Is free will real?
Was I predetermined to end up like this no matter what choices I made?
>Western culture, traditional philosophy of mind and even cognitive neuroscience have been deeply influenced by the Myth of Cognitive Agency. It is the myth of the Cartesian Ego, the active thinker of thoughts, the epistemic subject that acts--mentally, rationally, in a goal-directed manner--and that always has the capacity to terminate or suspend its own cognitive processing at will. It is the theory that conscious thought is a personal-level process, something that by necessity has to be ascribed to you, the person as a whole. This theory has now been empirically refuted. As it now turns out, most of our conscious thoughts are actually the product of subpersonal processes, like breathing or the peristaltic movements in our gastrointestinal tract. The Myth of Cognitive Agency says that we are mentally autonomous beings. We can now see that this is an old, but self-complacent fairy tale. It is time to put it to rest.
Rest easy, Anon: we never had a chance.
muslims and feminist think like that, hence they can also be the victim and blame others for their own problem, never take responsibility or agency of your own life, just whine and bitch and cry.
Nah, soft determinism
There are certain things you and I have absolutely no control over whatsoever, such as the laws of nature. If you jump off a roof, you're free to do that, you just aren't free from the consequences of your choice, which is that you'll die.
If you delve into personality typing and neurobiology you will realize you are nothing but programming.
there's no way to know that anything is real
genetics is way too vague and environmental influences is just that, influences.
always fucking threads about this shit
do you think it's okay to just randomly think about reality defining garbage like free will and just toy with it or something without even having some data of anything?
lemme tell you a tale
it's one guy who got so weak because he kept thinking about free will but he was loaded with cash also
then another guy knows the guy is feeling weak because he keeps thinking about exactly free will so he grabs the opportunity and rapes him and steal his house
Free will does exist but the choices you make are predetermined. Luck plays a huge role. Your genetics and upbringing decide your personality and habits. Pure luck decides what part of the caste you end up in.
the religious concept of free will doesn't exist, as it is self contradictory.
being able to totally choose your path is obviously not possible (knowledge of something has to be acquired in order to be able to choose to do that thing)
the human mind is a sentient computer, which means that you are the result of your conditioning but you can choose how to progress based on your conditioning. stating that this is not free will because your choices are based on experiences is not correct because everything that exists is based on cause and effect in a similar way, except that non-sentient things have no choices to make. free will exists as the means to choose what to do based on who you are.
spirituality wise pretty much all religions say we have free will and what the fuck even suggest we dont have free will?.
Oh Im angry. Definitely cant suppress my anger somehow. oh it will lead me to doing only one specific thing, and a succession of event that's somehow written in the stars or something.
what the fuck. how do you even come up with this stupid idea
oh wow we cant go past what our brain doesnt know who would have thought
nonsense, only rootless people would think we live in a COMPUTER SIMULATION of all things. you clearly have 0 knowledge of the occult. oh yeah definitely buy the book that this person made out of her not free will but some kind of determination whatever you people come up with.
>the religious concept of free will doesn't exist
I dont know what kind of retardation you've been reading but pretty much all religions acknowledge free will.
Do you really believe you can consciously make decisions hundreds of a millisecond quicker before the subconcious is put to work? Even if you could neurology tells us you can't make conscious decisions without first consulting the subconcious, Anon
when I say "the religious concept of free will" I'm referring to being able to choose how to progress despite everything being wholly deterministic and there being some kind of divine plan in place. I grew up catholic and this is very present in catholic religious ideas. If a divine plan is in place, free will (again which is a part of catholic thought and most Christian denominations) can't exist in any form because your fate is entirely predetermined.
This thread pops up all the time but nobody ever defines free will. If free will means a causeless action, then free will is possible because it violates causality. If you think it means something else and I'm wrong, please post what you think "free will" really means.
>because your fate is entirely predetermined.
only if you choose to be part of it. in traditional societies they worked in accordance with the above and there were castes and etc
then you had the outcasts, people who didnt want to abide by their castes, therefore not working in accordance with the above.
say something instead of linking a god damn wikipedia article
your brain always know more than your conscious thoughts. but your brain is you, not something else. it's YOU, THINKING FOR YOU.
Also, in calvinism, they believed that you were predestined for heaven or hell, but they did not believe that this gave excuse for one to lead a sinful life.
So no, calvinism does not justify being a neckbeard waste of space
All these people fell into the trap of thinking "I can do whatever I want with no consequences" because it makes life easier for some and very profitable for others. If you fall into one of these categories, then yeah there's no "free will". If you are poor and unhappy, take control of your life and either end it or make something happen. Nobody else will want you to succeed until you prove you deserve it
please respond to my post so we can talk about relevant things instead of getting sidetracked by religion
if you didn't believe that there was a divine plan, you would be seen as a heretic in pre-modern societies. the large majority of people who were/are adherents of a religion with some kind of divine plan believe in this idea.
Lutheranism is really similar to Calvinism and it is a modern religion.
>if you didn't believe that there was a divine plan, you would be seen as a heretic in pre-modern societies. the large majority of people who were/are adherents of a religion with some kind of divine plan believe in this idea.
and? what's your point
you stated in response to what I said "only if you choose to be a part of it", and I responded that the large majority of people who are adherents of a religion with a divine plan choose to believe in the divine plan. the divine plan contradicting with free will was my original point, since a divine plan disallows free choices to exist.
>since a divine plan disallows free choices to exist.
Inb4 we start a new sidetrack where he claims this isn't true when we still haven't defined our terms:
>tfw we have computers and our own land and good medicine thanks to a meme.
