It's a meme, in a sense. I mean, you made this thread because you're an idiot and I replied because I couldn't help myself from calling you an idiot. So yeah. We do the things we do because that's who we are. Only sheer willpower can make you do something uncomfortable and against your norm. Like weight loss, for example.
>>26364675 The only thing I'm convinced of is that you're some stoner who thinks he knows the truth of the world when there's really nothing to know. The world is empty and life is pointless. You should however, try to enjoy what little time you have left. Why? Because it's better than the alternative.
1. All things in the universe have a cause and effect 2. If all things in the universe have a cause and effect, so must human behaviour 3. If human behaviour is determined by cause and effect, then there cannot be such a things as free will
Determinism 101 This doesn't matter though, since our (contious) actions reflect our wishes
>>26364707 this >>26364706 I don't use drugs but if you want a serious answer, we do have such a thing as a mind, but it is simply more productive to study observable behavior rather than internal mental events when it comes to human behavior.
Also this thread is about behavior and will please don't shit it up with your pseudo-intellectual rants about life.
>>26364706 Not op but his picture is actually right by saying that the universe is "predetermined" in a way. Einstein' theories of general and special relativity prove that the past, present and future are actually the same thing and concept of "time" is all just one big illusion. If I was moving away from you my "now" would be your "past" but I started moving towards you my "now" would be your future"
I know it probably doesn't make sense but look up a documentary called "the illusion of time". All 100% scientific
>>26364848 >and I replied because I couldn't help myself from calling you an idiot >The only thing I'm convinced of is that you're some stoner who thinks he knows the truth of the world when there's really nothing to know. The world is empty and life is pointless. You should however, try to enjoy what little time you have left. Why? Because it's better than the alternative. >You want proof of behaviour and will? I'll stop posting and go to sleep because I have stuff to do tomorrow. I could stay up. Maybe I will. I get to decide. It's my choice. You're still an idiot. I think I'll go to sleep. There are no intelligent discussions on r9k. You need intelligent people for that.
>>26364579 The sad thing is probably not even OP realizes how much belief in free will thwarts any attempts to discuss human behaviour. For instance, whether one can be told to 'be able to' do something (quit a mental condition, learn something, refrain from doing something...). Belief in f.w. causes people to spout a knee-jerk YES to those.
I stopped believing in free will and the concept of there being a "you" when they put me on a bunch of meds in the loony bin. The ideas you come up with, the way you think, your desires, "you"...it's a meme at this point, but it really is determined by fucking chemicals.
>>26364971 (In case someone's interested, in reality, there is no such thing as 'capacity' ('he can kick that cat'); there is only empirical data ('people in whose brains there occurred a thought to kick a cat often turned out to subsequently to successfully do it'); it's not that a person 'can' choose to go on with a contrarian choice; occurrence of a contrarian choice just changes the dataset being discussed. E.g. when one says 'no I won't kick this cat, fuck you', this just points to a different dataset ('when free will is being discussed, people at times involuntarily decide to go on with a contrarian decision...').)
I don't like people who say human behavior isn't determined, but people say that because human behavior is determined people can't be held accountable for their actions are even worse. >But I literally didn't have free will to -not- rob that store! >Yeah, and everyone else doesn't have the free will to not punish you for it as well
>>26365114 >I have been following the subject of free will for a number of years by now and I literally never saw anyone say that. Lurk /his/ or /pol/. I've seen people imply that when the subject comes up, at least whenever they aren't outright denying determinism.
>>26365114 >>26365097 (But at least you derived the right conclusion from it all. There is no objective right and wrong, at least in the sense in question; life is an ongoing, ceaseless struggle of priorities, a game of tug of priority, where we try to convince each other that something should be done; e.g., that something should be punished, or someone should be let scots free, or some punishment should be severe or lenient... this involuntary game never ends, and is met with various degrees of success.)
>>26365156 (Or in short, there is objective right or wrong, but there is no objective *severity of reaction* to right or wrong, and rejection of free will helps realize that and play the game consciously as opposed to unconsciously; to realize that every time someone tells you, 'you should be ashamed of yourself', it's just an involuntary prod of accusation that you're, strictly speaking, free to do with as you please.)
