Guaranteed Normie trigger:
Argue for determinism and refute free will.
>>29339609
This is so true and I never get it why normies get so mad when you bring arguments against free will.
>>29339609
I don't understand why the lack of free will is such a trigger for people. The truth hasn't interfered with my enjoyment of life at all, in fact it's probably made me more sympathetic if anything.
>>29339653
>why normies get so mad when you bring arguments against free will
Because they got lucky in life but they want to believe it was their choices that got them where they are
>TFW it's a terrible idea to think about determinism and it can only hurt you
You can't even demonstrate that it exists. There's no way to go back in time to when you made a decision and show that, given all the same circumstances, you would have made another choice.
NORMIES BTFO.
The truest redpill. It doesn't bother me either. Does the self even exist? We are not exactly in control. Wew
Free will can't exist because then that would mean I wasn't destined to become a loser and have to be held accountable for my own shitty life.
God, you faggots are probably the kind of people who buy into the Sovereign Citizen "real you and strawman" crock.
>>29339877
Excuse me sir, am I being detained?
>>29339609
>be me, teacher
>teacher lounge
>some how argument about evolution/free will is happening
>"anon, what do you think?"
>(I think this is why I normally leave everyday, fuck teacher appreciation meals making me eat with you fucks)
>"I'm a hard determinist. I do not believe that any conscious being has free will. I'd rather not talk about it because it's not a topic people change their minds about very often."
>"Then why do you do anything? You clearly make a choice in how nice of a teacher you are, the kids love you."
>"I didn't know that I needed a reason to be nice." /smirk
>Awkward silence
>I leave
>No one ever brought it up again
>>29339891
I am not driving I am traveling. I do not need a license to travel.
>>29339946
I am not the person 'ANONYMOUS' I am the individual who has a very similar name.
redpill me on why free will is a meme
any good books?
>>29339609
Determinism actually doesn't make any sense philosophically, though.
>>29340061
Sam Harris - Free Will
Alan Watts - Nature of Consciousness (aka Out of your Mind)
>>29339609
Argue all you want, but there's absolutely no way to know for certain either way.
The difficulty most people have with determinism is the massive parallelism of the world. Uncountable events occur at the same time.
Human consciousness is used to think in serial terms. When you realize the parallel nature of the world, determinism and the lack of free will are much more approachable.
>mfw Diet Calvinism
>>29340152
In fact, the idea of "events" also leads astray.
The physical world is a conglomeration of analog continuous processes.
"Event" is an arbitrary human construct.
>>29339609
Reminding them of the improbability of an afterlife works too. Some people are really desperate how they cling to it.
I hate this fucking world, too many god damn fuckers in it.
Too many thoughts and different societies all wrapped up together in this fucking place called AMERICA.
Everyone has their own god damn opinion on every god damn thing,
and you may be saying 'Well what makes you so different?'.
Because I have something only me and V have; SELF AWARENESS.
Call it exortenstiolism or whatever the fuck you want.
We know what we are to this world, and what everyone else is.
We learn more than what caused the civil war and how to simplify quadratics in school.
We've been watching you people and we know what you think and how you act.
All talk and no action.
People who are said to be brave or courageous are usually just STUPID,
then they say later that they did it on purpose cause they're brave,
when they did it on fucking accident.
God everything is so corrupt and so filled with opinions and points of view,
and peoples own little agendas and schedules.
This isn't a world any more.
It's H.O.E and no one knows it.
Self awareness is a wonderful thing.
- REB 420 EDH
im extremely privileged and i believe in determinism
after all, most of the events that led to where i am now are absurdly random and seemingly improbable
the "choices" i made seem irrelevant in retrospect
>>29340089
Fine, if nobody's going to reply to me I'll just give my argument for the rationality of belief in free will to nobody in particular.
The denial of free will is also the denial of reason, since if the activity of our minds is entirely determined by some external physical cause, then reason cannot ever be the basis of any thought, because physical material acts according to it's physical nature which is not equivalent to the nature of human reason, and so the content of our minds would necessarily be determined by chaos and never order.
This means that if the free will denier is correct, then he has reason to doubt his conclusion, since his conclusion implies that it was reached not by reason but by chaos.
Thus the assertion that free will doesn't exist is a performative contradiction; that which is presupposed in the assertion (the reliability of one's rational faculties) is undermined by that which is implied by the content of the assertion.
>something good happens
it's thanks to me!
>something bad happens
it's was out of my control
and then we have people pretending to be happy and still believe in determinism to trick people into thinking that it's true.
Me, I don't believe. I know determinism is a superstition, a remain of the dark ages when religion ruled and reason was persecuted.
And you few who still spew this libel are condemned to the obscure room of your dark age.
>>29339836
being an observer is pretty shit.
I WANT OFF THIS RIDE NOW!!!
>>29340337
Local free will may exist, though i have the feeling when i think in a much bigger context that ther might not be free will
>>29340337
>Fine, if nobody's going to reply to me I'll just give my argument for the rationality of belief in free will to nobody in particular.
Good boy. If you want to debate you, you have to begin with an opening argument.
>because physical material acts according to it's physical nature which is not equivalent to the nature of human reason
I don't see how this follows. "Human reason" isn't anything special, Plato. It's better to compare the brain to a calculator.
>>29340688
>"Human reason" isn't anything special, Plato. It's better to compare the brain to a calculator.
It is, though. I'm not really sure exactly what your argument is. The validity of human reason and the capacity to make inferences and apprehend truth in general is necessarily presupposed in every thought. The difference between the mind and a calculator or computer is that the mind is an experiencing subject, and a computer is only an object, i.e. it can only be experienced by minds, not experience or think about anything itself.
Human reason is essentially conscious, so rather than just take in raw data and calculate a result like a computer, consciousness can subjectively conceive of itself as an object, and therefore reason about it's own being and nature.
Computers cannot think of anything on their own, they depend on human rationality to build and program them. They cannot be independent subjects like people.
>>29339775
>TFW it's a terrible idea to think about determinism and it can only hurt you
I haven't found that to be the case at all.
I'm more of a hard incompatibilist than a hard determinist, but realizing that free will is a myth has had a lot of benefits for me.
Made me less resentful of others, got rid of a lot of feelings of self-hatred I've had, and I feel understanding the (largely or completely) causal nature of reality is good for planning for the future.
The good points have definitely outweighed the bad points for me.
>>29339877
>Free will can't exist because then that would mean I wasn't destined to become a loser and have to be held accountable for my own shitty life.
Why would someone freely choose to be a loser?
We have a hedonic imperative. We all want to feel good. Being a loser doesn't feel good.
>>29340061
http://breakingthefreewillillusion.com/
Also, here's a brief video (not from the author of that book/web site, but still good. very concise).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joanVUoXY0
>>29340129
There is. The concept of free will, itself, is incoherent. It defies logic.
If everything is causally determined by the preceding state of the universe, then there is no libertarian free will. Everything is happening according to the causal chain, the laws of physics.
If some things aren't causal but happen for no reason, then those things cannot be caused by our wills, since, being acausal, they can have no cause (that is what acausal means). So that doesn't give us free will either--if acausal events compel our thoughts and actions then we're at the mercy of stuff that we cannot prevent or cause, because could we prevent or cause them, then they would not be acausal.
Those are the two possibilities and neither allows for libertarian free will.
>>29341122
>Computers cannot think of anything on their own, they depend on human rationality to build and program them.
Our brains, too, are built and programmed by causal factors (including genetics).
They don't just pop up on their own.
>>29341198
Sorry. The causal chain (or possibly the effects of some acausal quantum event) prevented me from posting that link correctly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joanVUoXY0s
There we go.
Because I don't like the idea that I am not in control of my life.
>Truer Words Have Never Been Spoken
>>29339609
>>29339653
I am a 30 year old virgin, I have seen this conversation posted frequently on 4chan and this is usually how it goes.
>LOL DETERMINISM FREE WILL *tip*
there is no proof either way
>LOL U MAD U MAD 2DEEP4U
It is just edge. You say something unfalsifiable or clearly wrong but which takes a long time to explain why, then when someone else takes the bait, no matter how reasonable their argument, you claim they just can't handle the truth.
Good meme.
The Ortega Two-Step Refutation of Free Will:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8029RjqP1A
It's useless to argue about that at all as nobody can prove if free will exists or does not exist.
It's like asking a fish about the destiny of a river or the definition of water.
>>29341307
ignorance is bliss
original comment
>>29341307
>It's useless to argue about that at all as nobody can prove if free will exists or does not exist.
That's not the case. Free will has already been disproven.
It's not compatible with causality, and it's not compatible with indeterminism.
It's not even a coherent idea.
>>29339775
This
Normies benefit the most from belief in free will. It gives them a ton of good feels to think of all of their accomplishments as a result of their own greatness instead of seeing it for the series of coincidences it really is.
>>29339609
>You're not special
>You're literally like everyone else
>You're being controlled and have no free will
>see them break down and get violent
>>29341295
>You say something unfalsifiable
Let me ask you this.
Do you agree that either everything is causally determined by preceding conditions
or
That some things are not causally determined by preceding conditions?
Either of these two possibilities renders free will impossible.
If everything is deterministic, there is no free will. You could not have done otherwise in a given situation in the past.
If some things aren't deterministic, that still can't give you free will because if those things aren't determined by anything, then our wills can't determine them. Acausal events can have no cause (by definition), meaning our wills have zero power to cause those acausal events. For you to have done otherwise in a given situation in the past would have required an acausal event to have happened or not happened, and whether that acausal event happened or didn't happen was not up to you (for if it were, then it would not have been acausal).
Both determinism and indeterminism preclude free will.
>>29341318
Go ahead. Prove it.
I'm waiting for all those fancy youtube videos and bimbo books you retards like to eat up.
>>29340129
I bet you're one of those people who refuses to say you're an atheist because "we just can't know man xPP"
>>29341325
Even if someone is "great"--why are they great?
What CAUSED them to be that way?
If it's just "choice", then why doesn't everyone choose to be great?
>>29341367
>Go ahead. Prove it.
Let's start with a definition. I'm putting the ball in your court here.
Define "free will" in your own words.
Let's see if you'll really do it. I'll be impressed.
>>29340267
I've become moderately successful financially and also believe in hard determinism.
Pride is unwarranted because after all "I" am just a pattern in the universal deterministic process. My deterministic world view does not allow for pride, but also not for self-hatred.
Of course both pride and self-loathing occur from time to time but I only take it as a perception like feeling hot or cold, or tired, hungry...
>>29339836
>Does the self even exist?
Yeah. I'm not even sure WHY humans need consciousness and a self.
To me consciousness is a sense like sight, hearing, taste, etc...
>>29341360
>circular logic
Please fuck off to /sci/ to the other pseudo-intellectuals.
>>29341400
I didn't use any circular logic.
I simply took both causality and acausality to their logical conclusions.
If everything is caused, then there is no free will because our wills and actions are completely determined by prior conditions.
If some things aren't caused, our wills can't cause those things, because by definition, an acausal event has no cause. That's literally what acausal means.
>>29341375
>even if someone is "great"--why are they great?
Fate, causality
either way, deal with it. it's your responsibility you're born ugly.
>>29339609
ironically enough, arguing against determinism is a guaranteed reply in /r9k/
>>29341389
>please name the goalposts I will move later
You wanted to prove that free will is not existant
To cut this discussion short I will give you a textbook example
>the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion
>>29339609
The easiest way I've found to debate normies on this manner is to talk about computers. This new technology provides for an analogy for the brain like no other before.
Basically just ask, can computers have free will?
If they say yes then explain how any decision making, rationality and self modification will always be based on a series of mechanical events that occur in a network of set rules, and will always be predictable to a certain degree.
If they say no explain how human brains functions as a series of biological neural networks processing information using input and output ports.
I find that most of the time people have an idea of how free will is wrong, but they cling to it because they find it necessary to justify ethics, at which point it becomes about semantics more than anything.
>>29341375
They just chose to do all the right things and succeed!
People who fail simply didn't choose to succeed, that's why they failed. If they just chose to try harder then they would be winners too.
Fun Fact: At the bare minimum at least 50% of human behavior is genetic
intelligence is a hereditary trait and what type of person you are, what you believe, how you think, etc. is all already preprogrammed into you brain at birth
How someone is raise MAY change this but only slightly
After reading this, idk what to do anymore :(
>>29341420
You're only thinking in absolutes and that free will cannot create cause.
The problem here again is that I cannot prove that the free willed can create new cause (out of old cause) and you can't prove it cannot.
As I said earlier, discussing it won't bring anything anything new to the table, it's just a matter of believe.
If you believe in determinism please predict the future for me.
>>29341550
>As I said earlier, discussing it won't bring anything anything new to the table, it's just a matter of believe.
Said by every religion monk in every era
>>29341572
you'll die one day
>>29341572
Chaotic systems are deterministic but unpredictable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
>>29341441
>the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion
Alright.
You don't have that power, and I'll prove it to you.
>It is either the case that all events are the necessary results of causality, or it is the case that some events at the quantum scale occur without a cause, and are independent of causality.
>If it is the case that all events are the necessary results of causality, then you don't have free will, because your thoughts, decisions, and actions are all events. If everything is causally determined, you cannot act at your own discretion without the constraints of necessity or fate.
>If it is the case that some events at the quantum scale occur without a cause, those events still cannot grant you the ability to act at your own discretion, because those events, being acausal, cannot be caused by your desires or will. If those events themselves somehow ARE the cause of your desires or will, then what you will is not in your own hands, but in fact will be random, and you are powerless to cause or control the quantum states that would alter your will, actions, or decisions. You would be a slave to events occurring on a sub-microscopic scale that happen for no reason, and "no reason" includes your will having nothing to do with them.
This is why free will is impossible. Either our wills, thoughts, and actions are determined by an unbroken chain of causal events, or they are determined by acausal phenomena that we are powerless to control, for if we could control them, then they would not be indeterministic--they would be causal, which would bring us back to determinism.
>>29341584
A religion is a philosphy.
It's the same with theism vs atheism vs agnosticism.
>>29341550
>You're only thinking in absolutes
What do you mean by this? So often I see people saying "don't think in absolutes" as an excuse to throw logic under the bus.
>and that free will cannot create cause.
You mean, the idea is that "free will" might make us able to break the laws of physics and do things that are physically impossible?
What is free will anyway? Where did it come from?
>>29339908
>>"I didn't know that I needed a reason to be nice." /smirk
Good on ya lad, niceness is its own reward.
>>29341639
The first person I know of who used the term was Saint Augustine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_libero_arbitrio_%28Augustine%29
>>29341441
Please refer to this post: >>29339798 and show me how you could ever demonstrate that you're not entirely controlled by past events and situational constraints.
>>29341616
Philosophy runs on logical arguments. Religions often throw logic in the garbage.
>>29341606
You still haven't explained why the events will be random.
Rule 1 :
There's a reason for everything
Rule 2 :
If you can't find it, back to rule 1
>>29341678
Just like this discussion.
>>29341667
Please provide proof that you are.
It's not like you could go back in time and see that everything would exactly progress in the same way.
>>29341715
Of course things being identical would play out the same as before. That what identical means. You're assuming that people could choose another option out of all the things they weigh up in their head and then go with it, given the EXACT same circumstances. We all do this every day and assume it was your own decision but it was made based on past experiences and the situational context, which itself relies on past events.
Free will is an illusion.
Chaos is not order; it is the highest form of order
>>29341679
If your action was based not on prior causes (what you learned, your genetics, how you were raised, how you're feeling, what you're wearing, your brain chemistry at a given moment, the temperature, so on) but instead came from an acausal quantum event that was itself independent of causality, then your action did not take any of those things into account. It just happened because an acausal quantum event happened and compelled you to perform that action.