What bothers me is people who say they don't have any free will of their own but go to doctors or search for good deals on things. Just let nature do everything for you.
Why would free will mean a causeless action? You are the cause of an action. Your free will allowed you to decide to take that course of action and not any other.
Your free will actually caused rality to "solidify" from a cloud of possibilities, one planck-constant at a time.
Thats what Free Will is in my opinion:
The Ability to initiate an desirable action , without external stimuli, or based upon them,within the confines of a given reality.
nowhere did it has been implied
yet heretics and pariahs, yet i dont know what kind of divine plan you have in mind but as i said pretty much all religions acknowledge free will
>What bothers me is people who say they don't have any free will of their own but go to doctors or search for good deals on things. Just let nature do everything for you.
Lmao are you retarded? I'm a determinist not a luddite. Doctors didn't choose to be doctors any more than Hitler chose to be Hitler or you chose to be a nigger.
>labeling yourself with babbys first philosophy topic
I didnt mention medical school or caring about helping people, lame ass, I said it makes no sense to go see a doctor yourself if you believe you have no free will. You can only have someone else force you to go there or just let whatever health problem run its course. Any decision you make that isn't a natural response forfeits your argument about having no free will
I mean your consciousness.
I know how "new-age'y" this is gonna sound, but consciousness is the only thing that can affect reality, because its the only thing we know that collapses probability waves. Read up on the double-slit experiment , and what a probability wave is.
Ok, lets redefine. " The ability of a consciousness, to act out a action desirable by it, within the confines of a given reality."
>consciousness is the only thing that can affect reality, because its the only thing we know that collapses probability waves
I literally cringed.
Also, tip: your 'myself/consciousness creates choices' isn't shit because it's false, it is shit because it is tautological and explains nil in the empirical sense.
But mostly, I came to say that I literally cringed.
>The choices you made were predetermined by your biology
pretty much means retarded or not
>circumstances of your birth.
you cant do things your brain has no idea about so yeah i guess
A robot doesn't go to a repair shop on its own, it just rusts. If you can't tell the difference between a human and a toaster then what are you doing in a philosophical argument?
jesus christ help us
How can people be so retarded? Fucking kill yourself holy shit.
HOW DO PEOPLE COME UP WITH SUCH RETARDED STATEMENTS AND BEING COMPLETELY SERIOUS ABOUT IT
>scientifically proven in the double-slit experiment that you need a conscious observer for an interference patern to disappear because the probability wave collapses sooner.
I know its circular and retarded
>" The universe exists because we exist and it wouldnt exist without us"
Im not claiming i understand it...
"Soul" is a vague term, but yes, maybe. Maybe its just a compilation of self-aware chemicals in our brain.
>I can't/won't refute his point, so instead I'll call him retarded!
Why do people still do this.
>Im not claiming i understand it...
Then you can't really debate about it, can you?
>Maybe its just a compilation of self-aware chemicals in our brain.
If this is the case, then free will is impossible.
Consciousness doesn't exist. Our behaviour fully, inherently follows a couple of deterministic functions of perception, definition, pattern recognition, evaluation, choice, decision-making, and so on and so on. We are literally computer programs.
>mfw all these millennial fucking retards who got confused by the "computers are like brains" analogy and think it works the other way too
Do you believe that Google maps is actually a parallel universe too?
When someone has to trot out "U-UR MAKING A FALLACY!!", you pretty much know they're out of anything meaningful to say.
PROTIP: This isn't a debate club, it's a vietnamese frog cuckoldry forum.
well, what is fundamentally different between humans and toasters, our synapses operate differently from transistors, but maybe quantum phenomena in nerve cells is discrete like the 1s and 0s in a computer
So pray what is the magical difference between humans and lesser beings, such as robots? 'Subjective experience'? This experience is just the structure of decision-making. Any computer program exhibits the same one. If a robot decides to avoid something, for instance if a battle android avoids a bullet, it feels pain.
>Human Will: Total depravity: Humanity possesses "free will"  but it is in bondage to sin, until it is "transformed".
the source you post says Calvinists DO say we have free will. What point are you trying to make?
>causeless action is impossible
In classical and relativistic physics, but not in Quantum as far as I know.
A particle can decay with no cause, a truly random process. Remember Einstein saying "God does not play dice" in disbelief at this causless process?
It's just a quantitiative difference. No one says the output of a toaster equals output of a human; but it is just determined physical output nonethless. A toaster produces toasts: a human produces noises that can carry knowledge and shit.
The fuck is wrong with you? Do you know the difference between a map and a landscape? Do you think magic created that landscape? I'm just saying brains are almost nothing like machines. Your shitty semantics/philosophy discussion that gets covered in high school is a different story
So you're basically claiming that there is an arbitrary qualitative difference between the stimuli-determined signalling of a machine such as a toaster and the signalling of a human, such as language. Qualitative differences require definition.
Pain is basically the best counter-argument for your statement.
Lets take your situation - taking a bullet during a fight.
An android would take the bullet, register the damage and fight on.
A human takes a bullet and all fucking hell breaks loose - your nerves in the damage are fire at the same time, you get crippling pain that significantly reduces your fighting capabilities. All sorts of feeling start to churn in your brain-fear, pain, panic, anger, desperation, the will to survive. You may start remembering events from your life in vivid detail. All in the final moments of your life.
There is no logical reason for you to feel more anger, statr remembering your life, or for the pain to disable you. If you even were to create an android that could emulate all of that. It would be just that and emulation and therefore not real.
Thank you for flawlessly confirming my very point.
