What do you think about the concept of free will? When did you

It was foretold before the birth of the universe.

Remember, where other men blindly follow the truth. Nothing is true.

Remember, where other men are limited by law or morality. Everything is permitted.

>>25647238
Is that a truth?

>>25647312
No, it's a permission

>>25647335
It was spoken like a truth. Still sounds like one to me.

The only way I can make sense of the universe is accepting causality and if I do that I accept also that free will is nothing but a meme.

>>25646770
>the concept of free will

One of the most socially devastating delusions to have marred the mind of man.

You can choose how you react to a situation, to a degree

>>25647335
It is a warning

It is an observation

It is an understanding

Belief in free will is a measure of ignorance. The more you believe in it, the less you manage to relate behaviour to its actual causes.

>>25646770

Doesn't exist but it's not an excuse to be a lazy sack of greasy shit.

>>25647491
What are you understanding?
The truth?

>>25647466
You react the only way you could've after how your environment and your genes have molded your personality. There was never a second option, if you think about it.

>>25647446
why? i don't understand how people say there is now free will. people make decisions on what they are going to do all the time.

>>25647553
"To a degree"
I think humans are a variable and you can never be sure how someone will react.

>>25647590
I can only not be sure because I don't know that person's background. Anyone that did could already know what that person will do in advance. Strategists do it all the time to a degree and they are not all knowing.

But I don't want to come off as a cunt. I may be wrong, but I believe in what I say.

>>25647446
i both agree and disagree
in some cases the illusion tips the balance slightly and enables people do to more things.
on the other, it allows you to blame others for their problems when the cards were always stacked against them.
>>25647569
>people make decisions on what they are going to do all the time.
free will is far more substantial than making simple decisions.

File: Le+_482f0157c9772bb0fc6b55923695d3f0.png (17KB, 274x242px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 274x242px

>>25647446
Can you think of a better way to keep a slave in line than convincing him he chose the life for himself?

>>25647669
>free will is far more substantial than making simple decisions.
how? are you saying, for example, that if someone grew up poor and was never able to go to school/uni for whatever reasons, they cannot exercise their free will to become an astronaut?

Even if free will is not a thing, it still does not really matter, as you don't know exactly how your life is going to live out anyway. You can only predict so much.

So what do you gain from even buying into free will not being a thing? Seems just like another excuse to not take responsibility for yourself and your actions.

No

>>25647569
Right, but their decision was determined by previous events. It didn't pop up out of thin air. Nobody's saying you can't choose chocolate over vanilla, they're just saying that your past and your genetics determined that you would choose chocolate.

>>25647569
>fosters resentment and retribution
>curtails scientific investigation into causes of behaviour, hurting medical progress
>fosters declaring things as right and wrong as opposed to enumerating their consequences
>fosters laziness because one can conclude one has earned and deserves things from other people
>fosters irresponsibility because one can conclude other people have free will and should be able to take care for themselves, keeping one from ensuring their safety
>prevents discussion of consequences of circumstances because it invites people to conclude that those consequences depend on one's actions, as opposed to sequentially, methodically analyzing those consequences one by one, variation after variation

Just off the top of my head.

>>25647729
>So what do you gain from even buying into free will not being a thing? Seems just like another excuse to not take responsibility for yourself and your actions.

What do you gain from buying into free will? Being forced to take responsibility for yourself and your actions.

Tbhq family it sounds like you're the one getting the short end of the stick.

>>25647729
It changes nothing one way or another but it's nice to think about it among other subjects...

>>25647729
Knowing how reality works lets you get better results from reality. Science 101. Knowing that free will doesn't exist would radically change how we handle prison, for example. It would no longer be about "punishing" "bad" people, but rather doing whatever is most effective in reducing future crime. If that turns out to be giving criminals candy bars and teddy bears, then that's what we'll do, even if it's unpleasant. More realistically, if it turns out there's no difference in results for putting someone away for 5 years vs 50 years, we could reduce sentencing time to save money.