>>29341627
what's the point in thinking only in logic and not using absolutes to try and prove something new and undiscovered? Arguments deriving from the mind by definition can't prove anything that exists in the real world, only in the mind. You can use logic to draw possible conclusions, sure, but no real concrete conclusions. The point he was making was that it's a circular argument because you can try and argue possibilities all you want but you aren't going to get anywhere by doing it.
>this normie already arguing about free will actually existing
fantastic job OP
What sort of complex system is able to determine such a wide range of decisions and events? It appears Determinists are some sort of hardcore abrahamic theists who think the universe is some sort of gigantic domino field which just covers every single thing in the universe (without being able to provide any proof just some wild theories)
>>29340234
I like you, do you also browse r/atheism? Fucking normies will never be as enlightened as us ;)
>>29341871
>>29341861
damn OP just bagged a couple more
>>29341871
>>29340234
Since when is an afterlife improbable? I'm an agnostic atheist, but I'd like to see you definitively prove that there's any more chance of an afterlife not existing over there being one.
>>29341837
>You can use logic to draw possible conclusions, sure, but no real concrete conclusions.
I disagree. Reason is the best way to determine what is true or not, and reason is capable of proving things are true or false. If A is B and B is C, then A is C. (inb4 hurrdurr how was ur first logic class at community college--I don't do shaming tactic arguments)
Empirical findings are helpful, but without reason they're useless.
At our best, we humans run on logic. Without logic there is no mathematics, no legal system, no science, no medicine.
Beyond that, there is also empirical evidence that free will is a myth. We know for a fact that our emotions, feelings, and actions are caused by chemical reactions occurring in our nervous system. Screw with the dopamine, serotonin, and other neurotransmitters, and you can get anyone to behave in bizarre ways they wouldn't behave in if they didn't have that unusual neurotransmitter balance. This shows that our actions are determined by chemical reactions. Without neurotransmitters, we can't even do anything. We wouldn't be able to live.
>The point he was making was that it's a circular argument because you can try and argue possibilities all you want but you aren't going to get anywhere by doing it.
I didn't make any circular arguments at any point.
>>29341931
How do chemical reactions prove Determinism as a whole? Your reasoning is entirely subjective.
>>29341931
using logic to find the answer to tautologies such as "A is B B is C A is C" doesn't serve as a good example at all to demonstrate why logic's a good tool for proving things that we can't find out from evidence.
Just look at the ontological argument. I'm sure you know the one. People tried to use logic in order to prove god's existence without any sort of proof from the world and it was fucking pointless because it just created a logically sound possibility. Nothing more.
Arguing the way you were is arguably the same thing. You're creating logically sound conclusions using things from your mind but you prove nothing.
Bringing chemical reactions for "muh emotions" proves nothing, either. That doesn't serve as concrete evidence for all the causation in the world, they only serve to prove how emotions in our brains work. You still have yet to account for all other factors that don't derive from your own abilities in the world which believe it or not are quite a few.
I don't disagree with you on the argument on determinism, though, don't get me wrong. I just don't think it's possible to prove, and I didn't like the way you dismissed the other person's ideas saying that logic is a superior method to discovering truths to absolutes, which just isn't true. We just happen to have no absolute evidence of determinist theory being correct, only logical evidence.
>>29341878
Nah man, I too like to intelligently debate with normies that g*d does not exist and neither does an afterlife. Pretty liberating to see chirst cucks squirm in anger am I right?
Another normie trigger, especially for girls:
>all humans act in self interest or in the interest of their "group". No humans act in the interest of other humans they share nothing in common with
Altruism and ego are the only true human instincts except reproduction my and survival. All of these are linked, of course
>>29342013
I am the poster of >>29341931 and while I'm disagreeing with that guy on the same point as you, I'd appreciate it if you didn't just undermine his reasoning as subjective, that contributes nothing to the discussion since any rational man's thinking is subjective and likely to change based on his own experiences.
>>29342033
How can you argue altruism is a human instinct when what you said about "no human acting in the interest of other humans they share nothing in common with" directly contradicts that point? Do you understand the meaning of the word?
>>29342019
>using logic to find the answer to tautologies such as "A is B B is C A is C"
Syllogisms are not tautologies.
>Just look at the ontological argument. I'm sure you know the one. People tried to use logic in order to prove god's existence without any sort of proof from the world and it was fucking pointless because it just created a logically sound possibility. Nothing more.
The ontological argument would be correct if there were no flaws in its premises. All philosophers who have worked to refute it have attacked the premises, not the concept of logic itself.
> I'm sure you know the one. People tried to use logic in order to prove god's existence without any sort of proof from the world and it was fucking pointless because it just created a logically sound possibility. Nothing more.
Logical conclusions are not "possibilities", they're facts.
If the premises of a logically valid argument are true, then the conclusion is true.
>>29342045
My whole point is that nobody can present sound proof either way, just subjective reasoning or logical evidence but again nobody can verify that logic.
>>29339609
Arguing how Bernie's economics suck.
>>29342067
>logical conclusions are facts and not possibilities
This sounds like the logic of people who think their logical conclusions are the logical conclusions of every human being if only he thought hard and thorough enough.
>>29342129
>This sounds like the logic of people who think their logical conclusions are the logical conclusions of every human being if only he thought hard and thorough enough.
I should have been more specific and stated that logical conclusions of sound arguments are facts.
Logical conclusions of arguments that have false premises of course are not facts.
>>29342148
And who is judging if they are sound or not without empirical evidence?
>>29342067
>Syllogisms are not tautologies.
My bad, but my point still stands.
>If the premises of a logically valid argument are true, then the conclusion is true.
I'm not sure you understand. If the conclusion is making a deduction about the world outside the mind, but the premises include no evidence from the world outside the mind, how can you argue that it's a sound conclusion?
I'm having a tough time trying to think of an example, but here we go.
P1: Leaves are green
P2: Things with green leaves grow in the sunlight.
C: The sun causes things with green leaves to grow in the sunlight.
This argument is meaningless because although it offers a logically sound conclusion and sounds okay, there's no proof to support the conclusion that it was the sunlight causing it. There's no conclusion drawn from any specific evidence other than basic things that have been observed, much alike to the basic observation of the behaviour of people leading to the conclusion of determinism.
However, were we to argue
P1: Leaves are green
P2: Chlorophyll causes this green colour of leaves, which has also been proven to allow things to with this pigment to grow under the influence of sunlight
C: The sun causes things with green leaves to grow
This, with the addition of hard scientific evidence from the world is now a reasonable conclusion to draw. However, since determinism lacks this evidence it is just as unreasonable as my first example.
P3:
>>29339609
>>29339653
>>29339699
It isn't a "trigger".
Arguing against free will proves the person doing it is one of
A) A massive troll, or
B) a massive retard, or
C) A Massively retarded troll
>>29339609
Supporting Trump will also do a number on folks.
>>29339908
They avoided the topic because your non-sequitur response clearly showed you are out of your depth in the topic.
>Hard determinist
>Teacher
That is about the funniest shit I have heard all month.
>>29340114
Know why I love Sam Harris?
1) he claims to be a very hard hard determinist: people are (according to him) literally incapable of making any decisions whatsoever, including what they think
2) Heis main source of income is as director of a lobbying firm
I mean, THAT is FUNNY!
I think the whole the free will discussion goes back to being theistic or atheistic.
If you're theistic you can say that there might be something higher, something besides the physical world and that you do actually have some control.
If you're atheistic you probably believe everything is explainable physically, and therefore you can have no free will neither if the matter is deterministic or indeterministic because we and our consciousness are nothing more than part of the flow which is going on in the materialistic world.
Since I'm agnostic, I don't know if there's free will or not.
Since there still hope left that there's something higher, besides our physical world
>>29340129
Your statement demonstrates that you inherently accept free will.
>>29342258
That is not contradictory.
>>29339775
>Because they got lucky in life but they want to believe it was their choices that got them where they are
Robots do the same exact thing by refuting it.
>>29340152
>When you realize the parallel nature of the world, determinism and the lack of free will are much more approachable.
A statement that demonstrates that you reject determinism
>>29340337
No one is responding because the 'no free will' pose is a meme, and a poor one.
It is like watching trailer trash pretending to be French nobility
>>29342268
OMG!
Tell me, please tell me, you are trying to be funny.
>>29340114
>recommending Harris and Watts
Are you trying to kill >>29340061?
Those guys are literally retarded, and I am saying this as a hard determinist as well.
>>29342231
Explain why, please. I'd love to hear your rationale for why this is somehow funny or contradictory.
>>29342268
>>29342340
Don't bother, those guys probably genuinely think that 'thoughts are determined but you can have thoughts to control those determined thoughts' or something.
>>29342265
>If you're theistic you can say that there might be something higher, something besides the physical world and that you do actually have some control.
How would the existence of a higher power grant you free will? I don't see how that follows.
>>29342347
Belief in mind > matter is basically belief in some sort of alive conscious spark, which some people atribute to God the creator, and some to themselves as having free will. It's the same delusion really.
>>29342358
>Belief in mind > matter is basically belief in some sort of alive conscious spark, which some people atribute to God the creator, and some to themselves as having free will.
But I don't see how that could give you free will, even if there were some "spark" in you.
Would not the spark also be subjected to cause and effect? Would the spark not know some things, and be ignorant of some things, thereby only being able to make decisions based on the information it had at a given time?
>>29342160
Even making sense of empirical findings relies on logic.
I'm amazed that that the idea that either everything is causal or some things are acausal is proving a controversial premise here.
Things are either causal or acausal. What other possibility is there?
>>29342380
Yesyes of course. I reject f.w. myself. I'm just more or less giving a picture of the parallels between theism and f.w. -- it's the idea that some things 'just did x' (x = either everything, or a human act).
There is no way to argue it either way.
>>29342189
>P1: Leaves (A) are green (B)
>P2: Things with green leaves (C) grow in the sunlight. (D)
>C: The sun (E) causes things with green leaves (C) to grow in the sunlight. (D)
The problem is that this argument is not logically valid. It goes A - B, C - D, therefore E - C -D
The argument form doesn't add up to begin with, and no amount of empirical evidence could make this argument work. It's fundamentally broken.
>>29339609
>>29339653
>>29339699
>>29339775
This is the most fedora thread I've seen in a long time.
>>29342340
A hard determinist, such as Sam harris (the most chuckle-worthy public one) believe that we can make NO choices, not even our own thoughts.
So - do the children decide to not study?
Nope.
Do your children choose to put down 'A' instead of 'C' on that multiple choice quiz?
Nope.
Does your pleasant demeanor cause them to change their minds and be interested in the topic?
Hell, no.
FFS, if you are a hard determinist you must believe that you,as the teacher, are incapable of 'deciding' what to do to help a particular student.
.
See, that's why the other teachers shun you, your proved your stupidity.
>>29339609
The fuck? How can you argue AGAINST determinism? I mean there aren't any logical counterarguments, are there? That would make no sense.
>>29342525
Not him, but this doesn't even address the topic, anon. Determinism doesn't preclude someone filling a role they enjoy. Philosophy is of the self, not everyone else.
>>29339609
You're right, there's no free. I was destined to be socially competent and privileged with money and a girlfriend, and you were destined to be kissless virgin turbo-autist omega-cuck who will die alone, pathetic, and crying like a bitch, but nobody will notice or care. I'm so triggered, someone please end this suffering.
>>29342189
Also
>P1: Leaves (A) are green (B)
>P2: Chlorophyll (C) causes this green colour of leaves (A, B), which has also been proven to allow things to with this pigment (D) to grow under the influence of sunlight (E)
>C: The sun (F) causes things with green leaves (D) to grow [under the influence of its light (E)
The formula is basically A-B, C-AB D -E, F-D-E.
This argument is also invalid. The premises are true, and the conclusion is true, but the conclusion does not follow from the premises.
>>29342525
>FFS, if you are a hard determinist you must believe that you,as the teacher, are incapable of 'deciding' what to do to help a particular student.
No, that isn't what it means at all. You're fucking retarded holy shit. For example when the teacher imagines all his pupils failing, this will cause him to want to help them be good in school, which will make them study more, which will make them pick the correct choice which is C on the quiz, and so forth. And similarly there's an unimaginable long chain of events that causes the teacher to want to help the children too, you simply can't see it because it is too complex for humans to keep track of. Literally everything in the universe is influencing the teacher to want this, to some tiny degree, either by moving him in that direction, or by NOT moving him in another direction, and the end result is that he tries to help the children. Yes, he is incapable of deciding, it has already been decided for him what he will do.
>>29342525
>A hard determinist, such as Sam harris (the most chuckle-worthy public one) believe that we can make NO choices, not even our own thoughts.
He believes we can "make choices" in the sense of weighing variables and picking an option. What he argues against is that this decision making process and its outcome is somehow not determined by causality.
>Does your pleasant demeanor cause them to change their minds and be interested in the topic? Hell, no.
Nowhere does Sam Harris claim that people's feelings and actions cannot be changed by environmental factors. A pleasant demeanor of another person is an environmental factor.
You are making a strawman.
>>29339877
Yeah. It's not too hard to figure out the catalyst of this line of jive.
The comfiest theory, in my opinion. Makes me happy.
>>29342065
Oh sorry I'm retarded
What I meant to say was that altruism only exists within ones group, and even then it's only because you expect the favor to be returned to you.
>>29342647
Of course it does. It's why you're a loser.
>>29342570
>You have no choice
>Doesn't mean you can't enjoy what you are doing
You completely missed the point, retard.
IF you are a hard determinist "teaching" is meaningless. It is like 'being a monarchist' and 'working in voting rights' but *worse*
>>29342664
>IF you are a hard determinist "teaching" is meaningless
It is. Obviously. Everything is objectively meaningless. That doesn't mean you can't do it, or won't do it. Because humans gain pleasure from doing things more so than they do from not doing things, and thus they do things. This is determinism. Very simple things causing humans, and everything, to act in various ways.
>>29342661
I think it's the opposite, friendo.
>>29342664
>IF you are a hard determinist "teaching" is meaningless.
No, this is wrong.
Being taught something is being influenced by a part of causality.
Determinists do not argue that people can't be taught things.
>>29341360
>everything is either deterministic or acausal
you're arguing off shoddy logic m8, completely ignoring the fact that things could possibly be caused due to some entities will.
>it's just chemicals
just because there is a mechanical process does not invalidate it as a process of your own doing - even if you did not control every specific neuron in your mind.
>yfw being aware of the undeniability of determinism is a hugely deciding factor in one's life
>yfw if you were blissfully unaware of it your life would probably be better
>yfw this is determinism too and it was inevitable that you would realize its truth and consequently be influenced by it
RIP
>>29342698
Of course you do. It's why you're a loser. If I stopped trying, I'd have your life.
>>29342593
Whenever I talk to the entire 'hard determinist no Free Will' crowd I find it full of fuckwits like you, fuckwit.
The basic ethical definisition of 'hard determinism' is
>"The choice between two or more options is not possible"
i.e., no one ever makes a choice, ever.
THAT IS WHAT 'HARD DETERMINISM' MEANS fuckwit.
It means terms like 'argument', 'decide', 'convince', 'teach', etc. are very literally meaningless.
This is why Sam harris is so fucking funny, and why the idea of a 'hard determinist teacher' is likewise hilarious.
>>29342633
Which proves that when Sam Harris states there is no free will he is lying.
>>29342717
>you're arguing off shoddy logic m8, completely ignoring the fact that things could possibly be caused due to some entities will.
What caused that entity's will?
>just because there is a mechanical process does not invalidate it as a process of your own doing - even if you did not control every specific neuron in your mind.