>robot: taking a bullet during a fight
>human: taking a bullet during a fight
>robot: register the damage
>human: fucking hell breaks loose - your nerves in the damage are fire at the same time, you get crippling pain that significantly reduces your fighting capabilities.
>robot: fight on
>human: All sorts of feeling start to churn in your brain-fear, pain, panic, anger, desperation, the will to survive. You may start remembering events from your life in vivid detail. All in the final moments of your life.
Perfect correspondence. Human reactions are just a bit more complex. Again, the difference is strictly quantitiative: human evolution has come
>There is no logical reason for you to feel more anger, statr remembering your life, or for the pain to disable you.
This is nonsense. It *is* perfectly, inherently logical. Evolution has made its necessarily, inherently logical educated guess with respect to the reactions that best equip you to deal with the situation -- just like the programmer of a robot dues his inherently logical guess with respect to best battle routines. The fact that there are *some* circumstances in which the amount of reactive anger or fear might be seen as disproportionate in no way at all makes those reactions illogical.
tl;dr you don't know what you're talking about and your argument is shit.
>but it is just determined physical output nonethless.
well if that means toasters and humans are ultimately the same thing that's a very gross oversimplification.
I am affected by gravity like a rock, therefore i am no different from a rock.
1. Machines do not have life, as they are mechanical. On the other hand, humans are made of flesh and blood; life is not mechanical for humans.
2. Humans have feelings and emotions, and they can express these emotions. Machines have no feelings and emotions. They just work as per the details fed into their mechanical brain.
3. Humans can do anything original, and machines cannot.
4. Humans have the capability to understand situations, and behave accordingly. On the contrary, machines do not have this capability.
5. While humans behave as per their consciousness, machines just perform as they are taught.
6. Humans perform activities as per their own intelligence. On the contrary, machines only have an artificial intelligence
If I was to get out of your shitty dumb fucking ass set debate criteria I would also say we have a soul which transcends this physical plane that also has a will of its own and that outer struggles are merely symbols of inner transcendant struggles such as the will of our soul to escape earth or something but hey you're fucking retarded and you went full mechanical, there is no saving you.
>human evolution has come
Human evolution has come to define our reactions a bit more broadly than usual -- we *are* the Earth's pinnacle species, after all.
Also this. Cheers.
Friendo you aren't allowed to use arbitrary as a descriptor if your world has toasters and humans on the same level in terms of consciousness. The reason people laugh at your worldview is that it's far too simplified. copper wires don't transfer information at all like neurons, and if that's where you're starting from then why define anything at all? The sun is a toaster is a horse.
that's right you're a dumbass who doesnt understand shit and I've had enough of debating such a pointless thing on your shitty criterias.
Point me out 1 single atheistic billionaire.
But I'll reply.
>Machines do not have life, as they are mechanical. On the other hand, humans are made of flesh and blood; life is not mechanical for humans.
Imaginary distinction that flesh is somehow a special material.
>Humans have feelings and emotions, and they can express these emotions. Machines have no feelings and emotions.
False, machines have emotions. Emotions are repellents and attractors: negative and positive judgements in decision-making.
>Humans can do anything original, and machines cannot.
Utter nonsense. What is machine-generated literature, poetry, music, art... It is just a matter of number of variables, and we're catching up very quick.
>Humans have the capability to understand situations, and behave accordingly. On the contrary, machines do not have this capability.
This is so preposterously vague and naive at the same time I don't even know how to reply.
>While humans behave as per their consciousness, machines just perform as they are taught.
>Humans perform activities as per their own intelligence. On the contrary, machines only have an artificial intelligence
Our consciousness is just a handful of evolution-based, environment-fine-tuned algorithms.
>we have a soul which transcends this physical plane that also has a will of its own and
Shit, wasted my time on bait.
>If it's no different then why don't you go shitpost with a chatbot instead of bullying people on the Internet?
Because so far, complexity and relevance of reactions is on the human side.
>he hasn't realised that quantum theory allows for causeless events.
>he hasn't realised that the brain is a quantum machine
Just as it is impossible to predict when a particular nucleus will decay, it is impossible to predict what a sentient being is about to think or do.
from this thread I learned there are in /r9k/ right now unironic /fringe/-tier retards that believe humans aren't just biological machines and there's something intangibly speshul about them
>hell some things dont fucking need refutation
gives no reason why
>no way at all makes those reactions illogical.
If you get shot through the thigh only a small fraction of the actual muscle fibers and skin is damaged, yet you cannot walk. There is no logical reason for this as the brain can, theoretically, control much smaller muscle groups, and could so avoid the injured part, while keeping you mobile.
But if you keep dissmissing involuntary actions as "lol its your programming" then fuck off with this entire argument because its pointless by default.
A robot will never get a bad habit, like smoking, it will never go mad if its depressed, i would never push the history eraser button, because "YOLO".
now fuck off.
Predestination hasn't been proven true or false- however, I believe it to be an unhealthy world-view no matter whether it's true or not. If you believe everything is pre-determined, you will feel like you have less purpose, and will be less likely to work towards goals or happiness.
What he means is: if you assume effect doesn't need a cause, so you could argue you are an actor that interfaces with the brain (making a choice, recalling memory, etc.) rather than just experiencing the ride your brain makes (you feel like you're making choices but it's chemistry and physics that do the work), you'd still be left with the issue of other things happening (without event) to influence how a choice is made.
Of course it does.
If you do not consider your everyday experience to me reflective of reality you may as well be talking about fantasy.
In other words, there is literally no difference between thinking you have free will, and actually having it.
I mean, the it'll make you lazy bit.