>>25647729
>So what do you gain from even buying into free will not being a thing?
Compassion.

>>25647657
You didn't come off as a cunt at all. I just don't think it's possible to predict human behavior with 100% accuracy. I guess I believe nothing is impossible. Hmm just contradicted myself. Peace.

>>25647737
>keeping one from ensuring their safety
who are you talking about? who needs to be looking after who?

>>25647807
I don't follow. Sorry. I kinda get it but don't see the connection to free will.

>>25647755
Some things are your fault and some are not.

>>25647756
I like thinking about it to. Though I cannot say I buy into it. Though desu I don't out right dismiss it

>>25647808
You can still feel for someone if you believe in free will. Even for someone who believes in it I would assume they understand not everything is in ones control.

>>25647997
>I kinda get it but don't see the connection to free will.
Right now we punish people because we think they "chose" to do what they did because they're "bad" or "evil". In reality, they did what they did because of a near-infinite number of factors going back to the beginning of the universe. It would be like trying to punish a tornado for hitting your house, it doesn't make sense. The better option would be to protect yourself from future tornados by building a stronger house or moving. Likewise, with people, we should be fixing the contributing factors for crime and dealing with criminals in the most efficient way, even if it's not the most satisfying way, because ultimate the criminal didn't choose to be a criminal any more than a tornado chose to be a tornado.

>>25647546
To say that the maximum is a warning is to know that Ideals such as being free to do as we please, too easily give way to dogma. Dogma becomes fanaticism. No higher power sits in judgement of us. No supreme being watches to punish us for our sins. In the end, only we ourselves can guard against our obsessions.

To say that maximum is an observation is to know that the foundations of our society is fragile, and that we must be Shepard of our own civilisation. And that we must be architects of our own action, and we must live with their consequences. Whether glorious or tragic.

To say that the maximum is an understanding is to know that even though the maximum implies that we are free and please to do what we like (thinking what I like, and acting as I please), it is not. It does not command you to be free. Rather it commands you to be wise and understand your thoughts and actions and the consequences of your thoughts and actions.

In this case of free will. If there is such thing as free will, it will lead people to idealise that they are free to do what they please which would lead to complete anarchy. It merely warns us that we shouldn't be chasing such things as free will to an extreme extent, but rather find a balance between peace and order and free will.

>>25648106
Ok. Though I think part of the reason we lock criminals up is to send a message to others not to fuck up. Whether that works or not is up for debate. Because with your theory they were fuck ups from the very beginning.

>>25647831
I mean exactly what I said. If I believe in free will, I will assume that somebody doesn't need help, because they can just exert themselves and ensure their well-being. This fallacy can be used to placate one's conscience despite knowing better -- namely, that, without external motivation, that person will in all rational likelihood *not* manage to fix their lives. Belief in free will is the irresponsible position.

>>25648206
Not the person you replied to, but your mistake here is thinking that rejection of free implies making punishment laxer, because 'the criminals didn't deserve it'. This is a non-sequitur. The fact that they didn't deserve it only implies that punishment should be utilitarian and pragmatic, striving to minimize future suffering (with the definition of suffering and minimization being, of course, subjective and consensual within the discussing party). It can still be extremely severe, if only that is found to be the optimal (again, subjectively) course of action.

That said, I'm out -- free will threads are rarely satisfactory.

Regardless of whether you believe in free will or not, even if tomorrow it was decided there is no free will, and that society will adapt to accommodate that newfound understanding, nothing will really change. There will always be people who crave power over others for many different reasons, and society will still be stratified and hierarchical.

>>25648250
Trying to understand this...
This seems to be an example of the other side of the equation then:
'If I don't believe in free will, I may believe that nothing can really be done to help this person; we may be able to prevent this person's situation in future generations, but right now, this person's destiny is written, so I can feel okay in ignoring their plight because of that.'