Is there a "you" separate from your brain that controls even ANY neuron in your brain?
>>29342258
But anon, if there is no free will, then it doesn't mean you can't influence others, actually to the contrary, outside influences then are one of the main ways of people shaping their actions.
>>29342699
Actual discussion I had not too long back
>"I am a hard determinist"
>"I ws valedictorian in my HS and took a philosophy class, so you should listen to me"
FUCKING
HILARIOUS
>>29339609
Like anyone sane would go down that neckbeard rabbit hole.
>>29342724
>THAT IS WHAT 'HARD DETERMINISM' MEANS fuckwit.
No.
"Hard determinism (or metaphysical determinism) is a view on free will which holds that determinism is true, and that it is incompatible with free will, and, therefore, that free will does not exist. Although hard determinism generally refers to nomological determinism,[1]"
Determinism means that choices are not made by a magical special intrinsic "soul" within you, or anything mystical that defies the laws of the universe, but instead they are made by all the tiny infinitesimal consequences that have influenced you and your life up to that point. It feels like you are making a choice because you're weighing up options and so forth, but in reality you're just being made to react to the universe's influence. You're not "choosing" anything, it is chosen for you.
>>29342724
>i.e., no one ever makes a choice, ever.
>THAT IS WHAT 'HARD DETERMINISM' MEANS fuckwit.
It means that the "choices" they make are causally determined.
If you define "choose" as looking at two options and picking one that you are programmed to see as more advantageous, then yeah, we make choices all the time. So does a chess program. So does an ant.
If you define "choose" as looking at two options while having the ability to supersede all prior events, your genetics, conditioning, prior experience, and brain chemistry and pick one, without the compulsion of any of those causal factors, then no, we don't make choices like that.
The latter definition of "choose" is the one hard determinists say doesn't exist.
>>29342759
Fucking this.
I'm amazed this is so hard to grasp for some people. But I can't fundamentally blame them because they can't grasp it due to their genetics and conditioning.
>>29339653
Probably because it's always autistic when you losers do it.
>>29342763
It's like a siren song for the miserable and mentally ill.
>>29342762
Yeah, it's unfortunate he was compelled by prior causes to give you a shitty argument.
ITT kids making up excuses for the way they are to desperately try and pass the blame onto something, anything.
>>29342828
>Yeah, it's unfortunate he was compelled by prior causes to give you a shitty argument.
Those causes most likely being frustration with that Anons stupidity, which made him give up on having an actual discussion and instead tell him to shut the fuck up and listen to someone who knows better.
>>29342821
Why can't mentally ill people just use their free will to choose to be mentally healthy?
It's almost like no one is capable of things beyond the capabilities of their brains.
>>29342744
>What caused that entity's will?
it depends on the entity, in a human example it could be a weighing of the positives and negatives based on given information received up to that point.
>Is there a "you" separate from your brain that controls even ANY neuron in your brain?
I don't think neuroscience is advanced enough at this point in time to prove this either way. There is a few experiments noting that the brain is sending signals before you are consciously aware of wanting to move your fingers but due to how little we knew of the brain at the time these were conducted and even now their could be another mechanism somewhere preceding that.
>>29342838
What causes someone to be "the way they are"?
Does a person's personality have no cause?
>>29342861
>I'm a piece of Shit and I just can't help myself no matter what, feel pity for me :^)
>>29342873
>I can't take part in logical arguments so I just start ad homineming and making little meme faces :^)
the worst kind of person desu
>>29341158
If you think the practical application of free will is a myth then you don't really understand determinism.
Recognizing that "you do what you will, but you do not will what you will" has no practical application on everyday decision-making; choices can still be smart or stupid depending on your circumstances and your ability to make smart choices is still very meaningful.
>>29342861
learned from past experiences, each person's experience differs
>>29342873
>>I'm a piece of Shit and I just can't help myself no matter what, feel pity for me :^)
No one actually believes this, or at least very few people do. It's very much possible to be intelligent enough to be fully aware of determinism and still be successful in life because it gives you pleasure. In fact it is even likely.
>>29342838
>and pass the blame onto something, anything.
they should really just start making up deities.
>>29342855
>it depends on the entity, in a human example it could be a weighing of the positives and negatives based on given information received up to that point.
By your own admission, this example shows the human's will being caused by prior events. Therefore it is not an example of libertarian "free will". It's an example of a will determined by prior causes.
>I don't think neuroscience is advanced enough at this point in time to prove this either way. There is a few experiments noting that the brain is sending signals before you are consciously aware of wanting to move your fingers but due to how little we knew of the brain at the time these were conducted and even now their could be another mechanism somewhere preceding that.
There is no evidence whatsoever in neuroscience that there is a "you" who exists independently of your brain controlling how the synapses fire, when the neurons sense stimuli, or where the neurotransmitters go.
Even if there were, that would be no reason to believe such a thing could give you free will.
>>29342881
>Recognizing that "you do what you will, but you do not will what you will" has no practical application on everyday decision-making
I'd be curious to see how you came to this conclusion, because I don't agree.
>>29342883
>learned from past experiences
Then the way a person is is based on prior causes.
>>29342919
Pretty much what it is. Peasent tier 'muh gods' superstition.
I'm almost certain that people who try to deny determinism are just straight up trolling. It's not possible to be this stupid.
>>29342789
>If you define "choose" as looking at two options and picking one that you are programmed to see as more advantageous, then yeah - YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN HARD DETERMINISM AND YOU ACCEPT AT LEAST LIMITED FREE WILL
This is why no more than 10% of the population should be allowed into college - 90% of people are too retarded.
Only a total retard could read the actual definition of a term and then say 'well, yeah, maaaaan, if you use the actual, like *definition*' and act like he had made a point.
>>29342980
>throw rock
>rock falls to the ground and bounces around
>it did not happen because of the rock's shape, the force of the throw, the angle of the impact, the wind, and so forth, but because the rock CHOSE to bouncy in that particular way, with its magical soul that chooses where to go and what to do
>>29342921
>By your own admission, this example shows the human's will being caused by prior events. Therefore it is not an example of libertarian "free will". It's an example of a will determined by prior causes.
I'm not arguing for libertarian free will here, I'm arguing for the ability to think feel and act voluntarily. The will was not completely determined by prior causes, maybe shaped.
>There is no evidence whatsoever in neuroscience that there is a "you" who exists independently of your brain
This doesn't matter, the brain isn't a single entity it's a very complex system. Your conscious mind can weigh in decisions and then alter thought processes or actions resulting in some kind of will, albeit at this point it cannot be proven whether that conscious mind is free or deterministic.
>>29342985
>If you define "choose" as looking at two options and picking one that you are programmed to see as more advantageous, then yeah - YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN HARD DETERMINISM AND YOU ACCEPT AT LEAST LIMITED FREE WILL
You're conflating hard determinism with fatalism.
You really don't know nearly as much about this subject as you think you do. Please do more research.
>>29343000
>the rock CHOSE to bouncy in that particular way, with its magical soul that chooses where to go and what to do
I know you're being sarcastic, but even if that were the case, WHY would the rock's soul "choose" to move the rock that way, as opposed to some other way?
Does the soul choose to move the rock that way for a CAUSE, or is it just random?
>>29343018
>The will was not completely determined
Then where the fuck did it come from? Do you think that when the wind blows it's also just "shaped" by prior causes and the rest is determined by magic?
>>29343030
>Does the soul choose to move the rock that way for a CAUSE, or is it just random?
Yeah, this. Even if someone insists on believing in "free will," the only option would be that is completely random and has no good or sensible reason for anything it does, it just does whatever, so it is even more useless than not having free will.
>>29342779
I do love it when someone cuts and pastes something they do not understand such that it *supports* the argument they are trying to *refute*.
Like you just did.
'Free will does not exist' means 'no one ever makes choices, at all'.
Your 'no' ends with:
>You're not "choosing" anything, it is chosen for you.
Proving that you are so fucking stupid you don't even know you are agreeing that no one evr makes choices
>>29343018
>I'm not arguing for libertarian free will here, I'm arguing for the ability to think feel and act voluntarily.
So you'd say that determinism is compatible with free will (but not libertarian free will)--in other words, you're a compatibilist. Right?
>The will was not completely determined by prior causes, maybe shaped.
Oh, wait a minute. Now you're saying that some things don't have prior causes.
If some things don't have prior causes, then those things are not up to us--they're not up to anything. They'd just happen, without our input. Otherwise, they would be based on prior causes.
And what was the part of the will that was not determined by prior causes? How do you know that such a part exists?
>>29343077
Yes, I am agreeing that no one ever makes choices, because that is the case. That is why I put "choosing" in quotes, because there is no such thing as a real choice, by your definition. There is only cause and effect, the effect being your perceived "choice."
>>29343018
>This doesn't matter, the brain isn't a single entity it's a very complex system.
It's very complex, but that doesn't mean it's not subjected to causality. There is no evidence that it is independent of causality and ample evidence that it is causal (such as the existence of classical conditioning and operant conditioning, the heritability of IQ, the proven effect of neurotransmitters in the brain, and so on).
>Your conscious mind can weigh in decisions and then alter thought processes or actions resulting in some kind of will, albeit at this point it cannot be proven whether that conscious mind is free or deterministic.
What do you mean by "free"? Random, or something else?
>>29342759
LOL
No, you FUCKING MORON.
It means that you can't choose to influence anything NOR how you influence it.
>"I am going to talk to a bunch of senators and convince them to choose to support my favorite program:
translates to
>"I will use my free will to engage the free will of others so they can choose something the way I want to"
Protip - Hard Determinism (i.e., Free Will doesn't exist) precludes the believe that you can choose anything. It all just happens, like robots following a program.
But OF COURSE no proponent of Hard Determinism ever acts like this is true.
See, let's look at the implications:
NO FREE WILL (i.e., Hard Determinism)
1) laws make no sense: people cannot choose whether or not they obey the law
2) punishments make no sense: people cannot choose to break the rules so punishment is unjust
3) concepts like 'justice' and nice' make no sense: people cannot choose anything, so 'giving them what they deserve' is logically incoherent. Likewise, 'mean' and 'nice' are not choices, so judging people on what they do is logically incoherent
4) Pride is incoherent: you did not choose to study; you did not choose to train; you did not choose to do well in college; you did not choose to get a gold medal. Judging such actions as positive or negative is logically incoherent.
5) Arguments are illogical: what you believe and if you change your mind is not an act of will; you do not choose what you believe nor if you change. So being proud of being an atheist or judging theists negatively is irrational.
>>29342971
pretty much.
>muh life is the result of Jebus' will
>>29343077
Let me put it this way. It seems like you think determinism has something to do with people literally not doing anything at all, as in, sitting in a dark room, unmoving, unthinking, trying their hardest not to exist, because of they DO something, that is a choice. Of course this is not the case. "Choices" (in quotes) are made all the time. For example if you are hungry, you may choose to eat a donut. This is a "choice" (in quotes). However the reason you did it is because you were hungry, and you did not choose to be hungry, did you? It just happened, and it MADE you eat the donut. This is why there are no real choices.
(Not to mention the fact that sitting in that dark room not doing anything would ALSO be a "choice" that you were forced to choose because of outside influence frmo the universe, but that is beside the point.)
In short, "choices" exist, of course, that goes without saying, but they are not real choices, they are just the effect of various causes.
>>29343181
More like, our lives are the results of prior events.
What you are positing is the idea that humans can somehow subvert natural processes through magic.
>>29339609
only autists and children argue about this shit. normies will just think you're weird. it's semantics at the end of the day, nothing more than "what you feel is an illusion XD - no its not"
>"believing" in a philosophy that precludes the ability to decide on your beliefs
>>29343175
>1) laws make no sense: people cannot choose whether or not they obey the law
If you enact laws, this will cause people to NOT do illegal things, because it puts them in trouble. This is determinism - you're using laws to make people react in specific ways, because it is beneficial to society.
>2) punishments make no sense: people cannot choose to break the rules so punishment is unjust
Same thing, if there are punishments people are less likely to do harmful things. Determinsm being used.
>>"I will use my free will to engage the free will of others so they can choose something the way I want to"
In reality, what actually happens is, "I've been influenced to want to talk these people and make them choose what I want to, because my past experience in this universe compels me to do so."
>>29343175
This argument is nothing but a strawman.
Hard determinism does not imply that human beings cannot be influenced by their conditioning. You keep trying to force the idea that this is what hard determinists believe. It's not.
You are either ignorant of the position you're trying to refute, or you're engaging in intellectual dishonesty.
Funny thing is, I don't hate you for it because you're compelled to act like a buffoon because of your genetics and conditioning. If your prior circumstances had compelled you to be nicer, or more intelligent, you wouldn't be bullshitting so much.
>>29343175
It is true that nothing "makes sense" in this deterministic world. Everything just is.
>2) punishments make no sense
The punishers have no other option but to punish.
>>29343175
>Pride is incoherent: you did not choose to study
Correct. Pride is entirely misplaced. I for one am moderately "successful" at managing my life but there's nothing to be proud of for as I'm just an pattern in a deterministic universe. It could not have gone any other way, disregarding random quantum noise.
You are conflating determinism with fatalism.
It's a mistake even experienced philosophers make.
>>29343199
>free will is unnatural
pray to zues or whatever and calm down, little buddy
>>29343201
It's a philosophical matter. Philosophers may well be more likely to be further along the autism spectrum than most people.
It might be interesting to do a study on it.
>>29343248
Do you believe in libertarian free will, or are you a compatibilist?
>>29343175
Laws make exceptionally perfect sense however.
My mother gets murdered -> I get pissed off -> I want to punish the person who did it -> I want to prevent it from happening again -> Everyone agrees with me that murder is bad -> We agree to enact laws and use police to enforce them -> Criminals commit less crime
L I T E R A L D E T E R M I N I S M
>>29339877
I'm reasonably succesful and still don't believe in free will. Get your strawmen out
>>29343227
None of that exists. Your life and everyone elses was determined at the moment of the birth of the universe due to action and reaction. We are just walking chemical reactions, afterall.
Everything you think, every decision you make was created by factors outside of you. If those factors were completely different, you would not think the way you do, you would not act the way you do. Everyone is a product of their genetics and their environment. Free will is a meaningless concept thought up to try to justify various moral teachings.
>itt: free will brainlets getting btfo
smugfrog.jpg
>>29343236
The neckbeard's plan is to exhaust his opponent. Well played sir!
>>29343327
What the fuck? Why would it not exist? It very much exists, in fact it would be impossible for it not exist, because it is the result of the actions and reactions of the universe, that were determined long ago at the moment of the birth of the universe.
>things happen because of cause and effect
>therefore they do not exist
???? is this seriously your argument what
>>29343083
Yeah I've never heard of compatibilist til now but that seems about right.
>Oh, wait a minute. Now you're saying that some things don't have prior causes.
I'm not saying that at all, I'm just saying because something is preceded by a cause does not mean the result is entirely influenced by just that cause.
>And what was the part of the will that was not determined by prior causes? How do you know that such a part exists?
The part that decides between chocolate and vanilla ice cream - even if it is based on prior experience there is some part of it that must make the final decision in this instance.
Obviously I can't prove anything otherwise I'd have a peace prize or something but it just feels intuitive from a human perspective.
>>29343169
>It's very complex, but that doesn't mean it's not subjected to causality. There is no evidence that it is independent of causality and ample evidence that it is causal (such as the existence of classical conditioning and operant conditioning, the heritability of IQ, the proven effect of neurotransmitters in the brain, and so on).
The problem is you are looking for extreme cases, I don't think there is such thing as independent causality as far as we can ever know at least. I do think you can influence some of that with your conscious will and act counter to things you may normally do.