>If you get shot through the thigh only a small fraction of the actual muscle fibers and skin is damaged, yet you cannot walk. There is no logical reason for this as the brain can, theoretically, control much smaller muscle groups, and could so avoid the injured part, while keeping you mobile.
YOU know this, because YOU INDIVIDUALLY have exceeded evolution's/the individual in question's knowledge. Logicality of a decision is contained within the knowledge engaged in the decision-making. Humans and machines alike are inherently logical and utilitarian within the scope of factors they are aware of -- a decision is made logical by the very virtue of being to be chosen.
>But if you keep dissmissing involuntary actions as "lol its your programming" then fuck off with this entire argument because its pointless by default.
'You're wrong, but if you're right, then you're wrong, so fuck off.'
>Emotions are repellents and attractors: negative and positive judgements in decision-making.
weighting positive and negative has nothing to do with emotions
>What is machine-generated literature, poetry, music, art...
oh link me to some of this great machine generated art that isnt some abstract nonsense.
>This is so preposterously vague and naive at the same time I don't even know how to reply.
robots cant defuse a situation between 2 humans.
>Our consciousness is just a handful of evolution-based, environment-fine-tuned algorithms
Explain to me great philosophers who sit at home all day
>Shit, wasted my time on bait.
calcified brain at its finest. well at least you make some fine rootless human capital.
>weighting positive and negative has nothing to do with emotions
This is literally what emotions are. Love, hate, compassion, disgust, are just names of evolutionary or cultural determinants which step in in certain situations (on recognition of certain patterns) and colour preferences regarding one's choice of the next step, the next thing to do.
>great machine generated art that isnt some abstract nonsense
'No true art' fallacy.
>Explain to me great philosophers who sit at home all day
You're not even trying. Shit, wasted my time on bait AGAIN.
>colour preferences regarding one's choice of the next step, the next thing to do
(E.g. presence of love increases the positive evaluation of the prospect of 'cheer up my gf', and presence of hate increases the negative evaluation of the prospect of 'compliment my bully'.)
If I don't have free will can't I just go out and kill a bunch of people and not be punished for it? Since I didn't choose to do it, it would have happened no matter what. The atoms of my body simply followed deterministic processes.
What im desperately trying to make you to see is this:
A self-aware, learning robot, could never, ever, fucking, ever do something disadvantageous to it. Because it simply fucking cant.
If it had the ability i would be artificially forced.
Thats the difference - as a human you have no choice what you take away from a experience, but a robot cannot and if it has that function then its just there to
>lol gotta be like a human, lets take this crack
it wouldt be real.
And, for the retards, by "not real" and "artificial" i mean "telling a girl your rich" not fucking "doesnt exist"
the useless and brainless retard is you
because he has the will to do so? he has to tell himself if he's gonna do it or not taking into account this whole free will garbage?
>This is literally what emotions are.
yet robots cant process human emotions nor act according to them.
>'No true art' fallacy.
jesus christ. fallacy fallacy.
>You're not even trying. Shit, wasted my time on bait AGAIN.
Hey I'm here arguing with a retard based on what he can only understand and not with the most of what I know. So fuck off with that shit.
explain or kill yourself
You know whats funny? Nihilists and Atheistic-leaning people in general will point out that the causes that are inherent in fundamental physics/chemistry suggest the ability to impart change on the environment of its own accord that is wholly determined by strict laws is somehow exclusive to these, whilst decrying the conscious self as being an anthropocentric, flawed view.
Is the irony not clear?
At the atomic level, cause and effect are not as you imagine them, atoms are not discrete structures as you are used to dealing with in your day to day life. There is no reason to point to these interactions as being the agents responsible for imparting their will on their environment, aside from the bias YOU have.
The 'I', the self, is ironically nudged out of the picture on the basis that to espouse it's fundamental role as 'the' agent responsible for taking action on its own accord, is to display hubris or an egotistical worldview, when in realty there is no more reason to ascribe these qualities, anthropocentric themselves, to what is in fact the all in all that is reality. You are carving out a special set of rules and restrictions for yourself that you claim your opponents are doing.
In the 80s people had no fucking clue how computers worked. They still don't, but engineers just referenced humans for examples of how information gets processed and transferred. Having no background in biology makes these examples sound like one equals the other, which makes the whole analogy meaningless. It's like if someone told you space is a vacuum and you decided that the inside of a light bulb is its own universe. Sounds cool or whatever, but there's no information there. An r9k analogy would be a woman claiming that staring at somebody is rape because they heard rape makes people uncomfortable.
>Is free will real?
in this day and age? no. you cant do anything on this planet without money, and the only way to get money (reliably) is to become a wageslave and trade half your life for it. its the be all end all. your choices in life are ultimately limited by how much money you have.
>A self-aware, learning robot, could never, ever, fucking, ever do something disadvantageous to it. Because it simply fucking cant.
Agreed. And exactly the same with humans. A human being ALWAYS chooses the most advantageous path. Purportedly 'irrational' decisions -- acting 'randomly', suicide, self-harm, lashing/chimping out, are ALWAYS reflective of a -- sometimes momentary, sometimes not -- fluctuation of priorities that shot one's decisions into the 'raises other people's eyebrows' territory. Come on, I was fucking 17 when I understood this.
>yet robots cant process human emotions nor act according to them.
Because my magical flesh fairy difference that I can't explain.
determinism. the past future and present are all predestined, you're just riding a train on tracks. Choices aren't real because whatever happens in the end was your only option, the only possible outcome, because you can't go back in time to change things.
