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.