>>26365247 The worst thing about knowing this is it literally changes nothing and doesn't separate us at all from people who have no clue. Being aware of deterministic systems,Bayesian algorithms and causal structures doesn't free you their effects. Not even a tiny bit.
>>26365247 >>26365222 In other words, the subconscious-conscious dimension has nothing to do with involuntary-voluntary dimension, not any more than a loud bang-a quiet sound dimension has anything to do with whether an object had 'free will' to fall from a table. Both perfectly vivid thought and an intuitive hunch are equally determined.
True rejection of free will transforms vast areas of personality in terms of fostering resentment towards someone as opposed to delving into causes of their behaviour ('if he/she didn't harm me because he/she just wanted to (since free will doesn't exist), then why?'), assuming that one/another can cope with adversity upon their own free will versus extra ensuring that one/another's brain contains motivation to deal with it ('I can't trust his/her declarations that he/she will be fine and he/she will do it because f.w. is not a thing, what if something happens that changes his/her mind? I should prepare for this eventuality... let's see...'), and so on.
Kudos for trying to carry this thread, but you still have things to learn.
>>26365347 (In other words, believers in free will literally believe in intelligent design: 'n-no, it's not that my eventual action was the resultant vector of innumerable genetic and environmental factors, I just intelligently chose to do it!'.)
I agree. Rejection of f.w. is essentially opening up for relating one's behaviour to one's material, physical circumstances in the past: it can be done partially (the hilarious 'we have some free will' fencesitting), or completely (at the penalty of being branded by retards as 'a coward who avoids responsibility for fixing one's life').
>>26365430 Go sit down and see if you can control 'your' thoughts. You can't. This means your thoughts are not controlled by a 'you'. Same for your emotions and when memories pop up. Since this sense of self is nothing more then a thought that is not controlled by a you, 'you' have zero control over what the body does. This is fact, face and break out of this illusion of you or keep suffering. Just know that when you go to type your little comment trying to defend this non existing 'self', notice how the words just come out of nowhere. There's not even a you typing what you're typing right now. There's not even a you thinking what you're thinking right now. Accept this truth. Accept reality.
>>26365496 Your smugness is unwarranted, Buddhist retard.
Of course I have zero control over my thoughts; I understood this myself years ago.
But inferring from this that the self, the entity that involuntarily judges future outcomes with respect to whether to follow them or not, doesn't exist, is a tremendous non-sequitur as only a religious person can come up with. It's like saying that because trees have no control over when to fall, then they don't exist.
>>26365500 Because it's a fun side fact. Believers in f.w. tend to be normies proud of their achievements, 'I have crafted my own destiny', and hiss at any hint that the causes of their failures and successes lie in their nature/nurture.
Less 'lol you can do it just apply ur free will kthxbye', and more thoughtful consideration of what would be the way to ensure that a person actually has the means and skills to do it. Less blaming, more real help. You no longer say shit like 'everyone can learn a language, just apply your free will lazy faggot', you must come up with better, better-tested learning strategies.
>>26365554 >implying 'I' am a Buddhist Look at how the ego tries to label everything in it's field of awareness. It can't simply just let things be. >It's like saying that because trees have no control over when to fall, then they don't exist. No, it's saying that 'you' are just a thought and then when that thought disappears what are you? Nothing. This is truth, if you're not going to accept this truth or make an attempt to find this truth on your own you're just going to keep suffering in this hell state till the day the body dies. Not that there's a 'you' that decides to pursue enlightenment anyway.
>>26365624 >>26365614 In short, what makes you a religious retard is that you talk about nonexistences and egos and yous and blah blah blah boring rather than about the brain and frontal cortices and so on.
>>26365616 Because it can't be observed, the core concept is flawed.The entire fundamental and theoretical principle of free will is it's free from causality, the factual reality is that nothing is. You're trying to work in the idea of free will into a framework of cause and effect while maintaining the doctrine that free will is an effect with no cause.