Funny how not a single anon bothers to ask what we mean when we debate the role of 'you' in the world. What is this 'you'?
That should at least provide some framework instead of this sloppy style you idiots have going on here.
Holy fuck, the amount of retards completely unable to comprehend the concept of a deterministic universe really just cofirms this entire board is underage b& cancer. Fuck me, this board is finished.
>Because my magical flesh fairy difference that I can't explain.
i know you cant
>A human being ALWAYS chooses the most advantageous path.
>Purportedly 'irrational' decisions -- acting 'randomly', suicide, self-harm, lashing/chimping out, are ALWAYS reflective of a -- sometimes momentary, sometimes not -- fluctuation of priorities that shot one's decisions into the 'raises other people's eyebrows' territory.
>>im gonna kill myself because i dont know anything else
>>mate dont kill yourself you have so much to live for
>>oh thats right i do. my past decision was definitely not for my best.
No first cause ---> effect --> cause ---> effect --> cause ---> effect --> etc infinite
This is not that hard.
and dont bring morality into this, it has nothing to do with it. We all agree that will exists, but it is not free, of couse you weigh in different factors but you can only make it one way.
Think about it, the burden of proof is on you becouse we have never observed free will. We only know it can happen ONE way not multiple. Everthing that ever happen could only happen that way, and everything that will happen is alredy determined.
I know this is scary and hurts peoples world view but its obvious when you think about it
I see free will as the the ability to make choices. Everyone has free will but individuals who are higher ranking, smarter, or equal can sway others choices(bosses/superiors/friends) . You have free will to quit your job, avoid people, or even suck cocks but, the fact that you can make a choice to do anything is free will and the outcome of those things is cause and effect.
>call other anons underage
>tfw underage myself
If you think that rationality of a decision is defined by its consistency with the majority's arbitrary, contextual, cultural, shifting priorities ('suicide is irrational because it makes your family cry and making people cry is bad okay? ;_; '), as opposed to being inherently rational in the sense of being the dominant, resultant vector of all sub-priorities the person has been having at the moment of his decision (e.g., suicide being the end vector of subvectors of wanting to no longer disappoint others, wanting to avoid physical pain, wanting to spite others, wanting for one's decision to be consistent with one's declarations, ... ... ...), you might be underage indeed.
I know what you mean.
In other words, 'irrationality' only exists when ONE model of decision-making (for instance, a decision why one should kill oneself, complete with every argument and counterargument one considers) is contrasted with ANOTHER in the light of which it can be FOUND inadequate. But this 'irrationality' is only a product of the COMPARISON, of one decision being contemplated being replaced with another, that one has found preferable. But considered in itself, every fucking decision is perfectly rational.
when the person realizes the objectively better choice was to not kill himself in the end. he got to have a good life.
human life has no value to you, nothing means anything to you. stop reading stirner or whatever led you to be this much of a half-man.
we can see all causes exept one
next you gonna say that the romans did not know about the strong nuclear force
Its like fucking talking in circles.
The difference between a robot and you, is the vague notion, that if you become bad
you did it out of your own free will
>tfw nobody itt smart enough to come up with a way to refute your argument against the status quo.
You're all idiots, SCIENCE RULES Bill Bill Bill Bill Bill Bill Bill Bill Bill Bill
(In yet other words, rationality/logic and irrationality/logic are not unlike (im)perfectness. There is no such thing as 'objectively perfect'; perfection is a label, a property of a model in the mind. If the model of something contains a quality conceived as 'im-', 'mis-', 'mal-', then it is imperfect. Everything is perfect until it is conceived otherwise. When you think of a cat, it is a perfect cat unless you conceive of a flaw, such as a broken tail. Similarly, all decisions are rational until/unless they are conceived as 'irrational' by way of comparison and forming of a difference. Fucking tard.)
See above, I would have told you were you not a shitty baiter
, I would have told you were you not underage.
GIVE ME ONE GOOD REASON NOT TO KILL PEOPLE IF THERE IS NO FREE WILL!
That the world is strictly deterministic im a way that determines the actions of the self. Obviously contrasts to the mainstream societal view that is the opposite, but this is fedora central.
I share the same mentality as you bud I was being ironic hence the deceptively smug Pepe.
been arguing with satan this whole time.
evolution and everything, no healthy man will kill himself or inflict himself harm for no reason. Unless he has a perfect reason to do so. Which is
thats right theres no free will there is absolutely no way you could weight the right and wrong, at least thats what people itt think
You mean you haven't heard what Tyrone gets up to in the big house??
>no healthy man will kill himself or inflict himself harm for no reason
You're just not getting it, I see.
The mercilessly logical process of evolution can lead to behaviours that are SEEN as illogical by the majority. Again, evolution makes educated guesses. Sometimes its logical guesses are seen to misfire, as in cases of misfits who decide to quit. But logic, just like morality indeed, is relative. Or rather, logicality pertains strictly to *structure*; it is not informed by *content*. Logicality of a decision has fuck all to do with *what* one chooses to do. As soon as a decision consists of if-then-else-because-unless, it is logical (rational).
yes i got that the post you reponded to said, "Your own moral fiber."
which is subjective
(In other words, a mentally ill person who chooses to do and cry whatever and changes their mind literally every minute is just as logical (rational) as everyone else. What they are is incongruous, inconsistent, incompatible. But not illogical. Because (il)logical describes the conjunctions involved, nothing more.)
>yeah I'm here choosing to shitpost but free will doesn't exist
It's all an illusion, cumslut. If you can argue one and not the other, you don't have a clue what determinism is, let alone philosophy
>What they are is incongruous, inconsistent, incompatible.
okay so now what's your point? If they are "logical" it certainly doesn't mean it's the best for them nor that they really know what they're doing.