If someone is fat and miserable, can they do nothing to change that? Society can change to prevent obesity in the future, but that person can also make changes in their own life to improve their own situation.

>>25647733
it has nothing to do with genetics, the universe is deterministic. there is no free will

>>25648324
(In other words, the problem here is that when people hear the words 'didn't deserve', they -- residually -- take that, at least partly, to mean 'didn't commit the thing in question', while the proper reaction is 'let us exclusively focus on prevention of such things in the future'.)

What is the point of this discussion? It changes nothing in the grand scheme of things.

File: 1452239573892.gif (2MB, 400x260px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 400x260px

Trivial and subjective, like all other philosophy

>>25646770
You don't have free will but it's healthier to assume that you do.

This 'there is no free will' meme seems to be another socialist-leaning mindset that will ultimately take people's freedom away from them.

>>25648531
>This seems to be an example of the other side of the equation then

Correct.

99% of people react to rejection of free will with the knee-jerk 'you refuse to take responsibility for yourself', forgetting that, conversely, *embrace* of free will implies refusing to take responsibility for *others*. There is a parallel in terms deserving: other people don't deserve anything, but what most people forget is that it also implies that I don't deserve anything, either, including good things, so I can only count on myself when it comes to pursuit of happiness. Rejection of free will is the mature, self-reliant position.

>'If I don't believe in free will, I may believe that nothing can really be done to help this person; we may be able to prevent this person's situation in future generations, but right now, this person's destiny is written, so I can feel okay in ignoring their plight because of that.'

...What?

This is nonsense. The fact that everyone's destinies are, in fact, written doesn't change the fact that belief in free will will result in more laziness and irresponsibility in the society, because people will delegate helping people onto those people themselves rather than take initiative.

>If someone is fat and miserable, can they do nothing to change that? Society can change to prevent obesity in the future, but that person can also make changes in their own life to improve their own situation.

'Can' is a strictly statistical relationship. One 'can' do something if science indicates that people sharing one's configuration of factors tended to go on to do that thing with a certain frequency. No one 'can' do anything in an acausal way; the proper perspective is that it might come to pass that as a result of one person's action, the likelihood that another person will do something will increase.

>>25648590
>>25648640
>>25648695
Glaringly false. Cf. >>25647737.

>>25648779
(In short, one can take a bit of a mental shortcut and consider this: 'Live as though you were the only person with free will'.)

>>25648813
So a person's behavior is influenced by what they learn. Wew lad, who would have thought? The concept of free will is true because you can always do what you want, but if there is no desire to do so, that doesn't mean the opposite.

>>25648952
>The concept of free will is true because you can always do what you want

Insofar as you live by this belief in practice, you are hurting the society in the ways I described.

>>25646770
>agree or disagree
>with a hypothesis

>>25648779
>*embrace* of free will implies refusing to take responsibility for *others*
How does rejection of free will imply you will take responsibility for others? You can ignore others just as easily, since you can say you were destined to do so.

What are some concrete examples of how 'taking responsibility' for others would manifest itself differently in a system that denies free will exists?

>>25648984
>fosters resentment and retribution
I am a forgiving soul. :^)
>curtails scientific investigation into causes of behaviour, hurting medical progress
What I said before, I am not against this because clearly the environment shapes the person.
>fosters declaring things as right and wrong as opposed to enumerating their consequences
If something has more beneficial consequences, then it is a "right" thing.
>fosters laziness because one can conclude one has earned and deserves things from other people
This is not caused by free-will, but rather by being spoiled.
>fosters irresponsibility because one can conclude other people have free will and should be able to take care for themselves, keeping one from ensuring their safety
I am also a helping soul. :^)
>prevents discussion of consequences of circumstances because it invites people to conclude that those consequences depend on one's actions, as opposed to sequentially, methodically analyzing those consequences one by one, variation after variation
Same as second point.

