No free will
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /r9k/ - ROBOT9001
You are currently reading a thread in /r9k/ - ROBOT9001
>2016
>People STILL claiming they have the magical power to of their own volition subvert causality
Explain it to me. Literally how can free will be real?
>>29486785
How can there be free will when there is no self?
>>29486807
What is the "self", really?
>>29486807
How can there be no self when there is a self?
Free will doesn't exist. Life is a chemical reaction in process we can't change anything and everything we do is predetermined.
You can take that however you like but I recommend trying to find some humility in life.
>>29486832
That's what "I'm" asking man.
>>29486852
How can you be certain of that?
>>29486785
Good luck with that probatio diabolica you got yourself into
Free will exists to the point where the definition has any relevant meaning
>>29486785
So you say "magic does not exist".
I'd like to see you prove that.
how can this thread be real if free will isn't real?
>>29486917
How so? You can't do something unless you think about doing it. And you don't control your thoughts. So how can you control anything at all? We are nothing more than raw awareness, cemented to the body and the mind, but neither are actually ours.
>>29486841
Is there, really, though?
>>29486896
>Good luck with that probatio diabolica you got yourself into
I don't understand what you mean by this.
Either everything is the inevitable product of the circumstances the moment before it happens, or some things happen without causes (meaning they can't happen beCAUSE of the effects of our wills).
Free will doesn't fit into either of these two possibilities.
>>29486978
>You can't do something unless you think about doing it.
Well, I question that. Sometimes people do things without thinking about them beforehand.
>>29486990
>Is there, really, though?
isn't that self-evident? you're a separate, conscious entity
>>29487075
>isn't that self-evident?
I'm not sure about that. "I" have feelings, but what is the "I" as differentiated from the feelings themselves? Am "I" not my feelings, but some other thing?
What truly is the "I"?
>you're a separate, conscious entity
What exactly do you mean by "separate"?
This seems like a really interesting point of discussion. I hope it doesn't turn into pointless name calling and actually
>>29487112
...continues as a fruitful side-discussion.
>>29487043
Perhaps not consciously, but the decision is still made by the brain all the same. And you are not your brain.
>>29486990
Let me explain:
>People STILL claiming they have the magical power to of their own volition subvert causality
This ridicule reformulated as statement is equivalent to
>People do not have the magical power to of their own volition subvert causality
Proving that magical powers do not exist requires an impossible proof.
Now that we are aware of this we have to admit that any explanation that relies upon the measurable universe is clearly insufficient, as there may be non-measurable factors. "magical powers", eh?
Now, if magical powers of an unspecified nature were to exist exist, why would it be impossible for someone with those magical powers to cause all the circumstances to lead them towards their "chosen" outcome?
This would be perfectly compatible with your first statement.
The second statement is addressed by simply asserting that these magical powers can cause a paradox. As they are unspecified, this is well possible.
Therefore this "argument" against free will also is completely meaningless.
This argument is completely pointless, because it amounts to what you choose to believe akin to the question of God's existence.
>>29487112
I agree. I spend a lot of time thinking about this stuff and I was happy to see this kind of thread. Keep it going guys.
free will exist OBJECTIVELY so
>>29486978
I would argue I can control my thoughts
>>29487169
I suppose the use of "magical" in the OP was simply not necessary.
You could remove that word and it would still work.
>Now, if magical powers of an unspecified nature were to exist exist, why would it be impossible for someone with those magical powers to cause all the circumstances to lead them towards their "chosen" outcome?
What would CAUSE them to choose that outcome?
>This argument is completely pointless, because it amounts to what you choose to believe akin to the question of God's existence.
Do people really "choose" to believe in God, or is it more so that they're compelled to believe (or disbelieve) due to their causal histories?
>>29486807
This.
If I asked you who you are, and you point to your body, you'd be wrong.
I mean, you'd be right, but also wrong.
>you beat your heart, but the "you" that you are most likely referring to doesn't
>the white blood cells inside your body wage war against infections, but the "you" you are referring to has never been personally involved in these battles
>you release a cocktail of neurotransmitters in certain regions of your brain when you orgasm but the "you" you refer to has no idea how to do this
The fact of the matter is that it is all you, YOU do indeed manufacture sperm in your testes and repair muscle damage, you know how to do it and do it everyday.
