Free Will

>>7825360
I want to call you a faggot now and so I will.

Faggot.

Check mate.

File: drink.png (93KB, 216x249px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 216x249px

>>7825376

>>7825360
it's not like we are trapped in our bodies, we are our bodies, so the result of our thought processes is our free will. It's not free from the laws of nature, but then nothing is, so it's pointless to expect somethign else.

You expect some kind of divine/transcendent qualities for free will, but that isn't a necessity at all.

>>7825384
Ppl just should no even do even more

>>7825384
>our thought process is our free will

do you think what to think next or do thoughts just arrive in your head?

>>7825397
I don't know, why don't you tell me Sam Harris

Please tell me how anything can happen without it having a cause or being part of a long chain of cause and effect

>>7825397
they are brought to my counciousness by my subconciousness and both are produced by my brain, so it'd be correct to consider them my own thoughts.

>>7825360
Define free will.

>>7825404
Yes but that is not "free" will, that is simply witnessing choices being made by your subconscious.

>>7825413
who is witnessing this stuff? I'm saying I'm both my concious and my subconcious.

>>7825416
Your conscious mind, seeing how you can't witness your subconscious mind.

>>7825420
so I'm witnessing myself

>>7825360
Once I started believing that beliefs themselves are representations of physical states I found free will kind of redundant.

ITT: free will fags btfo

Determinism vs compatibalism is really just an argument of semantics of what free will means.

>>7825360

of course we don't have any free will. free will doesn't exist, just like computers don't exist. all things are arrangements of atoms. people classify and define nouns according to their functions: tables are arrangements of atoms, emotions are terms for results of arrangements of atoms that dictate further rearrangements of atoms, etc blah blah.

free will is a useful abstraction for expressing constraints, such as conscientiousness, something OP is incapable of expressing and which he therefore believes does not exist.

"but words don't exist, only sounds do!"

OP fuck off. humans don't think in terms of reality. we build models.

there is however one exception to this rule: OP.

OP's faggotry is not a model to explain his erratic behavior to other humans. no, OP's faggotry is a fact.

I'm so tired of these fucking threads. I have no idea who "Will" is and I'm not going to spend any time to try and free him for whatever pedophilia got him locked up in the first place.

Please take this shit to reddit.

Free my nigga Will

>>7826794
HOL UP

>>7825544
The world is an interesting petri dish. Some whiked strandge stuff happening. Chemicals got self aware. We experience FREE WILL. So what. Experiencing some thing don't make it so. Last night I Experience - dreamed - I screwed Natalie Portman. Doesn't mean it happend.

In any moment I am at liberty to end my life.

>>7827746
If you never woke back up then it basically would have happened for you.

>>7825360
the process is thus : you want to be happy, you notice that you are not, you wonder why, you notice that it is because mundane hedonism [=taking seriously your desires/ideas/self/what you feel] is poorly effective to be happy [you must work hard to get richies, then you must keep your richies, then you get a bit of pleasures from them, then they disappears (since you spend them), so you work hard anew to get new richies. Even worse, there is, sooner or later, lassitude towards the fruits of your hard work (everybody in relationship knows this). why do you get bored from all the entertainment you buy thanks to you hard work ??], you notice that everybody around you does the same and are not really happy. this mundane life sucks....
=> you abdicate before the lack of results from hedonism, you want to leave this lack of relevance forever (and you know how to).
Plus you have faith that you will die, because you look around and see hundreds of people being miserable pricks like. people are you and you are people.
you know thus that it is not worth it to go into the same hedonistic quest day after day, week after week, up to year after year; that you are not different, nor better than others in your misery.

>>7827835
it clicks. you understand that there is no point to continue to envy. once you understand this, you want to do the contrary of what you have done so far : do the contrary of being agitated.
you want to be still, even though you are not so still (otherwise you would be happy), and have no doubt about this new perspective on life [you clearly see that other hedonists are sad just as you were before, and you know why], you try to be still towards the body, then the 6 sense. you notice that your breath keep moving. how to be still wrt the breath ? to be still towards the breath means that
-when we breath out, we know that we breath out WHEN we breath out [not an instant before, not an instant after]
-when we breath in, we know that we breath in WHEN we breath in [not an instant before, not an instant after]

[there can be other things moving in cycle, typically the heart beat, but it is faint and far to speedy for most people to know when heart beats happen. the breath is what is in the foreground, therefore, the breath is what matters]

there it is: we are still towards the breath, we are still towards the other senses which disappears, since THINGS DISAPPEARS WHEN WE DO NOTHING BUT BEING CONSCIOUS.
once your sense disappear , we are conscious of ''our consciousness''. and things happen. the method is then to get rid of as many displeasure as possible. this is what the buddhists do in their meditation. the point is that there is no longer a distinction between epistemology, ontology, ethics and happiness.

why this method leads to result worthy of being called ''knowledge'' ? because the results
-transform us
-transform us ''forever'' [you cannot go back to a previous state, the good news is that these states make us happier than before]

>>7827836
jhanas are hedonism of the consciousness, while ordinary hedonism is materialistic, of the body.
but even the jhanas are hard to get and their effects disappear sooner or later ! just like with mundane hedonism !!! another deception... and you know that, sooner or later, you will get rid of those jhanic fruits [until you reach nibanna for good].
thanks to the jhanas you study the consciousness itself and see before your eyes what you knew : that your consciousness is not as permanent, nor as personal as you expected before seeing the dhamma, just as you understand that the body, the mind, the emotions, the tastes, the ideas are not you and and that the attachement to them prevent you from being happy.

happiness is thus the destruction of the avidity towards pleasures, the destruction of the aversion towards pains, the destruction of the ignorance of the sterility of hedonism of the body and hedonism of the consciousness.

what replaces the things destroyed ? equanimity and benevolence and charity sets in. destroy hedonism, that is all.