So you're saying that free-will causes people to act like a bunch of dicks. k

One can do as they will but cannot will as they will.

>>25649158
>You can ignore others just as easily, since you can say you were destined to do so.
>can

I don't think you're very likely to get it, anon, to be honest.

>>25649282
>>25649158
In other words, you're literally committing one of the points I gave in my list: refusing to discuss likelihoods, evading the issue into the general 'people can always act in spite of observed patterns of behaviour'. Just one of many ways in which belief in free will is actively anti-scientific.

Believing in free will:
>Everyone is responsible for their own lives. It's their fault if they cannot improve their situation.

Not believing in free will:
>Everything that has happened to me is not my fault. I cannot be blamed for the decisions I make.

Both sides are extremes that just are not true in reality. In reality, there are many things in life you cannot control, but there are things you do have control over, and that's it.

>>25649346
This is almost fine, but I recommend >>25648898 as a way to get the best of two worlds.

>>25649182
Your post is literally just anecdotal evidence. I am talking about the general societal consequences.

>>25649282
>you just don't understand me so you are wrong
You did not give any concrete examples of your point of view. Don't act smug and avoid the argument.

Once again:
What are some concrete examples of how 'taking responsibility' for others would manifest itself differently in a system that denies free will exists?

>>25649478
>What are some concrete examples of how 'taking responsibility' for others would manifest itself differently in a system that denies free will exists?

This question is retarded.

Belief in/rejection of free will is not some sort of parallel universe. It is a *belief*. A personality tendency. It affects choices to the degree it is adopted.

Examples?

>'She can quit this abusive relationship, she just needs to exert her f.w., if she isn't motivated by my reminder that she can do it, then it is her fault.'
>'Everyone can educate themselves, IQ doesn't matter at all, people just need to apply their f.w. and study really hard, there is no need to implement special policies.'
>'He can quit this addiction, he just needs to...'
>'There is no need to ensure that this hobby won't absorb him, he can just...'
>'Parents don't need to control the media their children are consuming, when they grow up, they will begin to display f.w. and will be able to adjust their priorities...'

I refuse to believe you needed this.

>>25649624
In short, embrace of free will means burdening other people. It epitomizes laziness.

>>25649624
(In other words, belief in free will is similar to theism also in how people are placing their trust in an imaginary entity -- other people's volition, to which they appeal -- so as to justify their inaction. Much like prayer.)

>>25649750
(In fact, I would not be surprised if belief in God and belief in free will were found to involve the same parts of the brain somehow.)

>>25649655
>not being selfless and leaving people to deal with problems they have brought upon themselves is lazy
Have fun in this thread, because most of the replies are yours.

>>25649624
You gave examples of your belief of how embrace of free will implies refusing to take responsibility for others. I understand that point of view, I don't need examples of that.

I asked for examples of the opposite, since you imply those who reject free will are responsible for others, and that this is better for society. Responsible how? How does this responsibility for others manifest itself differently than the world we currently live in?

Your response basically says 'look at how bad the belief in free will is', I'm asking for examples that show how good the non-belief in free will is or can be.

>>25649838
There is no such thing as 'bringing upon oneself'. This is precisely the lazy rationalization you are baselessly conjuring. There is just suffering which is to be reduced. Guilt doesn't exist, everyone deserves happiness in the same inherent way, regardless of his/her actions.

>>25649870
Those are the same examples. The dimension of embrace/rejection of free will *is* measured by presence or absence of the rationalizations I gave in >>25649624. If one declares one rejects free will, but still says things such as 'you need to take responsibility for your life' or 'you just need to try your best', one hasn't rejected it. If one professes belief in it, but goes out of their way to double- and triple-check others' success in case they should fail in their resolutions, one has embraced it.