>What do you mean by "free"? Random, or something else?
of your conscious choosing
>>29343248
>muh precious Osiris. Far be it from me to question thy witness. Muh lord's will is paramount
>>29343175
He didn't choose to influence them, that doesn't mean he didn't influence them, he's part of chain that led them to change their minds, you don't need any free will to do so.
We don't act like there is hard determinism ongoing, because as long as we cannot predict outcomes of our actions accurately, then they're as good as random/we having free will. There might never even come a time where we will be able to accurately predict human actions as there are too many variables that have to be accounted for and it's inconcieveable to include them in a timely manner.
1) Laws can be used to deter people from making actions that you don't want them to commit, it's just a layer that will be included in people's considerations. Like more people would not pay taxes if it wasn't against the law, as simple as that.
2) Again, punishements are there to deter people from doing actions we consider undesirable, refer to the point one.
3) I agree on both, justice really is nonsensical concept and people aren't nice, but we prefer people to be nice, since it's desireable and pleasurable, thus we reward people that are nice and punish people that aren't nice, so more people would be nice, so the society as while would be better to live in.
4) Yes, pride is ridiculous thing to have on personal level, but there's nothing wrong with enjoying the fact that we people achieved things, even if we were predetermined to arrive to them. I really do adore that we've come so far as to realize what's deseases, we've undercovered radiation, we've landed on the moon.
5) Just because there is determinism it doesn't mean there is no objective outside reality and if there is one, then we can make conclusions about it via evidence or arguments. And it's true that we as people don't actually argue on plane of evidence, but more of style where we prefer one explanation over other, these people have different views, but over time we can change how we view things, like with heliocentrism.
>>29343369
>your conscious will
And where does your "conscious will" come from?
>>29343335
deerrp
>>29343201
>normies will just think you're weird
OH NO
How can I ever live on with Normies perceiving me as weird!?!?
>>29343395
>typing out this much jive
>>29343411
He seemed confused and in a need of an explanation, so I provided him one. I agree that my input will probably be in vain, but some others might find is useful instead of him.
>>29343400
neuroscientists have been asking that question for decades
I don't fucking know mate.
>>29343386
Real men worship Setesh, faggot.
>>29339609
One man's normie trigger, is another's neckbeard magnet.
Om Namah Shivaya
>>29343369
>your conscious will
But WHY does your """""""""conscious will"""""""" choose to do that? Let's say you're hungry. Normally, you would go eat. Of course, you can use your """"""conscious will"""""" to stop yourself from doing so, to go against the determinism that resulted in your hunger. But why do you do that? For NO REASON at all? Then it is random, and this is very bad far you, because it means you do completely nonsensical things without any logic or reason at all. Isn't it more likely that you choose not to go get something to eat because you're lazy, you're too comfortable in your chair, and this wish outweighs your wish for food? Or perhaps you do not go get food because you are fat and want to lose weight. Or perhaps, you do not go get food, simply because you want to prove to yourself that you have free will. But you are a fool if you do this because the only reason you "CHOOSE" to remain in your seat is literally because of determinism - because you viewed this thread and thought about it and now want to prove you have free will, so you "decide" to not eat, but you were only forced to do so by outside factors...
>>29343332
An argument against free will is an insistance in the existance of god, and an argument against is an argument in favor of atheism.
Neither side can produce hard evidence, but the science supports free will.
Bice bait thread, though.
>>29343548
Uh, yes, one side can, because free will is impossible. Things cannot happen for no reason.
>>29343545
They aren't outside factors, they're decisions. You can't be this dumb.
I wanted to call you a fucktard, there's no reason not to, yet I choose to imply it instead. For no good reason, I have decided to avoid outright calling you a fucktard and there's nothing in your theory to explain that away.
>>29343579
>I have decided
>>29343189
I don't really know much about or have a stance on all this, but what makes you choose the donut? Like why do people have different preferences on food, colors, etc.?
>>29343565
Are you retarded?
If you were to travel at twice the speed of light, first 1 lightyear away, then back, you'd simply arrive right when you left.
There's no timeline, nothing being clung to, it isn't supported by science.
You've yet to give one legit example of your claim in action.
>>29343579
>he "chooses" to imply something instead of saying it outright because he thinks it will prove his argument
>he does not realize that this is what compelled him to phrase it in this way
>he was forced to say that he was not forced to say the things he's saying
Literal pottery, 10/10. I think we're done here, gg.
>>29343545
why or the reason doesn't matter at all - we are arguing about free will here not logic or reason behind your decisions
the outside factors did not force anything, maybe they influenced that particular decision but at no point can you prove they compelled me without any other option to do x
>>29343645
>at no point can you prove they compelled me without any other option to do x
I most definitely can. The proof is in the pudding - you DID it, therefore you were compelled to do it. Why else would you do it? You wouldn't. And you didn't. You DID.
>>29343597
Fucktard.
There's a difference between being predetermined to make decisions one way rather than another based on upbringing and the concept of destiny.
There have been several tests run on the matter, people frequently do things seemingly at random, people frequently weigh options and pick the best of those presented.
Your argument has no substance.
>>29343660
That's circular logic my man, I can tell you've never argued in a civil way so I'll just tell you that makes your entire argument invalid
>>29343665
>seemingly at random
>seemingly
Seemingly, of course, no one can deny that. It is imperceptible most of the time. But it is impossible to ACTUALLY do something "at random."
>>29343638
I was not forced to reply at all, aspy.
I gained nothing from taking the time to make my point, I chose to do it for the lulz. Same reason I replied to you just now. I chose to, for no real reason, deal with it.
Think before you start hitting keys.
r9k baka.
the reason why no gf.
>>29343695
I used to argue about free will with my gf.
Now she's just annoyed by determinism and I shut up.
>>29343692
>I was not forced to reply at all, aspy.
Yes, you were. Because you did. Or are you trying to imply that you did not post and reply to me? But your post is right there. In other words you ended up replying. Because of determinism. It would also have been possible that you had gotten tired of the conversation and not replied, which would also be determinism.
>>29343686
So if I were to throw a handful of breadcrumbs at the beach and base a decision on the number of seconds it took for a gull to eat one, you think the gull is an extension of myself and my final decision is actually predetermined by the seagull-human hivemind?
Do explain.
>>29343692
>I gained nothing from taking the time to make my point, I chose to do it for the lulz.
You say you gained nothing, but then say you did it for the lulz.
If you gained lulz, you gained something.
>>29343725
Not the poster you're responding to, but yes, your final "decision" is predetermined.
The initial idea to base your action on the number of seconds is the consequence of an uncountable number of preconditions.
>>29343725
No. The final decision is predetermined by whatever causes it was that compelled you to want to throw the breadcrumbs to let them decide for you. A possible cause for this could be that you wish to disprove determinism, to leave things up to "random chance," when in actuality, if you do throw the breadcrumbs, no other outcome than you doing so would have been possible, because you were compelled to want to do it by previous experiences.
>>29343711
So your entire argument is based on circular reasoning and confirmation bias?
You have no free will because the decisions you make are predetermined, which is because you lack freewill, because the decisions you make are predetermined, which is because...
'You replied, I believe you must be forced to do anything you do, therefore your reply was predetermined, see above for reasoning.
Lololololol
>>29343766
No, the argument is based on the fact that effects happen because of a cause. This is irrefutable.
>>29343760
And the decision I made based on the gull-timer suddenly doesn't factor?
No, doesn't work that way.
I have a chart of numbers and various vastly different actions, I throw the crumbs. A seagull eats a crumb, I stop the timer and pick that action.
Explain how I, personally, chose to perform an action that a gull happened to choose as a natural number generator.
Is this thread nothing but teenagers who don't understand the obvious flaws in theor argument?
Thanks, 'science' channel, thanks for running a show on free will for the idiots to cling to. -.-
>>29343794
Of course they do, what does that have to do with anything?
Is the concept of a universe that has laws really that difficult to grasp without throwing your hands up,and acting like a brooding teen?
>>29343369
>Yeah I've never heard of compatibilist til now but that seems about right.
Thing is, compatibilists are determinists. The "free will" they believe in is not the ability to actually make choices without being compelled to make the choices you make by prior causes. It's (in short) the ability to do something without "external compulsion" (what qualifies as "external compulsion" is of course a debate both within and without compatibilism).
>I'm not saying that at all
So you are a determinist?
>I'm just saying because something is preceded by a cause does not mean the result is entirely influenced by just that cause.
Events are generally the product of multiple causes. We're in agreement on that point, but I don't see how this means that some part of your will is free of prior causes. Remember, that's what the context of this particular sub-discussion was about.
>The part that decides between chocolate and vanilla ice cream - even if it is based on prior experience there is some part of it that must make the final decision in this instance.
But is whether the "final decider" goes for chocolate or vanilla determined by prior causes, or could it really go either way, even in identical circumstances? If you answer the latter, then you're not arguing for compatiblist free will--you're arguing for libertarian free will.
>I do think you can influence some of that with your conscious will and act counter to things you may normally do.
But wouldn't there be a CAUSE for why you're acting counter to how you normally do?
>>29343807
>Explain how I, personally, chose to perform an action that a gull happened to choose as a natural number generator.
1. You are not living in a vacuum.
2. Just because it's unpredictable does not mean it's random. The outputs of even simple mathematical PRNGs are unpredictable. Of course no human can predict anything that's even more complex, i.e. the entire world.
>>29343794
Some interpretations of quantum mechanics hold that at the subatomic scale, some things happen without a cause.
>>29341360
You're walking through a forest,
there are three paths
which one do you take?
If you take any or choose to turn around, you have free will.
No amount of previous conditions determine that. You do what you want.
>>29343839
You've yet to offer any proof for your argument, you just keep falling back on circular reasoning.
>>29343841
Random quantum noise may affect the macroscopic world but that does in no way substantiate "freedom", whatever that even is.
>>29343854
Inb4 "no u chose path that you were predetermined to take because no free will"
That isn't an answer, it's circular reasoning.
>>29343865
Uh, huh..? What? So now you see evidence against your argument and say "no, that doesn't count because it doesn't support my argument"..?
Go to bed, kid.
>>29339609
Your hypothesis has been proven incorrect.
This is more cat nip for neckbeards then normies.
>>29341894
>Since when is an afterlife improbable? I'm an agnostic atheist, but I'd like to see you definitively prove that there's any more chance of an afterlife not existing over there being one.
None of the scientific observations humans made in all of recorded history hint at the existence of an afterlife.
The afterlife may exist but nothing we know about physics, chemistry and human physiology support the idea.
>>29343854
>If you take any or choose to turn around, you have free will.
That does not follow.
>No amount of previous conditions determine that.
That doesn't follow either. There likely is a cause for which of the four directions you go in. Maybe you're very hungry, and your hunger CAUSES you to take the left path, because there is a raspberry bush there. Maybe you're tired, so you turn back, because your house is back there. Maybe you have to go to the bathroom, and the right path has a port-a-john. Maybe you like snakes, and the center path has a lot of snakes on it.
The strongest desire will win out.
>You do what you want.
My wants are not free of prior causes.
>>29339609
This post does nothing but lure autists in, the 'normies' have no problem disproving determinism and going about their day while the autists repeat their stance over and over.
Is this meant to be autist bait?
>>29343915
Normies only get irritated and mad.
Neckbeards will also discuss it.
>238 replies
/r9k/ confirmed normie board?
>>29343951
>disproving determinism
Where is that proof?
Please link to a peer-reviewed disproof of determinism. Pro tip: You won't find it in physics, chemistry or any actual science.
>>29343954
normies don't give half a shit about pointless internet arguments.
>>29343940
You're changing his scenario.
No berries or bathrooms. No signs.
Just identical trees in an unfamiliar place.
You keep falling back on 'what if hungry' type arguments. Not applicable here, now what?
>>29343833
you are thinking way too black and white here and trying very hard to group me into one of these groups
all I'm arguing for is free will i.e. The ability to choose, think, and act voluntarily.
>I don't see how this means that some part of your will is free of prior causes.
Nothing can ever be completely free of prior cause - that does not mean that it was determined all along. There is some part that weighs out the prior cause and makes the final decision on it, and can go either way. You are again thinking about this in a very black and white way with no allowance for middle ground.
>But wouldn't there be a CAUSE for why you're acting counter to how you normally do?
The cause would be a combination of external, prior events and your own free will.
>>29343974
I choose to disbelieve in determinism, for no real reason, therefore I am correct.
You mad?
>>29343974
quantum sciences
>>29343865
>>29343913
No, he's right. I'm the one who posted >>29343841
If our decisions are the product of random quantum events, that doesn't give us free will. It means that we're at the mercy of whatever bullshit random little particles decide to pull, and we can't do anything about it.
>>29343974
If anything, Physics and Chemistry support it
>>29344006
that doesn't give us free will but don't the particles themselves have free will? Disproves determinism.
Is the outcome always black and white? Most "successful" people got that way because of societal circumstances like being born into supportive families that ensured their success but others were capable of overcoming all handicaps, even their own upbringing and environment, to become successful, sometimes vastly more successful than those who's success we could attribute to their family and environment.
You get what I'm saying?
>>29343935
DMT release from the pineal to the cerebrospinal fluid surrounding it just before death. There's your god.
Determinism is real
Your mind is so chaotic (technically speaking) that this fact is irrelevant and the emergent phenomenon of "free will" is a reasonably accurate model of the situation.At least, that's my opinion XD no hate ;^3 nothing is real everybody's opinion is equally valid
>>29344006
I have never had a particle force me to fuck an ugly bitch at a party. You are wrong.
>>29344044
That's just the near-death experience.
>>29343998
/thread
Original G, yo
>>29344079
And that's god. Disprove.
It isn't god because god doesn't exist, eh? Or because it can be proven? What's the problem?
>>29344058
Best response ITT.
We have control over minor events and actions, however all large or significant happenings are predetermined and cannot be avoided. For example, I can choose to snap my fingers right now, and that was my decision, my free will. However, significant things such as my date of death are all predetermined and will become reality no matter what minor decisions I make in life.
The question is, does this really matter? If I cannot possibly know the predetermined outcomes in life, why does it matter that they're predetermined? They will feel spontaneous and surprising at the time of their occurrence, so why does it matter?
Well done lads! This thread is some top shelf neckbeard bloviating. I'm working on a summation for r/4chan. Bravo!
>>29344113
>That's God
It's DMT interacting with serotonin receptors, lowering the blood flow in the default mode network, and other simple physiological effects.
That can be measured, and was measured, starting with the Strassman studies.
How do you derive God from any of the measurable facts?
>>29344116
Sure is samefag in here
Original FFS
>>29344122
Uh, wat
No, there's no such thing as fate and even the autists aren't here to argue in it's favor.
>>29344140
Understanding a thing doesn't change what it is. That experience is the foundation of modern religions, it is literally you meeting god, the thing that people worship.
Disprove, I'm waiting.
>>29343980
You're positing a very unrealistic, "sterile" hypothetical here. Nevertheless, if all 4 paths are identical, my causal history (or possibly random quantum events) would still determine which one I took.
Or do I have no causal history? Am I just a consciousness that spawned in the middle of a forest with 4 paths, with no conditioning?
>>29344178
>Disprove, I'm waiting.
Smh
>>29344166
>there's no such thing as fate
Got any evidence to back that up?
>>29344229
>Got any evidence to back that up?
Smh
I told my psych why I believed free will didn't exist and how life didn't really matter and that the universe had no intrinsic value and she diagnosed my with pschyzotypal personality disorder.
>>29344206
For the sake of argument, yes.
You are simply placed there.
