Zero Free Will

>>7653219

haha get yourself fucked statist

to yourself your will will always appear free. you can't change that, try as you might.

anyways, go read some buddhistic or some vedic stuff. not even joking.

File: You just thought about op's fagottry.jpg (120KB, 800x1200px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 800x1200px

>When you're jacking off and you think of your mom all of a sudden, did you "choose" to have that thought?

>>7653219
Fuck off statist.

>>7653219
I agree with you on some levels, but you need to consider quantum physics.

Disclaimer: I'm not a physicists by any means, but I can read articles about experiments and interpretations of results by proper physicist
Just roll with me here

On the quantum level there are things that are purely random, whether or not an atom will radioactively decay is one of these things.
Because of this there is a random degradation of neurons in the brain.
So what people do is forever unpredictable.

So while people don't have "free will" as far as there being a "them" to make decisions, we are not just machines that will spit out the same result went put in the exact same situations.

this semantic bullshit is really a waste of time

although it is expected, since I am on the /lit/ board

The conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. So what that everything is caused? What does it matter what the cause of our will is. I want to do x, so I do x. Mission accomplished.

File: Immanuel_Kant_(painted_portrait)[1].jpg (151KB, 964x1388px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 964x1388px

>Free will is incompatible with reality

This man would like to have a word with you.

>>7653352
Also recommending Ed Fesers Philosophy of the Mind

>>7653219

> We have proofs
> Proofs

kek.

>>7653219
>When you're jacking off and you think of your mom all of a sudden, did you "choose" to have that thought? No--it just popped into your head

Speak for yourself

File: 1401666946600.png (208KB, 500x449px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 500x449px

>>7653219
Read Kant t b h

He has the answers you're looking for

File: jean-paul-sartre_-510x287.jpg (31KB, 510x287px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 510x287px

My boy let me educate yourself on the concept of radical freedom.

>>7653309
I'm not OP, but I've considered his thoughts before and have gather some other conclusions:

If we are to suppose that there was a beginning of time and the universe (interchangeable) then we must suppose there is an end to time and the universe--but before some cyclical fucks jump in:
I'm not saying reality ceases, I'm just saying the mode that is experienced ceases--anyways, carrying on...
if there is an observable, or let's say measurable end to our universe, then one might observe the linear nature of our universe, going back from the end to the beginning, and say:
"Every single event and molecule in any position at any time is responsible, in its way, to the measurement we have conducted of the universe at its end.
What I'm saying is that because time is experienced linearly, and because there was a beginning (let's say the big bang) all events proceeding must be exactly as they are to reach the universal determined outcome.
Thus rendering our free-will irrelevant.

"Who are Kant and Husserl?": THE THREAD

File: nietzsche re fatalism.png (33KB, 785x300px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 785x300px

>>7653219
True, but ultimately irrelevant.

>>7653219
You never link the cause and effect of actions enough to support your claim. Mechanistic explanations for all actions outside of personal agency would be required. While thoughts and feelings are caused by prior events, that does not disprove I freely chose what to concentrate on and think about in response making free choice an open ended thing not fully accounted for in a series of causal events. I can still choose to respond to previous events how I desire. Also the examples of compulsive behavior are weak because they are called compulsive for a reason, they are not the norm and are outside a freely willed choice making the very words and evidence you use indicate that a free choice is the norm.

>>7653581
This is good, so lets say the universe is like a book. The end is only a mystery to those who have not read it. After you finish it you can reread it and expect the same results.
I don't think this is necessary the case, for every one event that happens there are a huge amount of events that didn't.
Think of one of those "choose your own adventure" books. You can have multiple outcomes with a single physical book. You can reread it, or even read it backwards and have a different story.
The major difference being we have an extremely large (but not infinite, because that would require and infinite amount of time) number of outcomes. It is still the same universe though.

>>7653352
Was thinking the same thing

>>7653609
It's the same situation as when people say you are a bio-machine and you don't make any decisions.