>>25650023
>one has embraced it.
*has rejected it

>>25650023
Also, >inb4 'no true ... fallacy'

This is not a fallacy. This is simply a matter of attitude towards others' declarations. Insofar as one takes other people's 'I will do it, don't worry' at face value, trusting that that person will in fact do it, one believes in f.w.; and insofar as one looks beyond the declarations and sees that this doesn't say anything about the actual future, but is just four words that have been uttered, and that that resolution can very well change or be dropped in the future under various external pressures or just plain laziness, and that one must make one's own contingencies for that possibility... one rejects it.

>>25646770
>What do you think about the concept of free will?
Really the concept of free will itself is nothing more than a nuisance with no good definition. Romantics like to desperately hold onto some type of identity that differentiates them from the Universe.

Like others have stated in this thread, a lack of free will changes absolutely nothing.

>>25650180
>Like others have stated in this thread, a lack of free will changes absolutely nothing.

This is a really confused thing to say.

Presence/absence of free will cannot 'change anything' for the simple reason that a universe with free will is acausal and as such nonsensical.

But presence/absence of *belief* in free will can have tremendous consquences.

>>25650023
once again, everything you say is about how bad belief in free will is. i'm asking you to say why you think it is better for people not to be responsible for themselves.

>>25650225
>absence of *belief* in free will can have tremendous consquences.
examples?

>>25650235
>i'm asking you to say why you think it is better for people not to be responsible for themselves

...What?

...You are making zero sense.

Again, embrace/rejection of free will is DEFINED by absence/presence of certain behaviours. You are basically asking, 'what if being good means being bad'. Rejection of free will IS responsibility, in the sense of, as I am explaining over and over, taking care of others, not counting on others, and so on.

>>25650292
Read the fucking thread.

>>25650225
Does freewill pertain acausality?

The Universe itself maybe at certain scales acausal and still lack freewill.

What I was trying to state was that in a larger scheme of things i.e. law, a lack of freewill changes nothing.

Actions are that of actors. Actors bear responsibility.

>>25650381
>Rejection of free will IS responsibility, in the sense of, as I am explaining over and over, taking care of others, not counting on others, and so on.

Also the sense -- very important and very often overlooked -- of not crippling oneself by overestimating one's capacity to deal with adversity.

>>25650381
>Read the fucking thread.
There are no examples in this thread. Point them out for me if you believe this thread contains what I asked for, I have read it.

>Rejection of free will IS responsibility...is not counting on others
This doesn't make sense, doesn't a belief in free will mean you are self-responsible and not counting on others?

>Rejection of free will IS responsibility
Nowhere have you proved this to be true. It just seems to be your belief, not backed by anything except saying that it means taking care of others. I just don't see how that conclusion follows.

>>25650679
As always, I draw a line at repeating myself. You're basically asking 'prove that a cat is a small furry quadruped'.

>>25650679
>doesn't a belief in free will mean you are self-responsible and not counting on others?

Adoption of free will = behaviours presupposing that choices originate in oneself.

Rejection of free will = behaviours presupposing that choices originate in one's nature and nurture.


The term 'responsibility' as you used it, undefined, is not meaningful. Responsibility is defined in terms of your actions with respect to other people, which I did in many posts in this thread.

>>25650840
(And with respect to oneself as well, cf. >>25650552; for a tangible example, think e.g. willingness to try drugs or radically change one's environment, trusting that one will cope (trusting that one's free will will deal with it).)

>>25650840
>>25650876
In short, responsibility is accounting for as many external factors as possible, placing no trust in the imaginary factor of 'his/her/my free will will take care of this'.

>>25650840
>Rejection of free will = behaviours presupposing that choices originate in one's nature and nurture.
Well I would agree with this. We are the sum of our personal history, including nature, nurture and the decisions we have personally made. Is that last part going too far for you?

>>25650952
free will = irresponsiblity = he/she/I just need to do it, and I will if I decide to and persist in it, enough said

rejection thereof = responsibility = let's go through factors one by one... this one, overcoming it will require this... and that... and that. that one, it will require that and that also. that one, this and this... which I might or might not succeed at, the probability is, considering my current mental configuration, about...