Blanket argument for anyone defending free will;
Do people make any choices not motivated by external circumstances?
Think about it. Everything we do, every "choice" we make, is in response to our environment.
Why do you eat food? Because you're hungry. Why do some "choose" not to eat food? They see themselves as overweight, wish to protest some external antagonist, or any other variety of motivations.
Why am I debating free will on an imageboard? Because I read about determinism somewhere and figured I'd sound smart if I had an opinion on it.
Literally everything we do is motivated. Give me an example of a choice and I'll give possible motivations.
If everything we do is caused by our environment, we cannot have free will, because we cannot make choices one our own.
>>29344229
Got any evidence to refute that?>>29344248
Righfully so.
>>29344248
Psychologist are often notoriously unscientific.
It's called a "soft science" for a reason.
90% useless woo woo.
>>29343987
>you are thinking way too black and white here and trying very hard to group me into one of these groups
That's because compatibilism and libertarianism contradict each other. You can't be both. You can't argue two contradictory positions and expect that to be accepted.
>all I'm arguing for is free will i.e. The ability to choose, think, and act voluntarily.
What do you mean by "voluntarily"?
>Nothing can ever be completely free of prior cause - that does not mean that it was determined all along.
What do you mean? If something is not free of prior causes, then those prior causes will make that thing happen. That's what a "cause" is.
>There is some part that weighs out the prior cause and makes the final decision on it, and can go either way.
If you believe this, then you're not a compatibilist. You believe in libertarian free will.
>You are again thinking about this in a very black and white way with no allowance for middle ground.
There's a difference between standing the middle ground and blatantly contradicting yourself, and I'm sorry to say but you are doing the latter.
>The cause would be a combination of external, prior events and your own free will.
If not for causes, why would your "free will" pick one thing and not the other?
You are shoehorning this vaguely defined "free-will" (which is vacillating from compatilbist free will to libertarian free will, two things that contradict each other) into places where there is no logical reason to put it.
>>29344287
funny psychology teaches that human behavior is caused by genetics and environment, never mentioning free will
>>29344268
>having an external motivation proves determinism
uhhhh?
if I want to smash my balls and be on the pain olympics just because it gets me off that's still a free choice
>>29344248
>I presented one meme and received another in exchange
>>29344314
Did you read the bottom part of my post?
You're not doing it out of free will. You're doing it because it gets you off. If it didn't get you off, you wouldn't do it.
>>29344314
>I want
How did that "want" emerge?
>>29344254
Whichever direction I get the urge to go in (assuming I have urges and and not simply content to just sit there and do nothing), either there will be a cause for it (an instinct, an inkling, whatever), or the urge will be acausal, and thus not up to my will, but random phenomena at the quantum scale.
Robots and normies are the same trash
Normies like to think that free will exists so they feel they accomplished something by themselves and not by luck
While robots like to think determinism is real so they take no responsibilites in their actions and failures
>>29343227
>This is determinism
No, idiot, it is free will
>>29343236
>"I don't actually know what hard determinism means, the post"
>>29339609
>mfw it works
>mfw normies are actually getting triggered
>>29343281
>"Please, please don't tell me that my belief is free will is actually belief in free will"
FTFY, fuckwit
>>29344404
Please, elaborate. I'd like to hear your reasoning.
>>29344337
it was my choice to pursue that motivation bud, just cause there is an external motivation doesn't mean I didn't have the option to pursue it or not, otherwise I'd try and rape every woman I thought was attractive on the street.
>>29344443
Please, show me the definition of hard determinism. From a reliable source, not just something you made up.
>>29344296
I guess there is no free will for you when you just piggyback off of others ideas without trying to expand on them or think for yourself.
>>29344458
normies? triggered? Try neckbeards getting carpal tunnel.
>>29344475
And if you chose not to, it'd only be because of other external circumstances. Perhaps you're afraid of doing damage to your body, or have been taught to be disgusted by your desire.
The only reason you don't go around raping everyone is because your ego/superego (given to you by society) has taught you it's wrong.
>>29344475
and why can't you choose to rape every woman? guess you never really had a choice
>>29344498
Compatibilism and libertarianism contradict each other. You cannot have both. Libertarian free will is the idea that in a given situation, you can really choose A or B--both are real possibilities, and whether you pick A or B is "up to you", AND free of prior causes.
Compatibilists say no, only one of A or B is a REAL possibility, but you still have something worth calling "free will" if you don't have a gun to your head when you pick A or when you pick B. But whether you pick A or B is still determined by prior causes, and again, only one of them is actually the real possibility.
These two positions cannot be reconciled. They are in direct contradiction.
I'm disappointed by how free will believers so frequently resort to bullshit insinuations and insults instead of actually having an argument.
PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT TO ALL NORMIES THINKING OF RESPONDING TO THIS THREAD WITH ANTI-DETERMINISM SENTIMENTS
You are considering making a post. A post to disprove all of these autistic determinists ITT. It will be a ""good"" post. I imagine you will make a serious effort to present yourself as intelligent and your views as well thought out. You will use appropriate vocabulary, you will ensure that you have made no spelling errors, and you will double check your punctuation to make sure it is exactly as you want it. However, despite these efforts, you will inevitably present yourself as nothing more than a weak-minded normalfag, eager to take the bait. See, the OP said it himself:
>Guaranteed Normie trigger
Do yourself a favour, and try to avoid getting so triggered in the future.
>>29344599
>my opponents are clearly all idiots, so I won't even bother arguing with them
This is 4chan, you're gonna see some memes no matter where you go. Just because we use them jokingly doesn't mean we don't have a serious opinion to share in the process.
And sure, there will be a few that use them seriously, but they don't represent the entirety of the community.
Using a strawman to avoid debate is no way to love your life anon
>>29344717
>VERY mad normie typing at INCREDIBLE hihg speeds
>>29344320
>>I presented one meme and received another in exchange
Holy fucking shit I guffawed.
>>29339609
The only determinism I think might have any credibility is genetic determinism. I just hate the retarded fedoras who say:
>lol liphe is a simyoolashuun xDDD
Although there is research that says just 80% of our personality is genetic the other 20% determined environmentally, so I guess there is at least some randomness to it all.
>>29344894
>80% genetics, 20% environment
>That makes 100%
What percent of that is personal choice? You proved yourself wrong with your own post.
>>29344443
are you referring to his post or to yours? because it looks like you're the one that doesn't know. Psychological conditioning, under the lens of determinism, would simply be a deterministic process that deterministically influences how the mind of the conditioned subject works. It would not refure conditiong, which would be retarded, because if german people adopt a chinese kid and teach it to speak german, it'll learn german, not chinese, which is proof enough of conditioning.
>>29339609
gr8 b8 m8, h8 2b l8. i w8 4 b8 so gr8 each d8. 8/8
Quantum theory states that the universe is not deterministic, it is probabilistic.(Free will is still a meme, because the laws of physics still define the multiple paths that could happen)
>>29344964
Learn to read, dipshit. Nowhere in my post did I imply there's personal choice in genetic determinism. Shouldn't you be on /r/atheism, fatass?
>>29345029
The environmental factors also are not up to "personal choice" free from genetics.
The way you're raised till you're 18 (give or take) is not up to you at all.
After 18ish, your "personal choices" are still going to be based on your genetics and all the conditioning you got for those 18 years.
literally zero room for free will
>>29345029
What a rational person you are, shouting insults at anyone who disagrees with you
Where is the personal choice at all, then? What part of us isn't determined by genetics or environment?
I'm not gonna bother replying to the two autists above me because they apparently lost the ability to read somewhere along the line.
>>29345122
>I won't even bother arguing with you, you're clearly stupid
>Never mind that I either didn't present my opinion well or it isn't as valid as I believe
>well you see....
All of you. Go take a walk.
>>29343736
Lulz are not gained, they simply are.
They are a force of that runs alongside human will, a modifier that ensures free wills' existance.
>>29342721
Do you genuinely believe this is true for everyone? Are you really refusing to accept that there are some people who are so repellent and inept that any amount of effort will never lead to success?
>>29344206
If a random event determines the outcome, there goes your 'everything is predetermined' argument.
itt: neckbeards grasping at straws
>>29344458
It's just a bunch of autists in an acho chamber and "normies" tossing in a post to set them straight before they move on.
I don't thinl any 'normal' poster can fathom an autist seeing a logical refutation of their determinist worldview and simply ignoring it and keeping right on arguing with every new poster.
>>29343281
Ahahah, wow. You make a clear case against determinism and seem convinced that it favored determinism.
Not sure if b8, well played.
>>29345249
>itt
just this thread? isn't that most of the internet?
There is no free will. Everything has cause and effect.
>>29345301
Shots fired
#360noscope
#tendies
>>29345319
everyone go home, professor internet here finally solved the whole controversy once and for all. from this day forth, /r9k/ poster 29345319 will be forever known as the celebrated genius who overturned all of the false arguments that have been made by thousands of philosophers for centuries on the free will vs determinism debate. we have witnessed a spectacular moment.
sir, your nobel prize is on the way. please post your name, address, email address, phone number, SSN, and credit card number for shipping costs.
Anyone else notice that despite the title of this thread the most triggered people here are neckbeards? If you even sway away from determinism even a little they all jump on you in pure rage. I guess autism does that to people.
>>29345022
Despite living in a chaotic universe, causation is still there. I agree with you on the multiple paths of probability.
>>29345210
I'm a hard incompatibilist.
Acausal quantum events, if they exist, still don't give us free will.
What could be less "free" than being entirely at the mercy of random events happening on the subatomic scale?
If a particle decays wrong, WHOOPSIE, you just stabbed yourself in the scrotum because muh randomness, muh acausality.
If our wills are caused by acausal quantum events, life is basically up to luck, not "free will".
Normies will just spout
>muh quantum theory
Even if they likely don't understand it thinking it means they won.
>>29345395
>If you even sway away from determinism even a little they all jump on you in pure rage.
I have been arguing that free will is incompatible with both determinism and indeterminism.
>>29345395
>I guess autism does that to people.
It's not Autism. It's actually pragmatic.
When the alternative is accepting responsibility for your choices failures, you can see why determinism becomes popular. It's a coping mechanism for dealing with shame.
>>29345549
but free will is just a coping mechanism for dealing with shame too -- the shame of being handed a better life that you didn't earn. BOTH perspectives -- not just the one you dislike -- are ways that people numb the pain of a world they don't understand resulting in different levels of opportunity hand happiness for different people with no rhyme or reason behind it.
>>29345549
>When the alternative is accepting responsibility for your choices failures, you can see why determinism becomes popular. It's a coping mechanism for dealing with shame.
You're acting like your choices are the only thing that determine your life. When your life is largely affected even by things out of your control completely.
>>29345573
Accept, if I stopped trying my performance would suffer.
Your voodoo superstition nonsense is irrelevant.It's just rhetoric.
>>29345635
*Except
oregegeno
>>29345635
Exactly. One is work and one faith.
Determinism is the same thing as hillbilly church shit.
>implying this matters or can be figured out in any deductive way
>implying there aren't more possibilities (random chance especially)
The future already exists. When you try to tell people this, they pretend you aren't even there.
Everyone wants to be special. It's what gets them jobs, happy families, relationships. Nobody wants to realize that the future of any space-faring race has to come to terms with the futility of it all.
Just take Quantum Mechanics. It's so painfully obvious that things happen for a reason. QM would have us believe that all things happen at random. People actually use the fact that it 'describes' how computers work as proof of the theory's accuracy. A fruitless endeavor. All they are doing is stating an observation - something appears. Nowhere does it follow that this is by chance. People are stupid. Popsci has completely run rampant in today's society as people are incapable of tackling such issues for themselves. For some stupid reason it has become acceptable to appeal to authority figures' misplaced opinions and reiterate unfounded claims to appear 'smart'.
The future already exists. This is what the double slit experiment shows us and yet has been completely misunderstood. The reason living organisms have a time bias of past-present-future is because energy must be acquired from available states to survive the future, known as the law of entropy.
I just look on the current state of humanity and weep. For most, it won't end well. People are just so weak. The irony is that the more you know, the less happy you tend to be. Perhaps we are dead-ends and the future is some hybrid of happy-go-lucky family oriented person mixed with cold and logical mind. It won't be my cold and logical mind, that's for sure.
>>29345573
The truth is it doesn't matter. It's really is just rhetoric.
You're a 3/10 nerd loser whether by your choices or divine mandate. You idiots spending 8 hours trying to appoint blame is hilarious. Who gives a fuck? The world is what it is, and certain things are unknowable.
>>29345730
>You're a 3/10 nerd loser whether by your choices or divine mandate.
That matters a lot. If it was by divine mandate, why should you work hard to compensate for your shortcomings? You didn't choose to have them. It's not fair. What kind of spineless faggot would just accept it?
>>29345756
I don't give a fuck what you do. Find your own peace.
That being said, if I had a son who was kicking the determinism huckster bullshit, I'd set him straight pronto.
>>29345796
You don't give a fuck? So you admit that some people have to unfairly work much harder? And you say you don't give a fuck? And still normies are surprised that some inferior people are hateful and bitter.
We get told we have to work extra hard because of something we couldn't change. Despite this we will be compared to people who didn't have to. And you people just don't give a fuck? All normies deserve to get nuked.
>>29345635
>>29345730
I'm bathing in victory when the only responses to my epic takedown of this whole retarded argument are "well, it really FEELS like I'm the master of my own destony, so I MUST be and philosophy is STUPID." Like, niggers, are you even onto the fat that this is a philosophical discussion?
>>29345842
I do not care. Like I said, it's your peace to make. Your rhetoric is literally worthless.
>>29345796
>That being said, if I had a son who was kicking the determinism huckster bullshit, I'd set him straight pronto.
Would you try to convince him that free will was real by giving him a logical argument?
Or, what, would you just be like, "NO DETERMINISTS IN MY HOUSE"?
lmao
>>29345867
I don't get how are normies surprised that mass shootings happen if they have attitude like you do. You shit on people for things they couldn't change and when they complain about it, you say you don't care. And when they fight back, you say they are somehow bad for fighting back.
>>29345730
>The truth is it doesn't matter. It's really is just rhetoric.
No, it does matter.
If determinism is true, it has profound effects for what rational responses to the trials of daily life would be.
It would have profound ramifications for education, our legal system, basically everything.
>>29345882
I'd demonstrate the worthlessness of rhetoric.
>>29345549
>When the alternative is accepting responsibility for the original sin of Adam and Eve, you can see why rejecting Abrahamic religion became popular. It's a coping mechanism for people who want to commit sins and pretend like they're getting away with it.
>>29345680
>implying this matters or can be figured out in any deductive way.
It already has been.
>implying there aren't more possibilities (random chance especially)
Randomness is not free will. It's random.
If your will is determined randomly then you're at the mercy of subatomic particles.
>>29345914
>I'd demonstrate the worthlessness of rhetoric.
Do you even know what "rhetoric" means? I doubt it.
Why not define it for us?
I seriously doubt you'll do it.
>>29345967
of course.
Truth hurts
Why don't you tell me what >>29345859 won?
>>29345933
Yes. That's right.
oc
>>29346010
You still didn't say why should inferior people just accept bad treatment because of something out of their control.
>>29346140
>because of something out of their control.
What is it that you think is out of your control?
Jim Abbot pitched in the major leagues. Boogie2988 is a minor celebrity. Ric Ocasek married Paulina Porizkoza. World is full of things people didn't see coming.
>>29339653
Every aspect of western society revolves around the idea of people having free will.
>>29346198
These people are outliers. Just as there being some lottery winners doesn't mean everyone can win the lottery.
>>29346010
Let's get back to the topic at hand. What do you mean by "rhetoric is worthless"?
