Explain the argument regarding us having no free will to me. Plain and simple, I'm a but tipsy but willing to learn!!
I'm thirsty and want a glass of water, but if I get the glass of water and drink it, it means my brain wants to prolong its lifespan so it can fuck more girls. I am programmed to think to fuck and to fuck to think. Therefore no free will. Frowny face.
>>29640434
We are born with an exact physical makeup. Anything we "choose" is just that physical makeup interacting with the environment. If someone knew enough, he could predict every choice you would ever make.
>>29640484
Jesus.Life is futile....
>>29640434
You have free will but not an infinite number of choices
>i want to turn into a bird and fly but i can't so i have no free will durr
>>29640543
nice bait. Made me reply
Everything happens for a reason. Not in a durr the universe in self aware sort of karma way. But in a cause and effect way. The reason you decided to do something is because of your environment and reason your environment is the way it is, is because of past circumstances. And so on and so on until the beginning of the universe
"Free will" is a broad term.
There are two main schools of thought in the free will debate in philosophy. I'll try to explain them to you in a nutshell. Mind you, these explanations are going to be brief overviews.
Compatibilists define "free will" is the ability to act in accordance with your desires. This definition of "free will" is compatible with the world (including our brains) following the laws of physics.
Say you're presented with the dilemma of eating an apple, or eating an orange. Broadly speaking, a compatibilist would say that even if you're predetermined to pick the orange and eating the apple is not a real metaphysical possibility, you still have "free will" while picking the orange because picking the orange is what your brain caused you to want to do.
There are different kinds of compatibilists. Some would say that decisions made while you have a literal gun to your head don't count as free will decisions, because there is "external coercion". Others would say that any decision you make while conscious is a decision that is freely willed, even if you're coerced, because your brain can weigh the consequences of getting killed vs doing the thing you'd get spared for.
Incompatibilists define "free will" as the ability to make choices and act FREE OF THE CONSTRAINTS of the laws of physics (including the effects of prior causes).
Two types of incompatibilists are libertarians (who believe we have this ability), and hard incompatibilists (who believe we don't).
The thing is, what compatibilists and incompatibilists are talking about when they say "free will" is a qualitatively different thing.
The free will compatibilists say we have is NOT the same thing as the free will libertarians say we have.
It's like how some people define "God" as Yahweh, the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob, and others define "God" as the universe (including the laws of nature).
Two different things.
>>29640577
Even if some things (like certain quantum phenomena) didn't happen for a cause, that still wouldn't give us libertarian free will. Even making the assumption that those acausal quantum phenomena somehow compel us to act contrary to causal chains, that would just be a matter of chance--not something we could use our "wills" to cause.
>>29640484
If you had libertarian free will...what would you do with it, anyway?
>>29640434
Give me one decision you make that isn't the product of a cause and i'll accept free will.
>>29640577
What you said is what I believe, it's the illusion of free will. We may believe that we have a choice, but our choices are made depending on how we act and feel at that particular time, and that's caused by all past experiences. After all, we are just a bunch of matter which is part of the universe, everything that exists does a particular job, gas floats, water falls downstream, fire burns, just because we have consciousness doesn't mean we are an exception to that rule, we're just following a set of rules that's been set out for us. By the universe, my actions are the cause of my brains activity at that moment, not because I choose to do that activity, but because it was what I was going to do anyway.
>>29640613
this mademe realised im a slow retard agian
>>29640807
No, don't be so hard on yourself.
My point is that "free will" is a term. Like almost any term, it can have more than one meaning. And like almost any term with more than one meaning, the meanings can and do get conflated.
What do you think "free will" should mean?
And if you're not sure, that's not abnormal.
>>29640434
I'd like to hear your argument for free will, if anything.
>>29640686
It isn't even possible to comprehend what it would be like. because the very nature of choice goes against it. All it really is is a feeble attempt to maintain that they are special and that if a different soul was in their body, that they wouldn't seek the body's wants in the same way. It is ridiculous really.
>>29640881
It's almost like asking what you would do with a square circle, eh?
>>29640434
I haven't read any of the responses before mine, but hopefully you skipped over all of them before you got here too.
Google: Bell's Theorem. It's a hard-knock life, bud.
>>29640916
How does this relate to the free will debate?
I wish I had never learned about not having free will because now I think "im not even fully choosing this" before literally every decision I make
It's haunting me and I don't know what to do
>>29640613
What is yahweh, IS the universe conscious of itself, and decided to name itself? :0
>>29640974
I have to go, but I'd like to discuss this with you in more detail in like an hour and a half if you'll still be on.