Where free will fails is the western assumption that one's persona, or ego, is some sort of pilot that controls the fleshy body-an ex machina or a soul. There is no such thing.
It's all one thing and you aren't "in for the ride", you are the ride. There is no single cell in your entire body that is uniquely "you". You can't pinpoint a "you" in there because it's an absolutely ridiculous proposition to begin with.
Because there is no "you" (besides the ego) there is no "master controller" inside your body, and therefore no free will.
>>29487237
>I suppose the use of "magical" in the OP was simply not necessary.
>You could remove that word and it would still work.
It doesn't matter what you call it.
Call it a soul, a spirit, God, I don't care, it's all the same for the purpose of this argument.
>What would CAUSE them to choose that outcome?
Will.
>Do people really "choose" to believe in God, or is it more so that they're compelled to believe (or disbelieve) due to their causal histories?
Fuck off with your annoying picking on certain words.
It doesn't matter what you call it a word is a substitute for the concept and you damn well know what I am referring to here.
>>29487220
Here's a simple test for you then. If you are in control, stop thinking for 30 seconds.
>>29487266
Thanks for backing me Leo.
>>29487295
>Call it a soul, a spirit, God, I don't care, it's all the same for the purpose of this argument.
Okay, but how would any of those give you free will?
>Will.
And what would be the cause of that will?
>Fuck off with your annoying picking on certain words.
Ooh, getting toasty when people actually try to question your worldviews. I see.
>It doesn't matter what you call it a word is a substitute for the concept and you damn well know what I am referring to here.
Don't try to squirm your way out of answering the question.
>>29487393
first off, you are pretty stupid.
You don't see what I am arguing at all, you're so caught up in this "me vs them" mentality, that you can't see that someone is trying to teach you a little.
I never once claimed that free will existed. I just tore your absolute to shreds.
>Okay, but how would any of those give you free will?
>And what would be the cause of that will?
magic, I don't have to explain shit.
>Ooh, getting toasty when people actually try to question your worldviews. I see.
You're just upset someone calls you out on your idiotic absolute statements.
Do you have a way proving that magic does not exist?
Until you do, you have to accept the possibility of free will.
>>29487513
>first off, you are pretty stupid.
Yeah, this conversation isn't going to go anywhere. I'm not wasting time with trolls.
>>29487563
Argumentum ad hominem, nice one.
>inb4 you are pretty stupid is an ad hominem too
No, it's an insult.
Now that you got that out of your system, start addressing my point.
Namely that magic exists.
>>29486785
>Literally how can free will be real?
There's controlled free will which is a bit of a paradox, but it aligns with many worlds interpretations and the idea of a "lack-of" free will.
Controlled free will is that you have options, say A, B, and C. All three are options, routes, choices you can choose with any given scenario but they are all static choices that are objectively separable.
Most quantum physicists argue that the world is a simulation so view controlled free will the same way you would a controller. You have buttons to press, analog sticks to move, but it's all static and limited to the input/output that you have.
>>29487589
It's not an ad hominem. I'm not saying your belief is wrong because you're a troll. I'm saying I'm not going to debate with you because you're a troll. There's a difference.
>>29487682
It amounts to the same thing.
My argument is flawless, you cannot deny the existence of free will.
I can't prove it, but I don't have to to show that you are objectively wrong.
>>29487660
>Most quantum physicists argue that the world is a simulation
Is this really a mainstream view among quantum physicists?
What does it really mean, for it to be a simulation?
>>29487205
No, it doesn't. Literally everything you've ever done in this life has been for a reason and that reason has been contingent on your past experiences. In this moment in time and space, you're a product of your past experiences, your genetics and your memories. That's it.
When you type up a response, you're typing up words you've heard, read and memorized before in ways you've learned them to be used.
Your logic? Subconsciously framed by arguments you've heard before and your brain's processing ability inherited from genetics.
You literally have no agency. Your brain tricks you into thinking you do.
Your life has already happened practically. It's like stacking dominoes in a certain fashion and then pushing them.
>>29487660
quantum physicists are a bunch of idiots and the simulation hypothesis is both retarded and pointless at the same time, because once you claim that it is possible to simulate an entire universe, you must acknowledge that it may be possible to simulate whatever you perceive.