>>26365716 except there's no you making decisions, because we arealy went over the fact that this 'self' is just a thought' there's no religion here, just cold hard fact i'm sure you'd like to try to validate this fake you all day haha, but trying to reason with this childlike mentality is kind of tedious you were talking earlier about how if a tree falling over it doesn't exist or some shit well that's the same as saying that if santa doesn't exist you're not going to get any presents
>>26367009 the point is that as we're conscious, we can steer the course of evolution. genes come and go depending on the environment we choose to create. as i said, i had this discussion with a physics phd, and he affirmed in language that i don't understand but do trust, that it appears a lot more likely due to something to do with quantum mechanics, that we do indeed have free will, as opposed to everything being determined at the time of the big bang, and as watts said, 'the wake doesn't drive the ship'. your choices now, dictate what happens now, and your choices now dictated what happened in your past.
>>26367136 chaos, i suppose. unpredictability. there are an infinite number of numbers between 0 and 1, so to believe that consciousness is determined by a mathematical equation set in motion at the time of... well, time beginning, has to be erroneous, it's infinite and incalculable. we make a conscious decision to choose how to act based on the infinity of choices made available to us by consciousness, not because of some pre-determined recipe which dictates our thoughts to us.
>>26367176 >how to act based on the infinity of choices made available to us by consciousness But this is false. Your brain filters your options to only a few before giving you that list of options into your consciousness. Try to think of any meal and try to observe your thinking process. You can only think of so many at a time.
If your definition would be 'unpredictable outcome of choice' then I would agree, but stating that we are free to choose from infinite options is just wrong.
>>26367223 >Your brain filters your options to only a few before giving you that list this is gonna be too deep. my brain already hurts. what i will say though is that you made decisions when you were a newborn baby and knew nothing. just because you've learned a few things and to some extent base your decisions on those experiences later in life, doesn't mean that that's the foundation of consciousness or decision making. i'm now choosing to run away from this impossible conversation.
>>26367314 lol, i specifically chose the word "choosing". look there's no way to prove it either way, as i'm sure you realise. it can be fun to discuss but ultimately it's unprofitable. right now i'm too hung over, and comfy having listened to watts' philosophy on the subject, and the belief of my mate who, as i say, is at the cutting edge of physics research, and agrees that there probably is such a thing as free will. given that nobody can ever truly know, these two things are enough for me to gravitate towards believing there is such a thing. >runs before this goes on and on and on and, indeed, on.
>>26367371 >look there's no way to prove it either way, as i'm sure you realise. This problem only arises because people make up new definitions of free will as science refutes the traditional definition. If we had a fixed definition of free will and the Self then we wouldn't have these threads.
I guess some redefinitions of free will are exclusively philosophical questions and have no real answer, but free will in the traditional sense is debunked.
If your goal is to redefine free will until it is completely separated from science you need to come up with a different definition. I believe people don't want to feel like they believed some lie all their life so they rather change the definition so it matches their world view rather than accepting reality as it is.
>>26367798 Addition: Neither determinism or indeterminism allows free will(independent choice making without being constrained) to exist. You will need to come up with a whole new concept that is compatible with free will.
>>26367798 >by showing that you actually do behave under many constraints If you mean to say that the traditional definition is the idea of >will in a vacuum then I think you're taking things too literally. Nobody sane believes that to be the case.
>and you don't have any control of your 'fate' What do you mean by that? That one has no choice between ending up making six figures and eating hot pockets in one's parents' basement for the rest of their life?
>>26367974 >What do you mean by that? Imagine you switch bodies with a criminal that is about to murder somebody in 5 minutes. If that crime was predetermined you will be unable to change your fate by 'choosing" otherwise'.
If an event is predetermined you will be unable to act differently. And if you do then only because it was predetermined that you act otherwise.
>>26368102 I'm confused. Supposedly you're speaking for determinism and materialist reductionism here, yet your example presumes that your essence - your 'free will' - is immaterial and not an inherent part of the material of your brain.
I am strongly against rejecting free will based on the notion that it >1) requires you to think that 'what you are', your consciousness, is merely an illusion, a chemical process >2) acts as a rationalization to give up your own agency along with responsibility for anything you do or don't do
>>26368320 >Morality is not the subject of this topic Oh but it is. Unless you're full of shit, the end result of this argument has great effect on how you live your life and how you'll treat others. To speak of it as a purely intellectual exercise, you're either a hardcore hypocrite or completely disconnected from your emotions (something that goes hand in hand with several personality disorders).