There is no free will. There is an illusion of free will. You are enslaved by chemical reactions. If you abandon the comfort of perpetuating the human race you'll experience the closest you'll ever get to free will. Your existence, let alone your consciousness, is a correlation of random events.
Give up women and embrace epicureanism. It's the only way of going through life with the least torment.
So is all sex rape, because there is no such thing as choice?
Maybe those feminists were right all along.
>it certainly doesn't mean it's the best for them nor that they really know what they're doing
Also, >objective morality again.
Make no mistake, objective morality needn't have the form of 'killing is always bad'. You're still displaying belief in 'things objectively better/worse for you'.
Okay then, rewording, they can act incongruous, inconsistent, incompatible, unlike machines.
Nah, if the guy reflects on the past and realizes he did good not killing himself, you get my point.
You're devitating so hard from the obvious.
yes but think about this, no one choose to rape it was determend
lol its like trying to prove somthing that is not real
>im gonna kill myself because i dont know anything else
>mate dont kill yourself you have so much to live for
>oh thats right i do. my past decision was definitely not for my best.
Do you really think talking someone down from suicide is this easy?
>they can act incongruous, inconsistent, incompatible, unlike machines
And, of course, this is false as well. Because unlike 'logical', the above three are subjective. Cf. >>25703666 and 'perfectness'. An observer might perfectly well declare a group of robots' actions as 'incongruous' ('bizarre') if he watches them, for instance, vandalize some stuff, not knowing that they're acting rationally owing to a backdoor implemented in them or something. But to the abuser of that backdoor, their behaviour will not be 'incongruous' because he will have planned it from the beginning.
>if the guy reflects on the past and realizes he did good not killing himself
I always draw the line at repeating myself.
But that's just the rich fuccboi's insecurity.
difference is a robot will always act according to the way he has been made/programmed/modified. But he is behaving perfectly the way it is programmed for the time hes being backdoored.
>I always draw the line at repeating myself.
ok, i suppose you just usually let people kill themselves without talking them out of it?
>difference is a robot will always act according to the way he has been made/programmed/modified.
Just like a human. Every 'unpredictable', 'programming-defying' act of a human being just reflects its agent's/its witnesses' inability to penetrate the underlying algorithm, the underlying factors responsible for that act. This is the true issue with free will.
>i suppose you just usually let people kill themselves without talking them out of it?
Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. Depends -- not on me, but, of course, on nature and on nurture. What matters is that I never imply that 'you should' or 'you shoudn't' is objective.
That doesn't work well because the tirle suggests a suite of characteristics when the matter is still up for debate.
A true answer would be one that provides some sort of framework in which arguments can be said to be true or false in whether they describe the nature of this 'you.'
I would say that the self is that all-encompassing oneness which can be found in the entity that calls itself 'I'
This is the most basic definition, and yet includes everything necessary insofar as the language with which that entity comes to internally regard itself.
This is what reality is after all, by definition.
Who else /monism/ here?
>all these misguided anons speaking of a world in which the self is not all in all but divided between subject and observer
Hold on there cowboy. Determinists choose to believe that there is no "want" and there is nothing they can do about it. They only get what they deserve and that's predetermined to them
Heres a situation
niggerman is born in killer facility and they raise him to be a killer who mindless kill people on sight, and thats the only thing he know
yeah he acts "rationally" and "perfectly", but does he work in accordance with Man
After all if you remove all technologies and bring man back to his primitive state, the only people who could have been remotely considered sane were those who were able to have some sort of sociability, to be cooperative and such
What "works" and is "rational" in a human is therefore is ability to help his commune and such. His ability to lead it higher.
We CANNOT mesh human and machine morality.
I dont think I can argue a whole lot more after that im very tired.
>people have opinions and want to share them
>based on different experiences providing broad answers
>I'll call them fedorawearing betas
haha, these nerds amirite?
>inb4 baited xDDDD
>yeah he acts "rationally" and "perfectly", but does he work in accordance with Man
and what i mean by that is that Man by default is "programmed" to be social, cooperative, build civilizations and all
To be antisocial and inept to contribute to this in anyway, makes a human who we could consider to be irrational and imperfect, even useless, not remotely doing what he should, not being able to remotely be in touch with primitive urge and needs and desires, and this is what mean is programmed for by default.
conclusions dont mix man and machine
>Was I predetermined to end up like this
In a manner of speaking. Any and all events are predictable and could be anticipated, however no human actually has the means to do so.
When you say predetermined I know what you're actually getting at with deterministic theory, but it's a bit of a moot point as we lack the means to predict much of anything really. So yes I'd say all actions are ultimately predetermined, but knowing this is pretty useless.
>no matter what choices I made
Your choices were a result of your past experiences and knowledge. You analyze a situation and choose and option that will yield the most personally beneficial result limited by the previous factors.
Your will is your own but it isn't exactly "free", or at least what you mean by it.
This whole elaborate scenario is wasted for the simple reason that it would work exactly as well if the fleshy man were replaced with a machine. You've spun a nice story, but the chemical elements the carcass of its hero is made of -- carbon and water and oxygen and whatever in case of humans and iron and silicon and whatever in case of a robot -- change absolutely nothing. Both entities would be (re)programmable with its environment, and so on, and so on.
Im still claiming that the only difference between robots and humans is that a robot cant do anything disadvantageous to it, while a human can. A human can take a whole lifes experience, throw that shit out the window, stick your dick i a blender and jump of a plane.
