my environment and reactions?
What do you mean by this?
Give an example.
You know what else is deterministic until it's not?
Bullet flight paths.
>>28983480
so do bullets have free will
>>28983319
I was referring to the idea of getting over my difficulties interacting with the people and the shame I sometimes feel for being a virgin.
I don't understand how I am supposed to feel about working on this in the future.
>>28983658
The assumption here is in the word 'supposed'. You are not 'supposed' to do anything; your constituent mattter just sits there (or moves). Only matter, that which is, can be spoken or meaningfully thought about.
>>28983714
>>28983658
And as regards your feelings, they aren't real either. Feelings don't exist; only brain chemistry does.
>>28983658
>I was referring to the idea of getting over my difficulties interacting with the people and the shame I sometimes feel for being a virgin.
If you want to be better at interacting with people, you should figure out how to do that. You don't need "free will" to do that. What you need is the right chemical balance in your brain to make you feel motivated to interact with others, and the right environmental stimuli to induce that chemical balance and simultaneously give you an opportunity to interact with likeable people.
As far as being ashamed of being a virgin, don't be.
I know it's not that simple though.
If free will existed, you could just choose not to be ashamed of being a virgin.
But you might find that you can't do that because of your conditioning.
>>28983751
>Feelings don't exist
This is self-evidently false.
>>28983828
The pitfal of thinking that as soon as I feel something, it's real...
When I 'feel' shame, it is just that the matter in my brain has been provoked in such a way by a certain pattern of stimuli -- for instance, forming a post on 4chan or sounds uttered by a qt -- combined with recognition of certain patterns in the background, such as evoking the idea of an argument I lost or a party with normals around -- that triggers certain muscle tensions as evolution and education has determined that are most likely to avoid such situations in the future. This is all that happens. There is no 'shame' -- there is only a physical determination of stimulus-reaction. Awareness of such determination, of the hard physical process happening there, might come to be involuntarily noticed by me as well, in a determined manner affecting my future steps.
>>28983933
>>28983828
In other words, saying that I 'feel' shame, or attraction, or happiness, makes as much sense as saying that a falling rock 'feels' gravitation.
>>28983797
>>But you might find that you can't do that because of your conditioning.
This is the worst part
>What you need is the right chemical balance in your brain to make you feel motivated to interact with others
I found this good advice but once problem I see is for example whether or not it is possible to find the right environment. It's as if certain things can't be changed.
>>28983751
Feelings are a result of brain chemistry. To claim they don't exist is an extraordinarily stupid claim. They certainly do exist. Although I understand the point you're trying to make, you did it in the stupidest "look at me I'm a contrarian, I know things you don't" way possible.
>>28982832
People believe in free will because their own lack of it drives them to that conclusion, case closed. Whether or not free will exists will change absolutely nothing about the inherent structure of society. Stop wasting your time with pointless existential debates and do something productive for a change.
>>28984004
This is like a few steps to dehumanization, fuck you and your shitty philosophy
>>28984025
>It's as if certain things can't be changed.
The assumption here in turn is that of meaningfulness of the concept of capacity. There is no such thing either; there are only statistical likelihoods that a certain future should ensue based on certain sets of data considered. For instance, given the simple data of 'consider humans', the average human 'can' achieve the income specific to that population. As soon as we variously narrow the consideration, considering for instance your personal factors of being socially shy or being talented in some respect, 'capacity' increases or decreases. Capacity only exists in the statistical sense.
>>28984066
Clinger.
>>28984025
>I found this good advice but once problem I see is for example whether or not it is possible to find the right environment. It's as if certain things can't be changed.
Well...do your genetics and conditioning compel you to like the place you're at now, or are they compelling you to dislike it?
>>28983097
you will worry about it because you can still suffer regardless. whether or not you worry about the future depends on your heredity / environmental conditioning anyways.
"should" has no bearing on the truth anyways.
>>28984104
gotcha
>>28984148
Mixed feelings here.
what's up with these free will threads lately and why do they get so many replies?
normies finished philosophy 101 this semester and need a place to dump their """"knowledge""""?
>>28983933
(In fact, I am finding this a relatively hard hurdle to jump personally. I'm inclined to think that feelings *cause* reactions and it is still a very fresh realization for me to remember that feelings *are* reactions -- that there nothing outside the reactions.)
o shit it dat boi waddup
Free will certainly exists. If you claim it does not, while acknowledging the fact that the illusion is crucial to our reality, then you do not refer to reality, you are talking about something that doesn't exist.
Who calls something that we are all certain we have an illusion? The mere fact that it it so common makes it true.
>>28984401
>The mere fact that it it so common makes it true.
>ruining the bait
It went so well so far.
(Let me drop a random thought exercise, by the way. Imagine a language free from free will-implying words such as the modal verbs of 'can' and 'should'.)
>>28984452
(Of course, it can't be imposed externally, because people will just infuse *some* words with the instinctively-felt and submitted impressions of motivation and obligation -- they can't be externally removed. It's the same way the word 'you', or any synonym of it, will always evoke the fictitious idea of a person rather than the real idea of a body.)