Can be applied to getting a job, getting a girlfriend, quitting an addiction, anything.

>>25651099
>including (1) nature, (2) nurture and (3) the decisions we have personally made

There is no (3). (3) is just arbitrary decision to stop following the causal chain, to stop relating the contents of one's brain with the matter outside it (both inside and outside one's body).

>Why did I do that?
>(adoption of free will) because shitty day/shitty year/school/parents/upbringing/genes/evolution/cosmology/...
>(rejection of free will) because I chose to, end of story

That's what I meant back in >>25647497.

In fact, even the distinction between (1) and (2) only makes sense in the context of heredity studies.

>>25651219
In other words, among the choices that betray belief in free will is failure to connect one's behaviour to nature and nurture and instead preferring to (conceitedly?) attribute it to oneself.

>>25651219
>adoption
>>25651219
>rejection

Sorry, other way round. I'm very tired and it's been showing.

>>25651135
>free will = irresponsiblity = he/she/I just need to do it, and I will if I decide to and persist in it, enough said
That is a very extremist way to define 'free will'. Very few people think like that.

The process you described in 'rejection thereof' is just a logical thinking process anyone would go through when contemplating a task of challenge. You can have free will and still understand that there are other external factors that will influence your success/failure, in fact, you'd be a bit psycho if you didn't.

>>25651219
>(rejection of free will) because shitty day/shitty year/school/parents/upbringing/genes/evolution/cosmology/...
(i fixed your quote)
Doesn't this equate to 'it's not my fault, i am not to blame, i am not in control of my life.'

To me, this seems to be a moral quandary since it can be used to absolve people from having to take any responsibility for their decisions.
>I steal, cheat, kill, etc. because of who I am. I didn't ask to be this way.

>>25651328
>You can have free will and still understand that there are other external factors that will influence your success/failure

No. Or rather, you just unwittingly referenced the fact that belief in free will, being a personality dimension, can be partial. You must understand that belief in f.w. is a PERCEPTION which leads to certain assumptions. Depending on circumstances, it can be more or less prominent. A depressed person is presumably more rational/factual than a manic person in the sense of being aware that their successes and failures depend on their circumstances, and that one's (and by extension, others') well-being is not a given. Most people (normalfags) only acknowledge obstacles to behaviour in the most literal sense: fences, being locked up, physical strength, inevitable aging, and so on. A more rational person will be open to relating one's behaviour to genes. A fully rational person relates it 100% to circumstances and never utters the personal pronouns 'it depends on you/me' at all, but only 'it depends on presence of such or such physical circumstances inside or outside your brain'. It's a matter of definition of capacity. Cf. >>25648779.

>>25651493
>Doesn't this equate to 'it's not my fault, i am not to blame, i am not in control of my life.'

True. Yes, it does.

>it can be used to absolve people from having to take any responsibility for their decisions

True, but see >>25648324 where I addressed it.

>>I steal, cheat, kill, etc. because of who I am. I didn't ask to be this way.

It's a shame that such thoughts are thought by an immoral person, but they are still true. We must accept that not everything an immoral person thinks is automatically wrong.

>science
LOL
Not an argument.
>>25647446
Nope, get your head out of your assdora.

>>25651494
(I'm being very verbose, which is -- speaking of causes -- caused by my 100 WPM typing and tiredness failing to contain it. I'm very sleepy. Night. Sage.)

>>25648637
>i dont know what philosophy is

>>25648532
the universe is in fact not deterministic, it is all down to probabilities, it is hard to grasp but you really are one of the infinite probabilites, therefor there cannot be free will, i agree with that

>>25651575
Ok, I'm out, I admit I am new to this discussion, and I also can see how the default newb stance would be to argue for free will. However I'm not yet convinced that rejection of free will will be any better, because it ignores the reality that certain people/groups will always to control the masses, and will bend the meaning behind their beliefs to support their actions.

