spoiler: free will is a meme

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.

File: a4d371f1c6ebb84c88240d79aaaa6aeb.jpg (19KB, 236x334px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 236x334px

>>26364616
spoiler: you're the idiot

>>26364656
Yeah, you definitely showed me.

File: 1211532650796.jpg (89KB, 1000x848px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 1000x848px

>>26364665
perhaps this will convince you

>>26364616
Dude did op do something wrong? Is it because you're religious?

>>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

Who cares? Nothing we can do about it either way.

>>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

>>26364806
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.

>>26364816
Time is just another coordinate used to identify a point on the singular continuum of events, the trajectory of particles.

>>26364848
How old are you m8? You seem to be suffering from narcissism and delusions of grandeur.

>>26364856
I meant time as in what we consider to be the flow of time a opposed to a literal defenition of time. Still the same principle though, all an illusion

>>26364848
What the fuck is your problem kid? What op is saying isn't just some pot head mumbo-jumbo. These are proven scientific facts you retard

File: 1442671175488.jpg (37KB, 530x600px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 530x600px

>>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.

Yes please do that. The only child here is you.

>>26364919
>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.
Forgot the cherry on the pie

>>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...').)

File: 54615.jpg (38KB, 600x568px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 600x568px

>>26365006
Yes sucks when you don't have magical neoron sparklings in your head making you believe you are special. You are just a robot and it all depends on how well your body is able to function.

>>26365023
BUT THAT'S DEFEATIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111

>>26365037
What's a defeatist? I haven't given up on life I'm just more aware of how it really is.

>>26365052
no ppl who reject free will are all basemint dwellers

File: 856485.gif (32KB, 267x200px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 267x200px

>>26365064
But how can I be a basement dweller if I've spend 5 maybe 6 years in a psychiatric institution and have an appartment now? It's cool if you're religious but this is just my vieuw.

>>26365088
I know of no way of typing even more retarded that I used to signify I was being ironic.

>>26364707
I agree with this entire post.

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

>>26365097
>people say that because human behavior is determined people can't be held accountable for their actions are even worse

I have been following the subject of free will for a number of years by now and I literally never saw anyone say that. Literally never.

The only conclusion is that it is just a bogeyman, a strawman like 'IQ is everything' to which 'IQ is not everything' is being replied.

>>26365095
Y-yov too

>>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.

>>26364616
>only sheer willpower

Willpower is an illusion. The only things that effect your "decisions" are enviormental stimuli.

>>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.)

>>26365182
You can't play the game consciously, your internal thought process has very little effect on your behavior. It's a non-determinant

See: Passive frame theory, anything by John B. Watson

>>26365182
>>26365156
I read those on a whisper

>>26365222
Shut up. I know what I'm saying. Conscious != voluntary. Conscious thought is still determined, just the way choices are determined. Free will vs bound will and all.

>>26365243
Ha, I know some people find my parentheses odd. I'm pretty soft-spoken IRL, I'll give you that. I would stutter if I tried to say the equivalent of 'fuck' in my language.

>>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.

>>26365299
doesn't free you from their effects*

>>26364707
Or maybe the free will is the cause of human behavior?

>>26365299
>it literally changes nothing

You can't be more wrong, OP.

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.

>>26365334
'Free will did it' is literally 'God did it' except even more proud because you think the demiurge of the action was yourself.

>>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!'.)

How can free will exist if the self does not?
If there is no self to create and make decisions then free will does not exist.
Free will not existing is a fact.

>>26365335
See my post above:
>"we do have such a thing as a mind, but it is simply more productive to study observable behavior rather than internal mental events"

>>26365375
Oh, ok, sorry.

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').

>>26365370
Get the fuck out, Buddhist. This has been a good thread so far.

The self absolutely exists in the sense of the entity that has priorities and makes decisions, finds desirable and undesirable and so on.

>>26365347
So your argument is that there is no free will because thinking so is prideful?

>>26365455
This assumption is too retarded for me to come up with a to.

>>26365477
*a reply to

File: 1442231878029.jpg (17KB, 250x238px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 250x238px

>>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.

>>26365477
Then why are you bringing the concept of pride into this?

>>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.

File: 1452688003618.jpg (14KB, 210x240px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 210x240px

>>26364579
>tfw didn't turn to page 72

Take that Jews!

Ok, so what do you plan we do with this knowledge? Why does it even matter?

>>26365334
Circular logic, my friend

>>26365571
reverse psychology. you cannot win.

>>26365586
>Why does it even matter?

tl;dr?

Science.

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.

>>26365554
>Because it's a fun side fact
Oh, ok, so you weren't answering the question.

So, why can't free will be the cause of human behavior?

File: 1454334966245.png (619KB, 645x493px) Image search: [Google]

619KB, 645x493px

>>26365608
fugg anon

>>26365614
>Look at how the ego tries to

I grew out of being impressed by pretentious Buddhist preachers that say nothing when I was 15, sorry.

File: rare monsoon.jpg (135KB, 531x531px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 531x531px

>>26364579
>free will is a meme
But that's wrong you mother fucker.

>>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.

File: 1453691614665.jpg (8KB, 224x250px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 224x250px

>>26365658
I knew you'd say that

>>26365680
(The point is that I/you/'the self exists as hard as the chair you're sitting on. Because it is the lump of tissue in your skull.)

File: 1427938615409.png (672KB, 906x799px) Image search: [Google]

672KB, 906x799px

>>26364579
>ignoring general relativity
>ignoring QM
>ignoring post-transcendentalism
>not knowing anything about science or mathematics past the 19th century

wew lads, sure is freshman year of college in here

>>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.

>>26365748
I see, so you've presupposed that your "cause and effect" framework is an accurate representation of the way things work.