That IMO is the difference between man and machine. REAL free will.
>A human can take a whole lifes experience, throw that shit out the window, stick your dick i a blender and jump of a plane.
The prioritative fuckup this would require would still be determined. You're just taking a 'random' action at face value and refusing to relate it to the physical, material past of the agent's body. Which is, again, the error of all believers in free will.
except we're talking humans here, we are born with set needs, whereas a robot is born with nothing but what we tell him.
Try to deviate from your nature and nothing good will happen. it would require an extremely elaborate AI to actually give them the urge to build something for the best and even give them any sort of complex self-awareness. thats the key. to build for the best and long-lasting and whatever, to give them the will to do so by themselves, matrix -tier
>we are born with set needs, whereas a robot is born with nothing but what we tell him
Human needs are determined by their molders: evolution.
Robot needs are determined by their molders: humans.
can we even compare needs molded by evolution and needs molded by humans? its like debunking monarchy it's easy to do but then you realize it was actually the best system for Man
anyway im off to bed
Oh I thought >>25703417 argued against:
>Purportedly 'irrational' decisions -- acting 'randomly', suicide, self-harm, lashing/chimping out, are ALWAYS reflective of a -- sometimes momentary, sometimes not -- fluctuation of priorities that shot one's decisions into the 'raises other people's eyebrows' territory.
>to build for the best and long-lasting and whatever, to give them the will to do so by themselves
Fuckin-- THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS 'BY THEMSELVES'. Eventual acquisition of a goal, or rather a set of determinants of one's goals in any specific situation, has been inherited from the past, whether in a human or in a machine. The poster who brought up randomness vs pseudorandomness actually had a point. A robot (or a human) that makes decisions 'by themselves' is just as impossible as a computer that comes up with random numbers. All that's possible is transformation, minimization, maximization. But there is no self-creation. Law of conservation of causality.
(By the way: that there is no such thing as 'by oneself' has nothing to do with the retarded Buddhist dogma that 'the self doesn't exist'.)
>can we even compare needs molded by evolution and needs molded by humans?
Sure. It's like comparing apples and oranges. Both are small fruit with nutritional value, size, family, kernels, national production, and so on.
It's misleading because it disregards the fact that the world is given to you only once, it cannot be divided into subject and observer. It is all in all.
If we were to regard the self as being an observer we would have to stray from this truth and search for an agency that is conceived on a faulty worldview.
The agency accounted for by the aforementioned 'I' cannot be relegated to its individual parts insofar as they are to be regarded as separate entities possessing agency of their own. This is because when we refer to the self we are including all aspects of it as per the fact that reality is by definition the singular culmination of subjective experience.
Straying here leads to getting bogged down in semantics and ambiguous attributions of agency.
The Universe cannot be deterministic, as it wouldnt be balanced.
We are creatures that move forward in time. Not because time "flows" forward, but because we are beings that live in steadily increasing entropy, as all we know is base on the increase of entropy.For us the "future" is a cloud of possibilities.
It stands to reason that there exist beings that live in decreasing entropy (if you dont get the entropy thing - "go back in time"). For such beings the Past is a sea of possibilities.
As we understand it the universe is made up of pixels planck-length in size and we live in a constant snapshot 1 planck-time at a time. And if it can arange itself for us so that it seems as things are moving forward, there is no reason why it couldnt arrange itself for someone else so that things would seem to flow backwords (of course it wouldnt seem so for backwordlanders).
But if you put it like that , wouldn't it mean that just the current planck-time snapshot exists? Therefore all movement and change must be an illusion?
thats only if you go to an extreme (lifelong sensory deprivation)
by themselves mean out of their own will
a robot will never act of its own will; it has none, it cannot function with no directions
if man is in a blank space and he see a spot of color that is of negative value to the blank space he will go after it
hey but also how do you explain existentialism in Man? Would robots ever question their own existence?
Think about what a robot wouldnt question
OKAY IM OUT IMGONNA PASS OUT
The joys of an anonymous image board. Im actually not the guy you were discussing 'objective advantage' with 'objective morality' with. You are debating 2 different anons. I posted only about the learning bad things stuff.
>Denying distinctions exist
Literally the central tenant of Monism. Pic related, Erwin Schrodinger, for all you scientists who might feel as if an argument is more legitimate if it comes from a real physicist.
That's true, but it still exhibits properties characteristic of intelligence, such as learning. Viz. evolutionary safeguards against damage or heights which anticipate same conclusions arrived at rationally by humans, hundreds of millions of years after.
>You are debating 2 different anons.
How new must you be to fail to understand the idea of an anonymous imageboard that hard (while claiming to understand it)? I'm guessing half a year at most. I've talked with dozens of newfriends who do that.
The very point is that one doesn't (have to) dwell on identities anymore, but instead treats every poster like one person, Anonymous, 'you'. There is no need to try to separate claims of particular people behind Anonymous in discussion at all. If you do, you still have the, let's see if saying this is satisfactory after all, Reddit mindset.
>by themselves mean out of their own will
Exactly equally impossible.
>Would robots ever question their own existence?
Why shouldn't they? 'Questioning one's existence', as soon as it involves a meaningful question like ascertaning the company responsible for one's creation, one's chemical composition, or one's evolutionary history, and not 'psychedelic' trashthoughts such as the proverbial 'why is there something as opposed to nothing?', is just a matter of invoking a specific subroutine in a mind. Nothing easier than to implement it in a bot.
>OKAY IM OUT IMGONNA PASS OUT
Night. You're still a retard though.