Do you mean philosophy and logical discourse are worthless?
>>29346239
Of course. Success by mathematical concept is deviant from the norm.
>>29346235
At one point, everything in Western society revolved around Christianity. Now this is no longer the case.
>>29346247
Yes. But what normies assume is that their success is ONLY due to hard work and effort. When in fact it's very much determined by luck.
>>29345415
So what you're saying is that when proven wrong, you simply twist what you're given into evidence that supports your original viewpoint, changing your view retroactively if necessary.
Interesting.
>>29345596
Mostly by your choices. Choices you make of your own free will. Deal with it.
>>29345949
>It already has been
Physicists still argue about the Heisenberg Principle, and they're the source of truth here
>Randomness is not free will. It's random.
>If your will is determined randomly then you're at the mercy of subatomic particles.
This is exactly what I meant by that
Still, though, this is all completely useless information
>>29345691
The future doesn't 'already exist,' you're suffering from delusional thinking.
Matter and energy act on one another in real-time and are perceived by humans just as quickly and accurately as our minds and bodies will allow. It really is that simple.
>>29346337
That's not true. Your starting point and things out of your control determine much more.
>>29345756
He's not saying to accept it, simply to accept that that's where your decisions thus far have gotten you.
You have the free will to make better choices, don't let the fucktard fedora-tippers in here tell you otherwise. They've simply fallen to delusional thinking to justify their sucky lives and remove blame from themselves.
>>29345842
Nobody ever said life would be fair.
Not even going to get into this, I'll simply say that sometimes life isn't unfair and you can kill yourself or you can make an effort. Nobody cares one way or the other but you.
>>29346265
It's hard work and effort wayyyyyyyyyy more than luck. You think Jim Abbot got lucky to be born with one hand?
The truth is outsiders OUGHT to be very good at things. How are you really spending all of the free time? What are your passions? Popularity isn't everything. You dudes always leave that part out.
>>29345911
What? If it's true, your 'rational responses' were what you would have done anyway and it makes no difference. Durrr
>>29346245
Philosophy with absolutely no practical application outside of deflecting blame for your poor life choices is beyond worthless, yes.
>>29346375
of course the future already exists
sadly you have already made up your mind and will never learn the truth
>>29342203
>>29342523
>>29346235
>>29341295
>>29342717
>>29342985
>>29343077
Free will is a meme. And all great philosophers have rejected it.
Cf. "The bondage of the will" & "The bondage and the liberation of the will".
And now grow a dick.
>>29346379
Keep telling yourself that, buddy.
Ask your mother for honey mustard with your tendies tonight, you've earned it by doing the best you could with your sucky starting point and overwhelming random events that put you in the basement.
>>29346486
Kek
The trolling is subtle, but has a nice mouth feel
>>29339609
tfw i trigger a normie am i rite :^^) sweating heavily
>muh no free will bah wahhh lets not do anything at all since everything is predetermined, born in africa? well shit better just die am i right XD
actually unironically kill yourselves, right now (you wont you attention hungry fucks)
i came here to post a funny meme lmao but all im seeing is deprived of any logic or humanity retards that think they're smart, children that never went through any mental illness at all and think theyre special because they fell for the special depression meme
fun fact - people that are actually fucked have so much will to live and survive you fucking idiots in america posting from your daddy bought pcs will never ever have
where and what you are you are is entirely your fault and your fault only, and you deserve all of it
by posting here saying how buhh uhh hurt you are you are only worsening your condition, because -you- are garbage, cant trust anyone because you are inherently a person that should not be trusted, hence why you project yourself onto others and see what you want to see
you are a trainwreck because you want to be one.
my grandma worked with autistic children. people with cancer. people without legs or hands.any of these had more honour than any of you here. what the fuck are you doing? ive been to a mental hospital. seen what happend to my mom. had my share of trauma, struggled with more shit you here fucks EVER will. been stabbed, drugged, run over. schizophrenia, phobias, voices at night, panic attacks. ocd, neurosis, dad alcoholism, history of bullying, rape, and abuse. drop out of 3 schools, kicked out, confused, left alone to die im fucking grateful.
now i travel for a tv station, practicing the tools that will allow me to continue elsewhere, all with some jap lessons in between. planning on working on trailers/anime in the future. cherishing every moment.
or you know, i could spend another day on r9k instead
its not the normies - its (you)
>>29346313
Let's try making an argument, shall we?
>>29346546
no I just can't be bothered to throw shit at monkeys
>>29346337
>Choices you make of your own free will
Are you talking about libertarian free will?
normie determinist here, feels p good
The majority of the posts in favor of determinism demonstrate an admirable level of patience for retardation and bullshit.
>ITT people literally arguing against the logical validity of an "A or not A" premise
>>29346397
But you haven't disproven what I've said.
>>29346416
Well I'm saying it should be. What good reason is there to get treated worse based on something you couldn't change? What kind of fucking sense does that make?
>>29346417
>It's hard work and effort wayyyyyyyyyy more than luck.
[citation needed]
And no. Couple anecdotes don't prove shit.
>>29346519
Why should I work hard to get what Chad gets easily?
>>29346483
>Philosophy with absolutely no practical application outside of deflecting blame for your poor life choices is beyond worthless, yes
That's not the case with the nonexistence of free will. Understanding that free will is a myth holds many benefits for society and the individual.
Free will is basically a magical monster that we can blame things on. "Oh, why are all these crimes happening? Can't be due to poverty, or a lack of education, or nutritional deficiencies, or other factors. Nope, it's just FREE WILL. Can't do anything about it!"
When you understand that free will is a myth, you can start looking at the CAUSES for your own actions and those of others.
Also, the truth is important in and of itself. Don't you agree?
And the truth is clearly that free will does not exist.
Either all our actions are the products of prior causes (determnism), or some/all of our actions are due to the effects of quantum acausal phenomena (and we cannot cause those phenomena, as those phenomena by definition have no cause).
The logic is airtight. The consequences are not that bad.
And yet people still cling to free will belief and, as logic cannot defend this belief, they resort to smears and insinuations. It's unfortunate.
>>29344268
>>29344337
>>29344559
If you define "free" as "free from EVERY influence" ... sure.
Only noone aside of u uses that shitty definition.
By that logic in the west ... heck even in a hypothetical libertarian society you wouldn't be free/ living in freedom since you'd be still imprisoned in your body and only death could set you free.
By your definition of freedom, freedom and existence are mutually exclusive.
>>29346600
If you want what 'chad' has, work for it. Or don't. You seem to think anybody cares or that you were promised a fair life or something.
'It should be' wishful thinking. No 'reason' is needed. That's just the way it is.
You can sit around and make excuses and 'study' 'philosophy' all day until you find things that justify every poor decision you've ever made or you can start working to better your life.
Again: nobody cares even a little, the world isn't fair and that will never change.
>>29346680
Too long, didn't even skim.
>>29346600
>Why should I work hard to get what Chad gets easily?
Well, the alternative may be that you don't get it at all.
Then again, you sometimes get things without having to work for them, even if you're not Chad.
And Chad sometimes gets the short end of the stick, despite being Chad.
>>29346693
>If you want what 'chad' has, work for it.
But I would have to work much harder.
Once again, why should my life be harder because of something completely out of my control? What kind of sense does that make to you?
>Again: nobody cares even a little, the world isn't fair and that will never change.
Then why even participate in it? If what you're saying is true, then why not fight against it? I'm inferior, I have nothing to lose. Why not fight? Or at least do some damage? I would be justified to do that. If you are being treated like shit and can't win, at least you do some damage.
>>29346692
>If you define "free" as "free from EVERY influence" ... sure.
Define "influence".
The dictionary defines "influence" thusly:
noun
1.
the capacity or power of persons or things to be a compelling force on or produce effects on the actions, behavior, opinions, etc., of others:
He used family influence to get the contract.
2.
the action or process of producing effects on the actions, behavior, opinions, etc., of another or others:
Her mother's influence made her stay.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/influence?s=t
Do you have a different definition of "influence" other than the dictionary definition, or are you using that definition?
>>29346709
It would only take you about five minutes to read it. Go ahead and give it a shot.
Free will in the strictest sense doesn't exist and the illusion that it does arises from computation in our brains. Thanks for reading
>>29346740
>Then why even participate in it?
I'm not him, but
>If what you're saying is true, then why not fight against it? I'm inferior, I have nothing to lose.
Why do you feel you're inferior?
>Why not fight? Or at least do some damage? I would be justified to do that. If you are being treated like shit and can't win, at least you do some damage.
Harming others is unethical. Utilitarianism is clearly the correct moral philosophy, don't you agree?
After all, what is "evil", other than "suffering"?
That suffering is bad is self-evident. It's axiomatic. From this, we can deduce moral truths.
>>29346740
Do whatever you want, your decisions are your own.
>>29346837
>Do whatever you want, your decisions are your own.
Actually, human decisions have causes.
>>29346827
>Why do you feel you're inferior?
Short, ugly, small dick, dumb, poor family. The whole package.
>Harming others is unethical. Utilitarianism is clearly the correct moral philosophy, don't you agree?
Why would harming others be unethical?
>>29346837
I don't really get you normies. I tell you that it logically follows that inferior people should fight back for being treated like shit and you don't even try to deny it. How do you expect us to believe in your feel-good bullshit if you can't even bother to back it up?
>>29346867
>Short, ugly, small dick, dumb, poor family. The whole package.
Well, what do you want out of life?
I mean, what would make you feel a bit better?
>Why would harming others be unethical?
It would create evil. Suffering is clearly evil. You can feel it, can't you?
>>29346899
>I mean, what would make you feel a bit better?
Being born again to be a Chad. Someone who is above average in all the things I have said. Very above average actually.
>It would create evil. Suffering is clearly evil. You can feel it, can't you?
But normies treat me poorly for things out of my control, they make me suffer. And they don't care. Why should I?
>>29346866
Whatever you say, buddy.
>>29346882
I never said I'd give you advice.
>>29346928
Give us an example of a free will decision you made.
>>29346924
If you don't care, then why do you care so much?
>>29346928
I don't need advice. But if you claim something you should be able to back it up. But you aren't able to do that and whenever someone says something you can't disprove you just say
>hurr i dun care
>>29346943
Replying to your post.
"Hurr but you replied for reasons"
I made the decision of my own free will, deal with it.
>>29346924
>Being born again to be a Chad. Someone who is above average in all the things I have said. Very above average actually.
Unfortunately that's impossible.
Is there anything realistic that would make you feel better? Like getting in shape, getting some friends, some new hobbies, maybe? Or learning an instrument?
>But normies treat me poorly for things out of my control, they make me suffer. And they don't care. Why should I?
They can't help the way they are. Their genetics and conditioning compel them to be unkind to you. Like you, they are the product of the laws of physics, which influence their every thought, and every move.
They literally cannot help it. On a fundamental level, they are completely innocent.
>>29346945
I don't care about their suffering. I care about them making me suffer. They started it. Not me.
>>29346953
Now you're getting it. Nobody cares.
Live for you.
Or don't. I don't care.
>>29346960
>Replying to your post.
What caused you to reply to my post?
>I made the decision of my own free will
Libertarian free will or compatibilist free will?
Or are you too cool for philosophy and just in this thread to BS?
I don't even know whether you're a determinist or not. I literally can't tell because your posts are basically "I'm right and successful, you're wrong and a failure. I'm so cool, you're a fool".
Kindergarten arguing, pretty much.
>>29346984
For someone who doesn't care, you're certainly making a lot of effort to argue (poorly) in favor of free will.
I do care about this issue, so it makes perfect sense for me to argue about it.
Meanwhile you keep arguing about it while claiming to not care. That's hard for me to believe.
>>29346974
>Is there anything realistic that would make you feel better? Like getting in shape, getting some friends, some new hobbies, maybe? Or learning an instrument?
No. None of these things make me happy. If thanks to doing these things I got something, like for example a girlfriend I would still be miserable because I know I worked hard to get a girlfriend while tall Chads get gfs easily for much less effort.
>They literally cannot help it. On a fundamental level, they are completely innocent.
What in the fuck are you talking about? Someone who treats me like shit is NOT innocent no matter what you say. Normies are all guilty and they all deserve to pay.
>>29346975
Then there is but one honorable path.
Take the ancient ceremonial /r9k/ dildo and slay the normies. Bring rubbery fury down upon them, you are the chosen one.
>>29346984
That's only what a fucking retard would do. Ignoring the truth. This is the definion of blue pill.
>>29347010
As if the distinction matters. I refuse to study the retarded neckbeard termonology "hurrr libertarian freewill" to stroke your e-pene.
Deal with it, bitch more, I don't give your posts more than a glance anyway.
>>29347037
I'm cool like that.
Why do you care why I'm here?
>>29347039
Sounds like suicide is a pretty valid option. Give the normies something to skim over while they're looking for the classifieds to buy a jetski.
That'll show them!
>>29347061
The blue pills get you high as a motherfucker, man.
And you know the bitches love it.
>>29347166
Suicide is what normies would want you to do.
>>29347039
>No. None of these things make me happy. If thanks to doing these things I got something, like for example a girlfriend I would still be miserable because I know I worked hard to get a girlfriend while tall Chads get gfs easily for much less effort.
Getting a girlfriend really isn't all about work. A lot of average Joes end up getting girlfriends, even if they're short, even if they're not attractive. It happens all the time.
The mindset on /r9k/ is you have to be a mega-Chad to get a girlfriend. That's really not the case. Being nice helps a lot. Every girl I've gotten close to, that happened because (by chance, laws of physics, causal history) we met, and (because of my genetics and conditioning) I was really nice to her and it compelled her to like me.
I'm not shockingly attractive (average), I am not rich, and I am disabled.
My strong suit is probably the fact that I am very confident and generally friendly. I am lucky to be confident and friendly. At some point in my life I might end up being less confident than I'd like, or less friendly. It's happened before. I wasn't always like this. I used to be very insecure and very irritable. Things changed, I'm very fortunate for that. Hopefully it will stay this way. If I had "free will" (granting it more coherence than it deserves, I'm making it somewhat fuzzy here I admit) I could just "choose" to be confident and friendly. Unfortunately it doesn't work like that.
>What in the fuck are you talking about? Someone who treats me like shit is NOT innocent no matter what you say. Normies are all guilty and they all deserve to pay.
You understand that free will is bullshit, right?
>>29347188
But you are ignoring the truth for the sake of feeling better. Like a spineless retarded cuck.
>>29347193
And they all seem pretty on-the-ball.
Maybe you should do what they want for once, damn. Contrarian as fuck.
>>29347075
So basically you're saying, "philosophy is bullshit, I'm too cool for this shit, nerds!"
Meaning, you really have no place in this discussion and you're just here to troll. I figured.
I hope the causal chain will someday influence you to reconsider. Maybe you'll end up taking a philosophy class one day, or maybe you'll pick up a book by Aristotle or something when you see it at the library.
Good luck.
>>29347212
And look how happy I am.
This is me: :D
Look at that happy motherfucking face.
And that is legit how I feel. No bitching about 'ciety from me, nosir.
Try it, why so scared?
>>29347196
>Getting a girlfriend really isn't all about work. A lot of average Joes end up getting girlfriends, even if they're short, even if they're not attractive. It happens all the time.
True. The men who accept that the world is unfair. These men are cucks. Anyone who accepts injustice without being angry is one.
>My strong suit is probably the fact that I am very confident and generally friendly.
Another thing that irks me, you describe yourself as average. How can you be confident? It makes no sense to be confident unless you are top Chad.
>>29347215
No. Killing myself would make normies happy. All I want in my life is to do the opposite, make them unhappy for treating me unfairly.