Let me ask this, then: If everything has a cause, from where did the very first cause originate?

I don't know why we should waste our time on that shit
Like Nas said "Beyond the walls of intelligence, life is defined"
Our knowledge is limited by our brain, instead of being created by it

>>26365780
lmao

23380243

>>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

>>26365802
>Being this religious

>>26365890
hahahahahahaha

88

>>26365898
So we've given up on the idea that "everything in the universe has a cause and effect", then?

Get fucking rekt.

>>26365723
This. I'm out.

Red flag for boys:

>he believes in free will

>>26366407
Red flags for girls:

>she has a meaty expressive roast

>>26366429
Red flag for boys:

>he unironically replies to ironic posts

>>26366442
Red flags for girls:

>she doesn't recognize random insulting shitposts with no regard for anyone

Spoiler: Free fro fralla fram

>>26365723
Actual college freshman here
Can anyone explain post transcendentalism?

>>26364579
Just close the book lol

>>26366693
Get the fuck out, normie cuck.

>>26365959
No. Everything you just said was wrong. End of story.

>>26364579
>free will is a meme
i was convinced by determinism when i was in my early 20's. it made me deeply depressed. then i discovered alan watts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtE3cj8AeQ8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMRrCYPxD0I

oh and a good mate of mine is a physics phd, who assures me in language which makes no fucking sense to me, that for some reason it appears that quantum mechanics disprove determinism.

>>26366936
>the cause of time is like the cause of a ship
beautiful words cannot be sound arguments to disprove science.

>>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.

File: fedoracigar.jpg (48KB, 540x720px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 540x720px

why are neckbeards so fond of bringing this up

>>26367087
>that it appears a lot more likely due to something to do with quantum mechanics
Please elaborate on what your definition of free will is.

>>26367121
Because nothing is ever their fault, it's everyone else who causes problems.

Isn't that right, OP?

File: 3d pee pee.jpg (64KB, 700x700px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 700x700px

>>26366894
retard got btfo and is just whining "WAAHHH IM RIGHT YOU ARE WRONG". You remind me of a child.
Your entire argument and worldivew is dogshit tier.

>>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.

>>26364700
Tell your parents there is no free will you stupid kid, thats why you cant get a job right,

>>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.

>>26367260
I would advice you to check out sam harris if you really want to know the truth and are open minded to accept rationality as an argument.

>i'm now choosing to run away from this impossible conversation.
No worries I don't blame you. You had no control over this decision and your brain forced you to do it.

>>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.

File: Kant.jpg (146KB, 554x467px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 554x467px

>determinism
>neuroscience knowing fuck-all about human behavior
>positivists think they can solve the mind-body problem through positivism
lol

t. electrical engineer

>>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.


Traditional definition :

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/free-will
https://www.google.de/search?q=definition%20of%20free%20will
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/free-will

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.

>implying determinism and moral responsibility aren't compatible
Stay degenerate senpai

>>26367597
>free will in the traditional sense is debunked.
Not the guy you were replying to, but you're like a diaper genie in the sense that you're full of shit. You can't prove a negative.

>>26367732
Traditional free will is debunked by showing that you actually do behave under many constraints and you don't have any control of your 'fate'.

>>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.

So it's not my fault that I'm a pathetic failure who spends his days locked up in his room and masturbating to some degenerate shit?
Neato!

>>26368154
Fundamentally you are not responsible, but responsibility still exists in the pragmatic sense. You will be locked up if you hurt society by committing crimes.

>>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

>>26368265
Morality is not the subject of this topic. If you reject the idea that we don't have free will because 'we would give up responsibility' is not an argument that proves free will.

>>26368265
>>1) requires you to think that 'what you are', your consciousness, is merely an illusion, a chemical process

If you are scientifically honest about it yes.
We are merely atoms in a weird configuration that create biological beings like us humans.
The 'Self' doesn't exist in this explanation.

>>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.

>>26368232
But it's not my fault that I commited them! I had no choice! Dindu nuffin!

>>26368737
>But it's not my fault that I commited them! I had no choice!
True

>Dindu nuffin!
Untrue

>>26368668
I have taken a model that is the most logical. If science would prove that free will exists then I would gladly switch sides.

I am not arguing to have absolute truths, but if I had to take sites I would go with what I mentioned ITT.

>>26368825
You sure sound like a scholar and a freethinker.

>>26368849
Instead of silly sarcasm why don't you try to provide some evidence for free will?

How can threads like this always end without anyone providing anything pro-free will, without redefining f.w.?

>>26364616

If you're able to lose weight by trying, there were causes for that.

We have competing desires, and the stronger desire will win out.

>>26364707

>This doesn't matter though, since our (contious) actions reflect our wishes

They often don't, and many reflective, introspective people are aware that they often want to want things they don't want, and don't want to want things they do want.

>>26368737

>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.

>Dindu nuffin!

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.

>>26365616

>So, why can't free will be the cause of human behavior?

Because "free will" is an incoherent concept.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joanVUoXY0s

>>26370074
Very interesting approach at refuting free will. Thanks for the link.

>>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

Your will can affect the effect in many cses

>>26364904
>proven scientific facts

Except they're not, maybe they are in your pop-sci pseudo-intellectual confirmation biased redditor realm

But in real science it is highly disputed

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.

>>26371238
Literally any point you have risen so in your post : [citation needed]

>>26371238

>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

Let's see the study.

>>26371308
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/unjust-deserts/201510/does-disbelief-in-free-will-increase-anti-social-behavior

>>26371238
>>26371403
You didn't even read the article yourself.

> 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.

>>26364579
>close the book

>>26364707
>All things in the universe have a cause and effect
There is literally no way to prove that 'cause and effect' even exists. Shit happening in order =/= shit being caused