Then again I don't have free will and can't guarantee I'll keep the word that I'll be here. I can try but I have to remember to do it.
>>29640954
Take a look at the inequalities he published then revisit the theorem. Youtube the inequality explanation if the scope is too difficult to grasp.
>>29640838
i thought that life is a movie. That there are small changes everywhere which are creating impulses to our brains, making us act in ways. Of cource these changes are so many thats its imposible to messure, but with science you can messure a part of it.
imgine everything as a huge pinball stage where humans are those flashy parts, and animals less flashy.
sorry for shit english my keyboard sucks and english is my second language.
>it will all be over when our bubble in the false vacuum pops soon
>>29640987
Yahweh is one of the proposed pronunciations for the tetragrammaton.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetragrammaton
>IS the universe conscious of itself nd decided to name itself? :0
We're part of the universe and we're conscious of it (to some extent at least), and we named it "universe". So...on some level, yes.
The argument is simple.
Every single "decision" you make is based on calculating your current circumstances, and so one since birth. Did you choose to be born?
That framework extends to the beginning of time. Everything that has happened and will happen has already been decided the moment the universe begin. All of time has already happened and we're just experiencing it linearly.
>>29640994
yea ill be on pls discuss with me
>>29641011
I'll get around to it eventually but my intuition is that you are arguing Bell's theorem to argue against the existence of an unbroken chain of causality. Is that correct?
If so, I want to mention that indeterminism doesn't give us libertarian free will and it fundamentally undermines soft determinist compatibilist free will.
>>29641030
Definition of yahweh being akin to 'to exist' or 'to cause to become '. I could see that as meaning how the universe itself brings all phenomena into manifestation. Cool to ponder..
Isn't it well established already that biologically; all of our personality traits, inclinations, and dispositions are predetermined by process's totally outside of the realm of awareness i.e subconscious. And subconscious mechanism are determined by genetic architecture
>>29641074
John Bell recognized long ago that as we move forward with the Standard Model we can no longer accept the theory of local realism if we are to rule out hidden variables when measuring an eigenstate of something. QFT suggests as of now that systems can either communicate nonlocally, which could put an end to free will, or logic as we have come to know it is simply wrong. Kurt Godell proved the second option is a possibility through his two famous incompleteness theorems of maths.
>the universe is constantly increasing its entropy (we are falling into the black hole at the center of our galaxy right now)
>we will soon pass over a 'peak' of entropy and the universe will almost instantly shift to a lower entropy causing the next big bang
>in the first few moments of the last big bang the universe was totally uniform in matter and energy
the only thing that could possibly happen is that it will be exactly the same from day one, unless you think einstein and other smart guys are talking out their ass.
>>29641440
Wrong on so many levels it honestly bothers me slightly, but not enough to write more than this. You were right about one thing though, the next big bang, and I won't remember how wrong you were so I won't mind.
>>29640434
they way i see it is that everything that happens is a reaction to something that happened before and therefore the fate of the universe and everything in it was predetermined from the first action (whatever that was).
>>29641517
so how does the universe create a new timeline for each big bang?
>>29641723
>he still believes in le 'universe' meme
>he thinks that anything beyond the firmament isn't advanced alien tech'
>>29640974
>>29641069
You still there anon? I'm back.
>>29640529
>dat pic
Thanks for making me sad dude
>>29640987
Yahweh is Satan as the Cathars said. Look it up
All there is in the world is nature. Nature is the will of God. God and Nature are intrinsically connected. Nature is propelled through previous causes. Causes which have causes of their own. Causes which have nothing at all to do with you.
People often think that the mind grants us free will. However, Nature has crafted your mind as well. It has completely structured your brain without your help. You are not separate from nature. You are not separate from the will of God.
If you want more read The Ethics by Spinoza.
>>29640434
Basically we don't have free will so I don't have to work out or get a job. It's not that I'm lazy. I just want to blame everything else for my problems
>>29643915
>Basically we don't have free will so I don't have to work out or get a job.
Generally speaking to get fit, you do have to work out, and to get paid, you do have to have a job.
The fact that there's no free will doesn't change this.
>It's not that I'm lazy.
If someone is lazy there's a cause for it.
>>29643875
Spinoza was a pretty smart guy.
I feel bad that he got silicosis or whatever.
But, it had to have happened. Sadly.