>>29347245
You must have no self-esteem or backbone to ignore the truth to feel happy. That's all I can say.
>>29347225
>yfw I own a copy of the Republic of Plato and have read it three times in a year
>yfw I've taken philosophy classes
Wut
>>29347267
Whatever you say, guy.
My backbone seems perfectly intact when I'm fucking my girlfriend. I'm not concerned.
>>29347297
But you are ignoring the truth. How can you look yourself in the eye? You can't even be honest, not even to yourself. It really seems pretty retarded. You are ignoring the truth to feel happy. Does that seem reasonable to you? That's weakness.
>>29347249
>The men who accept that the world is unfair. These men are cucks.
What does it mean to "accept" that the world is unfair?
I realize it is unfair. I don't think that's good, but it is the way it is. However, my genetics and conditioning still compel me to try to make it better and less unfair. That's one reason I'm kind to people.
>Anyone who accepts injustice without being angry is one.
I am angry about a lot of injustices in the world and try to do my part to change the ones that can be changed.
>Another thing that irks me, you describe yourself as average.
Looks-wise, yes, I'd say I'm about average.
>How can you be confident? It makes no sense to be confident unless you are top Chad.
Why? I find my confidence has benefited me. It helps me talk to people, it makes me a lot calmer and more relaxed...all around it's a good thing. I hope it sticks around.
It's not cockiness...it's a different kind of confidence. Hard to describe. I don't care so much what "normies" say about ne anymore.
I wish I could tell you how to get it, but I can't. I didn't choose it. It happened.
I do believe it has something to do with abandoning free will belief though. When people swear at me, insult me, whatever, I don't get nearly as upset as I used to. I just think, "Oh, their genetics and environmental factors are compelling them to be dicks. This is unfortunate".
I don't take anything so personally anymore, generally speaking.
definite normie trigger: tell them men had it worse than women during the time of first wave feminists
>>29347326
I can look myself in the eye just fine.
Not letting something get to you and drag you down doesn't have to mean lying to yourself and being willfully ignorant.
It's as easy as finding things you like and focusing on them.
>>29347271
Again, you're not interested in having a reasonable discussion and you resort to personal attacks. Forgive me for doubting your claims in this post. Regardless even if you're not lying, it doesn't give you license to just ignore logic and rational discourse. I'm surprised your claimed study of philosophy, if I am mistaken and you are not lying, hasn't compelled you to have a greater respect for logic. unfortunate.
You are essentially a troll in this thread.
>>29347357
>What does it mean to "accept" that the world is unfair?
To work hard to participate in society. To play the rigged game. You think you are making it less unfair by working hard? Quite the contrary. You are supporting the unfairness.
>I am angry about a lot of injustices in the world and try to do my part to change the ones that can be changed.
And you're not angry about the ones which "can't" be changed? People could choose not to discriminate against inferior people.
>Oh, their genetics and environmental factors are compelling them to be dicks. This is unfortunate
So in other words, when people treat you like shit, you just take it? That's what makes you a cuck. You are not confident. You are just a broken man who lets normies fuck him in the ass.
>>29347387
>Not letting something get to you and drag you down doesn't have to mean lying to yourself and being willfully ignorant.
If there is something that is the truth and you ignore this truth and try to occupy your mind so you don't think about it, then you're dodging it. Head in the sand.
>>29347440
>To work hard to participate in society.
I think most people work too hard. But some amount of work isn't so bad. Some of the work I do gives me pleasure.
>To play the rigged game.
The game is definitely rigged, I agree.
>You think you are making it less unfair by working hard?
Yeah. The kind of work I'm referring to is mostly not financially compensated work though.
>Quite the contrary. You are supporting the unfairness.
I do a lot of work to try to help the disadvantaged.
>And you're not angry about the ones which "can't" be changed?
I am, but if they can't be changed, then my efforts are better focused elsewhere.
>People could choose not to discriminate against inferior people.
They actually can't, because they're compelled to do everything they do by their genetics and conditioning.
>So in other words, when people treat you like shit, you just take it?
No, I show them why they're wrong to treat me that way, and if they won't listen, then that's really not my problem. What I say to them is going to stick in their subconscious and influence them in some way or another. This is something of a victory for me I would say.
>That's what makes you a cuck. You are not confident. You are just a broken man who lets normies fuck him in the ass.
I am sorry your genetics and conditioning compel you to be so hostile and resentful. It's unfortunate.
>>29347461
I disagree, simple as that.
I'm just bumping this thread to see if it's still bumping.
My prior experiences have not been sufficient for me to understand how the bump limit system works.
>>29347510
>I do a lot of work to try to help the disadvantaged.
That's what I meant. By helping the disadvantaged you are not making the world more fair. To help the disadvantaged is like spitting in the ocean. Their lives will still be shit, but due to your help they will want to participate in society.
>They actually can't, because they're compelled to do everything they do by their genetics and conditioning.
So what? I am getting treated like shit for something out of my control. Normies deserve revenge.
>No, I show them why they're wrong to treat me that way, and if they won't listen, then that's really not my problem.
Except you're still getting treated badly and can't do shit about that.
>What I say to them is going to stick in their subconscious and influence them in some way or another. This is something of a victory for me I would say.
That's the most bluepilled and retarded thing that I've heard.
>I am sorry your genetics and conditioning compel you to be so hostile and resentful. It's unfortunate.
Mostly conditioning. If I wasn't treated like shit for things out of my control I wouldn't be bitter, angry and resentful.
>>29347556
So if there is some truth that you ignore on purpose, you say that you aren't actually ignoring it?
>>29347584
>That's what I meant. By helping the disadvantaged you are not making the world more fair. To help the disadvantaged is like spitting in the ocean.
Ever hear the one about the starfish at the beach?
>Their lives will still be shit, but due to your help they will want to participate in society.
Most people are already participating in society. I'm just working to help make life a little less painful.
>So what? I am getting treated like shit for something out of my control. Normies deserve revenge.
Desert is a meme. Everyone is fundamentally innocent.
I just want to cut this short right hear and ask you something very directly.
Do you believe in free will or not?
>>29347667
>Ever hear the one about the starfish at the beach?
Bluepilled bullshit.
>Do you believe in free will or not?
No.
>>29347719
>Bluepilled bullshit.
If someone came and suddenly, somehow made you a less miserable person, would that be nothing, or would it be something?
>No.
Then how can you believe in revenge? Anyone who was unkind to you couldn't have helped it. They were forced by causality to be that way.
>>29346713
"Chad sometimes gets the short end of the stick, despite being chad"
>Me
>Pretty attractive
>girls basically approach me
>Have fucked 40
>got hpv (genital warts) from girl #20
>2 years of getting them frozen off
>Keeping fucking girls, no problems
>Girl #39 becomes gf
>Herpes pops up
>Become despondent
>Withdraw socially
>Lose social acumen
>Lose confidence
>Become isolated
I'm a disgrace of my former self. I wasn't really going anywhere other than sexually, however.
I can see how your actions not being your fault is appealing to /r9k/ but free will definitely exists. You could've chosen to do anything with your life and instead you've done nothing, but obviously you need an excuse and determinism fills that need. You're just like a fat explaining how it's genetics and not shoveling lard into her maw every day.
>>29347756
>If someone came and suddenly, somehow made you a less miserable person, would that be nothing, or would it be something?
If it didn't involve ignoring the truth, now that would be something.
>Then how can you believe in revenge? Anyone who was unkind to you couldn't have helped it. They were forced by causality to be that way.
I don't care. They made me suffer, I want to make them suffer back. No particular reason really. It's petty, I guess, but I don't care.
>>29347857
>If it didn't involve ignoring the truth, now that would be something.
If the neurotransmitter balance in your brain were different, probably even facing the hard truths of life wouldn't be so hard.
I'm not shilling for pharmaceutical meds here or anything. They can help some people, others they can cause a lot of problems for.
Suffering ultimately comes from the way your brain is reacting to stimuli and firing synapses and what not.
>I don't care. They made me suffer, I want to make them suffer back. No particular reason really. It's petty, I guess, but I don't care.
This is immoral. Suffering is prima facie evil, and you are being compelled by your genetics and conditioning to create evil. This is not right.
I suggest you seek help. It will be for the greater good.
>>29347853
>free will definitely exists
If that's the case, you'll be able to provide a logically sound argument demonstrating its existence, and you won't have to rely on personal attacks to get your point across.
>>29347829
you're a fucking disgusting person
>>29347917
fuuuuuuuuuuuuck morality dude.
lying, deception, and machiavellian thinking are way better
>>29347917
>If the neurotransmitter balance in your brain were different, probably even facing the hard truths of life wouldn't be so hard.
I have no problem facing them. It's just that what follows is a problem. When you face a harsh truth that you are getting treated like shti for things out of your control then the only rational response is to be angry and bitter.
>I'm not shilling for pharmaceutical meds here or anything. They can help some people, others they can cause a lot of problems for.
There are reasons why I can't legally get these meds. I'd rather not get into explaining these reasons.
>Suffering ultimately comes from the way your brain is reacting to stimuli and firing synapses and what not.
Being humiliated, insulted and attacked is suffering.
>This is immoral.
I'm not moral. After years of bitterness I don't give a fuck. I'm just burned out.
>I suggest you seek help. It will be for the greater good.
What help would that be? A psychiatrist?
>>29347983
>I have no problem facing them. It's just that what follows is a problem. When you face a harsh truth that you are getting treated like shti for things out of your control then the only rational response is to be angry and bitter.
I'd like to see you make a sound syllogistic argument demonstrating that this is the case.
I doubt it's possible. The premises will be wrong.
Do feel free to try to prove me wrong. You seem to like philosophy, so I'm challenging you here.
>>29347936
If that isn't the case, you should be able to do the same. Let's hear your 'logically sound' argument, guy.
>>29348045
I think your opinion of me is too high. My logic is, you get hit, you hit back. Or if you can't hit back(which is usually the case with society since you as an individual can't do anything) then you should NOT just forget this injustice. You should remember it, you should dwell on it, because it happened. And if it really was due to something out of your control, then it was not fair. And if it was not fair then you should be angry about it.
>>29347983
Recently started taking wellbutrin here.
All they'd give me with my confessed drug abuse, still good stuff.
Feels good, man.
>>29347977
Do you have a conscience? Like, at all?
>>29347936
I am choosing to be here at my job and shitpost in this thread about proving abstract concepts or ideas. All I was trying to say with my previous statement is if you believe in determinism you probably also believe that someone can become morbidly obese through genetics and no fault of their own. Besides the burden of proof doesn't fall on the accused, but you the accuser. What proof do you hold to say the majority is wrong, to disprove our theory of free will?
>>29348047
You made the claim, I challenged it. The burden of proof is on you.
91 posters, 446 replies
And over 300 of those are from the same autist adamantly defending determinism and kek'ing about how triggered the 'norms' are.
Gg, OP.
>>29348146
Afraid not. Determinism is the outlier here. It's a supernatural claim.
Free will is the status quo position, burden of proof falls to you.
Let's see what proof you have to back your insane belief.
(Spoiler alert, people: he has nothing and will keep evading)
>>29348146
Not even the anon you challenged.
I'm challenging your claim, let's see your evidence.
>>29348201
>Afraid not. Determinism is the outlier here. It's a supernatural claim.
No, it's a metaphysical claim. Also, even if not all events have causes, that doesn't give you free will.
>Free will is the status quo position, burden of proof falls to you.
The burden of proof falls on whoever's making the claim. He made a claim that free will exists, it's his responsibility to prove it.
The "status quo position" doesn't have some special protection against the burden of proof.
>>29348140
Let's see here.
You believe in "free will", right?
When you say you believe in "free will", what are you talking about?
What do YOU mean when you say "free will", and is that definition compatible with determinism, or incompatible with it?
I'm trying to clarify your position here. I don't need bullshit insults or insinuations.
>>29341295
>using scientific standards for philosophical questions
>not realizing that the principal of unfalsifiability was invented by a philosopher and that it only applies to science
a scientific belief ought to be falsifiable
a philosophical belief general needs to be unfalsifiable in the same way 2+2=4 is unfalsifiable, that it is logically necessary
however, you absolutely can prove that free will is not real.
either an action is determined or it is undetermined. that is, an action can either only go one way or it can go more than one way. if an actioned is determined, there is obviously no free will about it by definition. however if it is undetermined it means the factors of the present do not predict the future. the facts of the present include you. if an action were undetermined, you would also not have the ability to decide your action, for then your decision would cause it perfectly and it would be determined. So weather actions are determined or undetermined, there is no free will.
>>29348378
He doesn't seem to be replying, let's see you do what you asked him to do. Fair is fair and what you asked was conpletely reasonable, right?
Proof of determinism, buddy.
>>29348201
>>29348378
>Free will is the status quo position, burden of proof falls to you.
>The burden of proof falls on whoever's making the claim. He made a claim that free will exists, it's his responsibility to prove it.
both are incorrect, the burden or proof falls on the person making the less simple claim. free will is the less simple claim.
>>29348201
this kinda sounds like bait.
>>29348122
no im a sociopath. I feel guilt when i do something wrong but I'm not constrained by guilt when in consideration of taking an action. I only look at the potential consequences
>>29348429
Except that determinism IS a scientific claim.
The anon you replied to absolutely hit the nail on the head and I can't believe I didn't see his post sooner.
>>29348468
Uh, what? Determinism is tge less simple claim.
How is 'people make their own decisions' more complex than 'the universe contains some mechanism by way of which every action you take is determined for you'?
Nigger you must be trolling.
>>29342717
>deterministic or acausal
is perfect logic
>caused due to some entities will
caused due to some entities will is deterministic. the problem isn't that the will causes actions, the problem is what cuased the will to cause the action.
>>29348468
>both are incorrect, the burden or proof falls on the person making the less simple claim.
No, I don't agree with this. The burden of proof is on the claimant, regardless of the simplicity or complexity of his assertion.
Occam's razor is a rule of thumb, not a fundamental principle of logic.
>>29348491
Even indeterminism precludes free will.
>>29348547
The problem? I see no problem.
Explain.
>>29348582
And?
I don't get what you're taking issue with.
>>29348517
>How is 'people make their own decisions' more complex than 'the universe contains some mechanism by way of which every action you take is determined for you'?
As you understand it, can "people make their own decisions" even in deterministic universe, or does determinism preclude this?
In other words, is determinism compatible with what you consider "free will" (or "making your own decisions"), or is it incompatible?
>>29348517
if this were on /his/ I would think it's bait but it's not. so i'll break it down.
causes of events according to determinism
>prior events
causes of events according to determinism
>prioer events, and sometimes self caused will when dealing with rational beings such as humans
you seem to be under the impression that determinism implies some sort of "guiding hand", like if the christian god planned everything out. that's not what mainstream philosophical determinism is. you are thinking of predestination.
in determinism, the immediate past causes the future. that's all it is
>>29348584
The anon you replied to was arguing against free will, not necessarily defending determinism.
>>29348656
>self caused will when dealing with rational beings such as humans
>self caused
How can something "cause itself"?
>>29348584
the problem with free will
free will and determinism both say that the cause of a persons voluntary actions are that person's will.
but if you were to believe in free will, what causes the will? if something causes it, with no randomness (things can only go one way) then there is no free will because you could not have willed otherwise. if nothing causes it, it's random, and thus you had no choice what you willed again. if it is some mixture of caused by past events and random, then there is still no free will becuase the cuased part is determined and the random part had nothing to do with you.
>>29348712
it can't
that's what free will demands though, because if will were caused by something else then it would be determined.
exactly determinisms point is that something can't cause itself.
>>29339609
Stupid shits like you don't realize how free will doesn't actually conflict with determinism.