The pragmatic approach to punishment you describe here:>>25648324 is useful and I would agree with it. I'm just not sure that this free will/no free will argument really has anything to do with it.

>>25651493
>>25651575
(Just one more thing. One could ask me, how do I at the same time (1) define adoption/rejection of f.w. as responsibility in the sense of only counting on oneself, being skeptical of others' hopeful, optimistic declarations regarding their future, and so on, and at the same time (2) acknowledge that rejection of f.w. might lead to concessions that 'lalala nothing is ever my fault'. The answer is, of course, there is no contradiction between the two. The whole of the adoption/rejection of f.w. encompasses both. But the point is, accepting non-existence of f.w. leads to more (conventionally defined) benefits than drawbacks -- (1) is more prominent than (2).)

>>25651944
Cheers. Bye.

>>25651944
>it ignores the reality that certain people/groups will always to control the masses, and will bend the meaning behind their beliefs to support their actions

It doesn't 'ignore' it. This just hasn't been the subject of discussion. That's like saying that treating diseases ignores the fact that there is violent crime; it doesn't.

>proceed to turn the page to 57
get fukt

>>25652143
(On every page except pages 56 and 72:)
>'If you have come this page hoping to defy the command on page 56, let me remind you that your act of defiance has been determined by your genes and upbringing as well.'

>>25646770
So if a sudden epiphany hits me, I go to the gym, start taking college seriously, that means the "universe" was good to me? And it wasn't me taking a course of action for myself?

>>25652217
Yes.

affirmativeblox

>free will
>the ability to talk about and acknowledge free will
>if there was only predetermination we would not have any reason to think or discuss freewill
>Therefore we are free to make our own choices

>>25646770
or you have the choice to close the book, or not read the book in the first place, or to turn to page 72, cross out everything written and write your own story.

What's on page 72?

Imo it certainly appears that we don't have will, and if we do it certainly isn't free atm, but I'm uncertain of whether or not will exists in one form or another.

>>25652217

you people have such a simplistic world view. This is why you're all so miserable. Happiness is not being /fit/ and /fa/.

lol. you are shackled by your own delusions.

>>25652320
I KNOW
That's why I won't, even knowing it would be good for me
I am a nihilist

>>25652320
What is happiness?

Help me break my shackles

>>25646770
But what about events that are completely random?
Like a sudden thought, or a lightning strike
They can, and will, interfere with counscious beings

>>25652425
>sudden thought
>>25652425
>completely random

ihavesomenews.txt

Literally the only thing that matters is that we believe we have free will, perception is reality, if it isn't, you're thinking of another reality than the one I'm living in.

>>25652450
lol if you never had a sudden thought completely hitting you, you are not human

>>25652508
>if you never had a sudden thought completely hitting you

I have, and the mindset of a scientist is to acknowledge that it has been determined outside the threshold of my current causal horizon and unearth its yet hidden determinants.

>>25652550
In other words, the trick is to replace 'cause random' with 'cause yet unknown'.

>>25652550
what about quantum fluctuations? they are as random as it can get

>>25652590
isn't "cause" a human construct?

>>25652550
>unearth its yet hidden determinants

(Or should I rather say unmyelinsheath them.)

>>25652607
There is plenty of room for explanation until we hit the quantum level. We won't run out of learnable factors anytime soon.

>>25652661
Yea, quantum shit is pretty much insane
Like explaining why humans aren't philosophical zombies

>>25646770
>Neuroscience
>Not real science being infested and contaminated with previous pseudo-scientific idologies like psychology and psychiatry.
It's like you don't even WANT to have a physical science of the mind.

>>25652706
I'm sure there are many brainwashed 'scientists' in neuroscience but I would hope there are some doing real science in this field, not just politicized PC science, its the most fascinating field.