What I believe is that everything you lived made you who you are, and who you are defines how you react to things. In other words, you do have free will, but the outcome is already chosen.
Which is why I kinda wish I could have absolutely random reactions, because I hate showing someone (or something) right
If distinctions don't exist then there is no difference between true and false so whatever you say is also automatically false. It would have no meaning and should be disregarded. Truth ceases to exist and thus you can't argue anymore.
>you do have free will, but the outcome is already chosen
'There is free will, but it's not free.'
>I kinda wish I could have absolutely random reactions, because I hate showing someone (or something) right
That's pretty funny to tell the truth.
Well, the idea is, it's fine for you to say that someone is retarded for having made mistake X even without checking if it was in fact that actual person who made it, because what matters is not accurate attribution of that mistake to that very body behind the PC (which would matter on the proverbial Reddit), but just pointing out the nature of the mistake, for everyone to understand. That's why no one should give a fuck about who exactly is meant by 'you'. When I say 'you miscited that study' and it wasn't you, there is literally no reason to defend yourself, 'no, that wasn't me', because there is no 'you' on 4chan either way (unless you trip).
You have to take a step back senpai, or maybe a few steps desu.
Key word is all in all, just because there is no room for distinction amongst a slew of hypothetical entities possessing agency because there is only one doesn't mean to say that there is no variation within the self. It must remain in the self, because its all in all, it is internally consistent.
Thats what vedanta teaches
Very well phrased.
It captures the issue of 'looking at the second level', which so many normies seem incapable of. Yes, you do have choices, will, resolutions, conviction... but what caused those? Yes, you 'just did it', but what caused the 'just'?
look up astrology t b h
i did my chart and saw lots of empty houses (prolly an empty head too), especially those responsible for relationships, friends, etc.
got some interpretation work done and as it turns out i don't really have to work on those issues in this lifetime cos i've already mastered them in a previous life, so getting a gf or friends really isn't of importance to me (won't help me grow)
kind of like getting to lvl 99 but still fighting lvl 1 monsters doesn't increase your XP cos you've done it a million times
Nigga it sounds like to me that all you're saying is "the universe is the universe and there are things in the universe that are different from each other but because they're a subset of the universe they are the same (universe)" with universe being this "all in all" thing you're talking about. But we know everything is in (aka is a subset of)the universe; and the subject and observer are in it and they are distinct (variations) from each other.
(In other words, the rule of thumb is, whenever you see 'you' on an imageboard ('you said', 'you are', 'you think'), mentally transform it into an impersonal form such as 'one said', 'it was said', or 'a person said'. This will help you remember to approach it coolly and possibly formulate a general statement, e.g. inspire you to look up whether 'your' mistake has been being made particularly often, or how to prevent it, and so on.)
But there is literally no difference. The will exists upon itself, what other answer is there? How many layers do you have to peel to find what has been in front of you your whole life?
At what point do we acknowledge that the notion of cause and effect is not useful aside from at this level in which rigid objects are bound to the laws of physics and thereby encapsulate these notions ?
Will is fundamental, interchangeable with the 'I' insofar as we regard it to consist of the experiences to which the word reality refers.
I'm not interested in religious crap. I'm interested in physics, biology, neuroscience, evolution, etc. The subjects belief in free will, 'things happen because YOU wanted them to happen', hampers through implying non-existence of causes to unearth.
>One part says it hates normies
>another part says it does not hate normies
>therefore the consciousness says both "I hate normies" and "I do not hate normies."
It is crazy. I don't think one tells the truth or can discern truth. One should not believe anything one thinks.
You almost got it senpai, so close.
> and the subject and observer are in it and they are distinct (variations) from each other.
But they are not. The world is given to you only once. Not one existing and one perceived. Subject and object are only one.
What I am saying is not mutually exclusive with any of those, or it wouldn't be true. Science is the study of the rules of the inner-workings of the world.
is an absolutely true fact
This is why you aren't Catholic now; you don't understand an ounce of the theology.
Aquinas himself settled causation and free-will.
What if there are things with 50%? I guess we go up the tree and quantify number of statements and the degree of their agreeing.
>tfw size of Indian population pushing for NoPoo2Loo
I think the problem is that data will never stop coming in until no one thinks anymore (essentially death) and people stop being born. So the only way to know the truth of self is after death.
Ah, so now i see why there is so much losers in /r9k/. They are a bunch of deterministic retards.
They TRULY believe that people don't act. Yes, you guys think the axiom of action doesn't exist. That people are set in stone, that they somehow never change and never learn.
>he REALLY think people don't act based on choices and don't learn with mistakes, comparing the odds of past success and failures
>literally no argument
>proceeds to call me stupid
And that was ALL your act and choice anon, you could have acted differently.
Free will isn't real by default, but can be achieved via increasing your awareness of your own weaknesses, instincts and habits and overcoming them.
So it is real, but kinda selective. Most people aren't ambitious enough to be free so they just choose their shackles, like religion or political affiliations.
I don't consider myself to be enlightened or anything, it just seems like something I've always known.
It isn't some mystical hand-wave to try to make it all sound mysterious, if you can start from the beginning and work your way up it will seem like a familiar thought.
You're right that nothing but the present exists but you cannot argue that just because we can't see the future that there cannot be one. Free will does not exist I don't have a choice to stop thinking. If I had a choice between a water bottle and soda only, I can choose to not make a decision but that is still a decision itself. If a being like God or a higher dimension exist than they would know of the decision before it is made. Say you made the choice between the water and the soda again and went back in time to see yourself make the decision, no matter how far back you go the outcome will always be the same. It's already predetermined.