Faggot.
>>29348806
Oh, my. The compatibilist is here!
>>29348747
Of course your upbringing and outlook will show in your actions. Why so black and white, anon?
Just because past experience factors into a decision doesn't mean you didn't make that decision.
>>29348820
Prove me wrong, shitfuck.
>>29348806
compatibilism is the normiest of philosophies
there are two flavors of it
>only semantic differences between it and hard determinism, is equally valid but really only a consolation prize for people who can't deal with hard determinism
>the single worst thought out and incoherent philosophical position that anybody learned in the subject takes seriously
which are you?
>>29348656
you have no idea what you are talking about
determinism is being able to predict the future of a system
predeterminism is saying the future already exists
QM is deterministic, which I cannot attempt to refute hard enough. QM came up with a silly equation to predict every possible pathway. This is patently retarded because nowhere is it specified 'which form of matter' is traveling a pathway. QM isn't equipped to know this because it is fundamentally flawed. Once has to view spacetime as a whole entity. Feynman's diagrams are a step in the right direction, though. Showing the future and past of an atom is a valuable insight into the true nature of predeterminism.
Modern academia is in a strange place right now, with popscientists Laurence Krauss, Sagan Jr (re pretentious hipster) and Dr NigNog leading the masses into the land of blissful ignorance.
>>29348880
kekekek
>My opinion are best master race
>Ppls who don't get it get consolation other opinion cuz they dumbs
Noice b8
>>29348828
that's not even the point. the decision is ONLY the sum of factors. all factors, not just experiential, genetic, even "random" things like fluctuations in magnetism. any part of "me" that lead up to the to decision was also caused the factors leading up to it.
if they were not, then what caused them? what else could cause a factor besides past factors.
of course you could say that i am still making the decision since some of those causes, such as my thoughts are me, and I would agree. however the decision is not "free", it could have gone only one way based on all the factors going into it.
>>29348880
I have to admit I haven't dabbled in philosophy enough to know which exact types of compatibilism you're referring to, but I'm probably the former.
Let me demonstrate my view with a simple example:
>you get to pick between shit and tasty food
>you'll pick food 10 times out of 10
>you were "determined" to pick food
>it was your will to pick food
Basically if you're saying I'm going for the consolation prize, I'm gonna say you're some edgy autistic communist who dislikes freedoms and gets moist off the idea that we're all slaves of what's essentially our will.
Either way it's just semantics and none of us is wrong. Matter of preference, basically.
>>29348900
i didn't say predeterminsim ya dinkleberg, i said predestination
http://www.theopedia.com/predestination
>>29348834
You made the claim, burden of proof is on you.
>>29348993
yeah that's the first
not that not believing in "free" will does not mean that you do not believe it is "your" will. I did will to make this post, it was my will. it just wasn't free because it could not have gone any other way given all the factors that came before it.
>>29348993
oh and about the communist part, topkek
free will and determinism have nothing to do with politics.
I am autistic though.
>>29349075
Yeah I assumed you wanted to go down that path.
But that path leads nowhere. Just try and define "free" will. You will not be able to arrive at any other conclusion that for will to be 'free' it must be completely random. Which is, as stated, nonsensical.
There ;)
Check and mate ;)
Wrecked :)
Cucked :d
>>29349105
I wasn't referring to politics, but to the general materialist view of the world that gets communists hard. I actually kinda agree with them on the most part, but just not on this issue.
>I am autistic though.
Welcome to the club :)
>>29349224
>ther conclusion that for
Than that*
>>29349073
>mom im parroting am i smart yet can i sleep inside now?
>>29349020
>http://www.theopedia.com/predestination
yeah... your opinion is discarded now
>>29349224
>for will to be 'free' it must be completely random
well even if were random it wouldn't be free.
a die that lands on 2 is not "free"
will simply could not be free. that's the point.
>>29339609
Time to fight normies!
>>/pol/77614495#
>>29349293
dude are you seriously this bad at reading comprehension? I'm not a theist and I don't believe in predestination, I'm saying the dude seems to be confusing determinism with predestination.
the links just to explain what it is.
>>29349361
>>>/pol/77614495#
>I am a constant failure
Kill me
>>29349337
>lol guise wouldnt it be funny if i took a word and semanticized its meaning to oblivion and then claim the concept doesnt exist :PPP
>a die that lands on 2 is not "free"
That's because it's not random actually. Nothing's random. "Random" is but a concept.
>will simply could not be free
It could. The only condition being that it should not depend on any factors or variables - ie it is RANDOM.
But that's nonsensical because it's purely semantics and abstractions that would support it, not the actual concept of freedom.
>will is not free
But you're able to choose whatever you want.
>but you cannot will what you will what you will what you will!!1! SLAVE OF WILL hurhrhrh
>>29349361
>>29349385
>going on /pol/
why would you do that to yourself?
>>29349434
>That's because it's not random actually. Nothing's random. "Random" is but a concept.
poorly put but I agree
>will is not free
>But you're able to choose whatever you want.
determinism does not object that. that isn't the point.
>but you cannot will what you will what you will what you will!!1! SLAVE OF WILL hurhrhrh
>implying that's the point
I don't go out of my way to talk about determinism unless the issue just happens to come up because it has literally no ramifications.
unless somebody is talking about how a mentally ill person "had no choice" but to do this or that because their illness caused it. Then I bring up how he or she has just as much choice as anybody else. aside from that it doesn't matter that there is no free will
>he puts the burden of proof on the determinist
All non-determinists are required to prove that something motivates any decision made by a human being other than a multitude of external influences out of that person's control. Basically the presence of a "soul" which thinks consciously of its own accord rather than just serving as a processor and computer for information.
>>29349369
yeeeeess I know that...
your opinion is discarded because you have a knowledge of religious terminology that any sane person would rather be without
Even if I were aware of it, for example, I would never have mentioned it in an argument since it is so utterly irrelevant
>>29349554
>poorly put but I agree
HOW? WHY?
>determinism does not object that.
Then determinism doesn't object free will?
We'll then that's settled, huh? Glad you agreed.
>implying that's the point
It kinda is because determinists are always trying to argue how will isn't free ie it's a slave to outer factors.
>>29349661
>Basically the presence of a "soul" which thinks consciously of its own accord...
Even souls wouldn't give us libertarian free will.
Either the soul's "decisions" are causally based or somehow acausal.
Neither is "free".
>>29349809
>It kinda is because determinists are always trying to argue how will isn't free ie it's a slave to outer factors.
your will is still subject to environmental factors
>>29339699
>the truth
Atheists actually believe this.
>>29339877
That's not what free will is.
>>29340234
hurr durr i dont lkike it so its cannot habben
>>29343935
durka durr NATURAL science should be able to explain the SUPERNATURAL (supra natural, above natural)
>>29344287
All science is soft, unrigorous, and does not take itself seriously.
>>29344559
hurka durka arguments are good because i sed so
>>29345022
>laws of physics
What a transcendental claim made by EMPIRICISTS
>>29345549
Pragmaticism is autistic.
>>29345933
'i dont understand Christianity': the post
>>29346483
hurka durka somethin hasta B PRACTICAL 2B GOOD OTHERWISE ITS DUMB
>>29346512
Sam Harris isn't a philosopher.
>>29346680
Logic falls against logic, you do realize this yes?
Please stop posting now, pseud; nobody cares about your juvenile ideologies that you have deluded yourself into believing are something else.
>>29346817
>brains
i dun seen it so it must b reel
>>29346827
>That suffering is bad is self-evident. It's axiomatic. From this, we can deduce moral truths.
This is what children actually believe.
Axioms are a childish paradox only held by the weak.
>>29346899
U CAN DUN SEE IT SO IT MUST B EVIL XDDDD PHILOSOFY OVER ADIESTS 1000000000000000000000000 CHRISDENS 0
>>29349946
You're still using the argument I've battered.
As long as you are nullifying freedom by pointing out its dependence on other factors you are pulling the "only randumb is free" argument.
>>29348403
"Free Will" is the ability to make your own choices in life and ultimately guide yourself. I'm not denying external forces, random chance exists, that could deny you your chosen path or make it more difficult but to believe everything in life is predetermined and there's nothing you can do to change it is absurd.
>>29349969
No, randomness doesn't give you freedom either.
My position is that libertarian free will doesn't exist, and what compatibilists feel is worth calling "free will", I don't see as being worthy of the name.
We have a will, but not a "free" will. It's not free of our genetics, it's not free of environmental factors. Rather, it's the product of those things.
>>29349809
>"Random" is but a concept.
what did he mean by this?
all words are concepts which attempt to describe some part or supposed part of reality.
>choosing whatever you want
>the same thing as free will
pick one
>It kinda is because determinists are always trying to argue how will isn't free ie it's a slave to outer factors.
nope, inner factors work just as well.
like I said you are only semantically different from a determinist and the difference is this:
>you choose an action
>based on previous factors both internal and external
>it could only have gone one way because there is no randomness
hard determinism says there is no free will because you could not have chosen otherwise.
you are saying this is free will because the internal factors are "you"
but I don't think you "owning" your own will has to do with whether or not that will is free.
>>29349978
>"Free Will" is the ability to make your own choices in life and ultimately guide yourself.
Is this "ability to make your own choices in life and ultimately guide yourself" compatible with determinism, or not?
>>29347225
Sweetie, what you're posting isn't philosophy.
It's irrelevant post-liberalist nonsense.
>>29347408
Reason is irrelevant, logic is irrelevant; if weren't just writing fedoras you might spend your time with that fat head out of your ass
>>29347936
Why is logic good?
Oh right, ITS ONLY LE LOGICAL XDDDDD
>>29348547
logic is gud cuz i sed so
>>29349293
I DONT LIKE IT SO ITS STUPID XDDDDDD IM SO LE LOGICAL
>>29349721
I HAVE A GIANT EGO AND MY HEAD UP MY ASS SO IM NOT AT FAULT AT ANYTHING AND RELIGION IS LE STUPID IF THERE WERENT RELIGIONS WE WOULD BE 10000000000000000000 YEARS MORE ADVANCED AND ORLANDO BLOOM WOUKLDNT HAVE HAPPENED
Could you stop being so sophomoric.
Please?
>>29349963
humoring your train of thought
>there is a soul
>soul lets us choose our actions
>souls choices are either determined by previous factors or they are random.
>from here see >>29348429
a soul just shifts the location of the determinism/indeterminism delima, doesn't actually change anything.
>>29350086
This is the shittiest post in the entire thread so far senpai
>>29350034
What is libertarian free will?
>It's not free of our genetics, it's not free of environmental factors.
For the last time, what is the condition for will to be free of the various factors you've named and left unnamed if not randomness?
You are literally ignoring the point I've made.
>>29350051
>all words are concepts which attempt to describe some part or supposed part of reality.
Yes.
And "randomness" is a concept which does not, in its literal sense, exist in reality. It is a theoretical, hypothetical concept.
>choosing whatever you want
>the same thing as free will
pick one
You're literally going for the
>can't will what you will what you will what you will
route which you just previously denounced.
>like I said you are only semantically different from a determinist and the difference is this
Perhaps it is YOU that is merely semantically proving a case of determinism in a world of free will?
See, like I said, it's pure abstractions and semantics.
>hard determinism says there is no free will because you could not have chosen otherwise.
Jesus christ am I going to be able to do anything other than repeating myself like a broken record of an annoying parrot?
You're also arguing from the standpoint that freedom is only in randomness. Own up to it or admit you don't believe it and repent.
>>29350086
>LE LETS SAY LE LE A LE LOT AND LE USE ALLCAP AND LE SPEAL REAL BAD N DO LE BAD LE GRAMMER AND PUT A LE XD AT LE THE LE END AND CALL OTHER LE PEOPLE SOPHMORIC XDDD
>>29350110
>projecting logic
Try harder.
>>29350144
It goes above your head, clearly.
HOW DARE YOU QUESTION MY IDEOLOGY
>>29350159
Not an argument, Mr. Logic and Reason.
Stop stroking yourself, you barely qualify as sentient.
>>29349963
>>29350086
trying too hard DESU
functional but weak bait
unless it's your actual stance, in which case you're kind of a hypocrite for arguing with people when your position is strictly against logic. NO, I AM NOT IMPLYING THAT YOU CARE.
>>29350145
>And "randomness" is a concept which does not, in its literal sense, exist in reality. It is a theoretical, hypothetical concept.
yes i agree, had you clarified that I wouldn't have said it was poorly phrased. that's all
>You're literally going for the can't will what you will what you will what you will route which you just previously denounced.
i didn't denounce that. where does it look like i am?
>You're also arguing from the standpoint that freedom is only in randomness. Own up to it or admit you don't believe it and repent.
no, freedom isn't in randomness it's in literally nothing. it's meaningless in the context of will.
meaningless words exist in english. for instance the word supernatural. supernatural describes a thing which exists which defies the laws of nature. but if anything exists which defies a supposed law of nature, than that supposed law of nature is not a law of nature. it is impossible, therefore for anything to be supernatural by definition, and the word means nothing. free will is a meaningless phrase in a similar way because it implies that the choice could have gone any other way but also implies that the choice is not random.
>>29350210
>posts non arguments
>is surprised when response to non arguments are non arguments
>>29350222
I DONT LIKE POST SO IT MUST BE BAIT
I'm acting teleologically by using your methods to dissolve said methods.
>>29350303
>non-arguments
Somebody is illiterate.
Typical of a STEMsperg pretending to know any philosophy.
>is surprised when response to non arguments are non arguments
You should practice what you preach, no?
>>29350056
>the doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will. Some philosophers have taken determinism to imply that individual human beings have no free will and cannot be held morally responsible for their actions.
I'd say no.
>>29349963
>Sam Harris isn't a philosopher.
Luther & Calvin were though, Cuck.
>>29350370
No they weren't, they're on the same level as Sam Harris and are worse by contradicting scripture whilst attempting to defend it.
>>29350326
aw man he called me illterate, he sure showed me
determinists BTFO
gonna go cry in a corner now
>>29350145
>What is libertarian free will?
The ability to make decisions free of the influence of prior causes.
Libertarianism is a form of incompatibilism which holds that determinism is not compatible with their conception of "free will", that humans can make free choices independent of their genetics and conditioning, and when you presented with an option to do A or B, both are real metaphysical possibilities.
Libertarianism is contradicted by compatibilism, which is the idea that determinism is compatible with "free will" (but note that semantically speaking, compatibilist "free will" does not equal libertarian "free will") and by hard incompatibilism (the idea that "free will" does not exist, whether determinism is true or false).
>>29349963
You are an autist of the highest calibre.
I responded to a post asking if philosophy is worthless with 'if your philosophy serves no purpose but to validate you, yes it is' and your autistic ass takes that to mean 'it is bad! Bad philosophy'
>hyuurrrrrrr maximum tardmode activate
>>29350423
why are you debating this guy? He's not interested in a discussion he's just going to type out nonsense
>>29350456
He's autistic, but amusing autistic.
I like to see what they come up with.
>>29350423
'worthless' is arbitrary, you cannot argue for empiricism or rationalism whilst also making arbitrary claims.
Of course, the only way one can defend either of said ideologies is to make arbitrary claims; enjoy your cognitive dissonance!
>>29350456
hurka durka if u dont accept my ideology you must be dumb hahaa BTFO ATHEIST S100000000000000000 CHRISTIANS 0
>arguing about free will and not realising it's all a great fnord set up by Greyface
>There are people who willingly comfort themselves with destructive order over creative disorder
>>29350393
>Speaking against Luther.
>Implying scripture affirmed free will.
You just want to burn, don't you?
Question for the compatibilists here
what is the benefit of compatibilism over hard incompatibilism?