>>7653690
Yes, I agree.
but I also subscribe to the belief that consciousness is the substance of God (read:the universe, the whole, the singularity)
and that every individual is a fragment of god, and at the end of time all matter is made singular, and by the lack of contrast, time, and thereby experience (consciousness), ceases to exist and a moment of perfect stillness occurs
but this occurrence is unstable and must revert to duality, after a seemingly nothingness of time (eternity), and the duality further fragments into an opposite infinity and god observes itself to re-find perfection and understand itself.
Thereby freewill is an illusion and we are destined to perform our tasks, even with the most randomness, perfectly.
Exactly like a book, a book that never ends.

bump..

>>7653309
I don't see how that solves any of the existentialist nature of the problem though. So my actions/thoughts are not deterministically predetermined instead they're probabilistically predetermined. I can't control what I do and what I do is more or less random within some constraint that's probably immeasurable. I'm still a robot.

>>7654593
It was never suppose to.

>>7653219
it's not real but we can't not believe in it or act like it's not real.

>>7653439

Kant sucks, he believes in free will.


The best philosophers don't.

File: image.jpg (64KB, 578x800px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 578x800px

>>7654891

Could you describe in some detail the way in which he believes in free will?

>>7653439

His arguments probably shouldn't be overlooked, but I don't think he "answers" the question of free will. What do you think makes his view so definitive?

>>7653609

this is great.

>>7654911

No.

Empty sophistry

read Wittgenstein before posting again

File: warhole smug.png (100KB, 1632x1572px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 1632x1572px

>>7653219
>OP trying to justify his poor life choices and fear of responsibility with the argument that free will is an illusion.

>>7653439
I remember I used to spam this image on /lit/ a year or two ago on my old computer. It's nice to have it back.

>>7653690
this is good
>The end is only a mystery to those who have not read it.
brilliant. I would posit that under proper circumstances psychedelics allow you to read the book

Let's rundown the arguments you've given OP.

>if everything is causal there's no free will
this was already assumed by your premise. libertarian free will is incompatibilist.
>acausal things can't be caused, because they wouldn't be acausal anymore, so acausal things can't be caused by the will
you're just running in semantic circles drawing out your argument uselessly.
>if acausal things can't be caused by the will, the will can't be acausal.
Why? Let's represent acausal phenomenon as X and causal phenomenon as Y.
Y to X = impossible
Y to Y = possible
X to Y = possible
X to X = impossible
Your sentence affirmed X to X to be impossible. This gives us still two scenarios that are possible, If the will is characterised as X, it can still participate in X to Y interactions, which you have yet to address
>we know of brain processes that are affected by exterior factor
This is another statement you assume to be inclusive while it isn't. The existence of Y to Y relationships within the brain doesn't negate the possiblity of X to Y relationships as well.
>thoughts sometimes pop into consciousness without premeditation
An uncontrolled variable in a system doesn't negate the possiblity of partial control.
>genetics kills free will
It doesn't. See above.
>free will is a meme
that doesn't assume it doesn't exist either. Most memes refer back to existing things (people, such as DFW or Stirner, for example)

You're just playing semantic games and your conclusion doesn't follow from your reasoning. You dirty sophist.

>>7653219
Thoughts may be random, but our choices are free. We can choose whatever we want, even if our thought tells us otherwise.

>>7653309
SO even if quantum physics added some random variable it would still not give you free will.

Ask yourself, is there any difference between the deterministic thinking where everything is already set in stone by previous events (giving you no free will), or having complete random decisions (also mean you have no control over it).

>>7653690
>I don't think this is necessary the case, for every one event that happens there are a huge amount of events that didn't.
and why didn't these events happen? Because cause-reaction. I believe if we rewind all the way back to the big bang, everything would happen exactly the same.

This is a very bizarre way to justify being attracted to your Mom.

All this thread proved is that people will bend over backwards mentally in order to justify jacking off to their mom.

You are responsible for your own actions.
>dealwithit.jpg