If your perception may be falsified you have to assume that it is.
If you cannot trust your senses then science is pointless.
>>29487834
cute absolutes
you gonna prove any of them?
Because when I'm exploring a forest for the first time I can choose to go any way I want
>>29487875
Wouldn't your desire to pick one path as opposed to another path have causes?
>>29487333
I provided what I thought to be a good argument, with trips no less, and got no reply. I guess I got the point across.
REMINDER THAT TRYING TO ARTICULATE THIS CONCEPT TO WOMEN IS LIKE ARGUING WITH A BRICK WALL. THEY WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO GRASP WHAT WE KNOW INSTINCTIVELY.
Even a 5 year old Abo with down syndrome realizes that there's no such thing as a free will, it's an absurd concept.
>>29488003
I keep telling you that absolutes are not good arguments, because once you find a single exception they fall apart, but you people won't listen.
>>29487952
This. You pick the path you pick for a reason.
>>29488003
Actually I know at least two women who don't believe in free will.
>>29487852
>quantum physicists are a bunch of idiots
actually, they aren't. they're seasoned mathematicians that play with hypothesis dealing with physics on a quantum level.
>>29488075
And yet they can't see the implications of such statements.
>>29487852
>quantum physicists are a bunch of idiots
Do you even know what quantum physics is?
so there's no free will? the next person that wins the lottery was predetermined to win it? lucky them
>>29488085
I mean, we really can't fully trust our senses though. They can be wrong.
Did you ever read Descartes's "evil demon" argument?
>>29488033
Find an exception? There is none. Your thoughts and thought patterns don't materialize out of thin fucking air. Besides, we have a name for the free will anti-thesis: The Butterfly Effect
www.nature.com/news/2009/091007/full/news.2009.980.html
Physics will prove it for us, roastie.
>>29488119
I know all of this.
But to practice science you have to assume that you can trust your senses.
If you run around claiming something that amounts to a variation of a classic argument while also being a supposed follower of science it really makes you look really stupid.
>>29488111
If the universe is completely causal, then yes, they were determined to win the lottery from the beginning.
If some things on the quantum scale happen without a cause and somehow these acausal phenomena exert significant effects at the macroscopic scale, then maybe somehow that caused the lottery win.
Either way, yes, they were lucky to win. Unless they wind up somehow getting their lives ruined beCAUSE of their lottery win and its effects.
>>29488161
There is a perfectly valid exception: MAGIC
You cannot prove that MAGIC does not exist, therefore you cannot say that MAGIC doesn't allow for free will.
I can't show that MAGIC actually exists, but I do not have to, because the potential existence of MAGIC is enough for your absolute claim about free will to be invalidated.
>>29487869
He's right idiots
>women can't even grasp cause and effect ITT
>>29488162
>But to practice science you have to assume that you can trust your senses.
Well, I suppose so. But this is a limitation of science. And empirical experiment itself shows us that our senses are imperfect and can be deceived.
>If you run around claiming something that amounts to a variation of a classic argument while also being a supposed follower of science it really makes you look really stupid.
I don't see the contradiction. We can incorporate science into philosophy while realizing that science is limited by human senses, like how rationalistic philosophy is limited by human reasoning ability.
>>29488205
Do you have any control over the MAGIC or does the MAGIC exist as it's own entity? If you control the MAGIC, you're still being governed by the laws of determanism because you're choosing to use it for a reason. Even then, you haven't really escaped determanism, you've just fashioned a new way for determanism to manifest itself. As long as your choice was made in a state of determanism, anything that follows will be pre-determined. Its a paradox; You chose to break fate because it was your fate.
>>29488532
The MAGIC is not bound by determinism and it can resolve a paradox by itself.
As long as you cannot show that there is nothing beyond the physical I can make up whatever I want and you have to accept it.
You have to prove that there is nothing beyond the physical, because you are making that claim.
>>29488590
Sounds like you're trying to start a pissing match? Using your way of thinking I can just say that nothing exists and that you're a firmament of my imagination, therefore you know nothing.
Stop talking to yourself, me.
>>29488704
No.
Unlike you, I do not deal in absolutes unless I can back them with an argument. And all the absolutes I use are very specific.
>>29486807
There isn't, there is nothing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnQ8SmNrShU