>>26368424 >If you are scientifically honest about it yes. >We are merely atoms in a weird configuration that create biological beings like us humans. >falling for the reductionist materialism meme hook, line and sinker without even realizing it You're hinging all of it on an unproven model.
>>26368505 >Oh but it is. How so, op didn't include morality in his post. This is only about the question of free will. The rest of your first line is baseless assumptions.
>You're hinging all of it on an unproven model. Are you implying that the self is a fundamental concept known to the universe and not a concept created by living beings? Can you objectively quantify the self?
>falling for the reductionist materialism meme hook, line and sinker without even realizing it You are arguing that our cognition is not made up by chemical processes in our brain. Which is obviously a false conclusion.
>>26368586 >Autism speaks: The post You seem functionally illiterate. I say one ought not to speak of the question of free as a purely intellectual exercise because of xyz, and you reply by just doing that.
I say you have taken in a model as a base premise and not even realize it, and you continue to rag on as though you have none and no alternative views exist.
>But it's not my fault that I commited them! I had no choice!
In a sense, yes, and that's a major reason why even if you do something wrong, you should be treated with some compassion.
You would have done something though--just not of your own free will.
It might be necessary to recondition (rehabilitate) you to prevent this from happening in future. If you can't be rehabilitated, then it would be necessary to keep you sequestered from society to prevent you from fucking it up.
>>26364707 That's retarded >all things have cause and effect This is only a theory. To prove this you must prove it is that way for all cases and that has yet to be proven. >so must human behavior except we don't know everything about conciousness yet. Nihilists like to proclaim that conciousness is just a complex series of electrical synapses in the brain but that's merely conjecture. It is just as likely that we have a spirit of some king that is using our brain as a window into our universe as the spirit exists outside this universe >If human behaviour is determined by cause and effect, then there cannot be such a things as free will Cause and effect is not a 1 to 1 function. Cause: a coin is flipped Effect: the coin lands on a) heads or b) tails
Does it fucking matter whether free will exists or not? It does matter whether you choose to believe it doesn't. Disbelief in free will has been proven to lead to deplorable action, i.e students exposed to this concept are far more likely to cheat, and pessimists are just bitches plain and simple. Nobody likes them, nobody wants to be around them. It's a good excuse to not do anything worthwhile, nothing that takes the slightest bit of mental or physical effort to complete, because it doesn't matter as we're not in control of our wills. In the time you were being a faggot, you could've put your foot down and did something productive, but instead you decide to do little-nothing because you've "no say" in what you will. It's of course easier to do nothing, and to disbelieve in free will, because that could mean it's not your fault at all that you're pathetic and your life is in shambles. It's all out of your reach, your control, so oh fucking well. Better just continue lolling in our abject cesspits for free will dictates we can't crawl out of them by our own ambition.
> Several critics have noted that instead of priming belief in hard determinism or hard incompatibilism (the view that free will is incompatible with determinism and indeterminism), the Crick excerpt subjects read is actually priming a scientific reductionist view of the mind, one that is proclaimed to demonstrate that free will is an illusion. >Free will skepticism, however, need not entail such a reductionist view and the priming passages may be giving participants the mistaken impression that scientists have concluded that their beliefs, desires, and choice are causally inefficacious?a claim not embraced by most philosophical skeptics.
>Secondly, subsequent studies have had a difficult time replicating these findings. >Surprisingly, the Reproducibility Project was only able to replicate 35 out of the 100 studies
>[...] there are alternative explanations for the cheating behavior that have nothing to do with belief in free will, per se. Thomas Nadelhoffer has argued that it is equally plausible that the cheating behavior is being driven by the more general fact that participants are being told that one of their cherished beliefs has been shown to be an illusion by science. >On this alternative, the cheating behavior would have less to do with disbelief in free will and more to do with ego depletion more generally.
>Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, these anti-social consequences come immediately following the prime, are limited in scope, and appear only to be temporary.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at [email protected] with the post's information.