>>7827839
this is some mambo jambo voodoo shit man

plus it doesn't really address the fundamental free will problem
i say physics is deterministic

>>7827828
No, you don't because you don't have the balls and the cause or you would have don't it already.

>>7825360
>free will does not exist
does not follow from
>there are things in life which you can't control

>>7825360
What's with people turning "free will" into this deep transcendental meaning.

For social sake, we have self control.

>>7827869
>free:not under the control or in the power of another
>will: the faculty by which a person decides on and initiates action
If a person can not control the causes of their initiation to action, then by definition they don't have free will.

>>7825397
What is, development?

We don't tell our heart to pump, chances are thinking has become a little more "second nature"

>>7825360
The most shocking revelation from this experience was seeing the apparitional, dream like, nature of experience as it appears to the senses. In that seeing, I also experienced a timeless now, a complete being in the moment, I saw that there was no fixed reference point from which to construct a me. There was, as I mentioned before, quite literally no one here but this assemblage of sensory fields. Or you could say that I was just the emptiness, pure consciousness.

There was no fixed 'me' reference point to which this experiencing was happening. Vision was only that, the aural field was just sound, it was seen that there is nothing beyond those appearings. There was a complete cessation of suffering, no past, no future, no self, only this deep knowing. I felt there was nothing further to do here in this life time.

Since then, something has changed, I feel that something has been cut, or seen through, and I feel little desire for doing the things that used to occupy a great deal of my attention. I feel as though my seeking has come to an end, and perhaps a new phase of integration has begun?

>>7827878
your"self" came into life by pre-deterministic means. Also free will as understood by the general public, has much more depth to it that steps beyond the physical boundaries.

>>7827844
Yes. It is probably deterministic

>>7825427
Why can't compatibilist admit they are in the wrong?

>>7825511
That's only true because compatibalism purposely redefined free will to prolong the debate on whether we have f.w. or not.

Look up einsteins quotes on this topic. There was only one definition for him during his time.

>>7825360
For me, the most amusing and ironic consequence of the nonexistence of free will is that, given that the way a person reacts to given stimuli is entirely predetermined by the physical structure of their brain and extended nervous system at that moment, the way someone reacts to the assertion that there is no free will - whether they accept it and how this changes their worldview - is itself predetermined.

"You do not consist of any of the elements — earth, water, fire, air, or even ether. To be liberated, know yourself as consisting of consciousness, the witness of these.

Righteousness and unrighteousness, pleasure and pain are purely of the mind and are no concern of yours. You are neither the doer nor the reaper of the consequences, so you are always free.

You are the one witness of everything and are always completely free. The cause of your bondage is that you see the witness as something other than this.

Your real nature is as the one perfect, free, and actionless consciousness, the all-pervading witness — unattached to anything, desireless and at peace. It is from illusion that you seem to be involved in samsara.

You are not the body, nor is the body yours, nor are you the doer of actions or the reaper of their consequences. You are eternally pure consciousness, the witness, in need of nothing — so live happily.

>>7827746
It happened, you dreamed you screwed Natalie Portman, you experienced a dream and that dream happened.

File: 1454327981714.jpg (155KB, 1000x544px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 1000x544px

>>7825360
Free will is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action.

Cognition is the set of all mental abilities and processes related to knowledge, attention, memory and working memory, judgment and evaluation, reasoning and computation, problem solving and decision making, comprehension and production of language, etc

Thus free will exists and is proportional to cognition. The lower the cognition, the less guilty you are. Fun fact: anti-social people like to think of themselves as smart asses, therefore they are even more guilty than average if their intelligence exceptional.

Pic unrelated: modern Microshit filled with dindus

File: lion.jpg (273KB, 3001x2241px) Image search: [Google]

273KB, 3001x2241px

>>7825360

You're not taking quantum superposition into account OP.

Some values are literally X and Y simultaneously, it's up to an observer to condense the probability and make the call.

As conscious observers, we have a bit more wiggle room. To use Schrodinger as an example, We can decide if that cat is alive/dead, or never open the box at all.

>>7825578
Underrated post

File: kinopoisk.ru-The-Man-Who-Fell-to-Earth-1905474.jpg (198KB, 1200x938px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 1200x938px

>>7828367
>RANDAMEZZ=FREE WHILL EXIST, muh, buh/
This quantum autism again and again.

>>7828146
I have seen your post in a previous thread about f.w. You purposely redefine f.w. to fit your beliefs while ignoring the fact that there is a pretty rigorous definition of it.

>>7828444
It is predetermined that people raise "muh I can lift my left hand up into the air", "muh uncertainty principle" or "muh I am the neurons" as an counter-argument for free will.

Also, nice trips of truth.

I think the stuff in OP's pic doesn't disprove free will. I think the idea of physical laws does disprove it though.

Though OP's pic is right in the sense that i have genuinely no idea what I'm going to do in the next few minutes etc., and it really does weird me out

Why does it even matter if we have true free will or not?

Does our ability to contemplate free will mean it exists?

File: 1452270597466.jpg (2MB, 3400x1962px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3400x1962px

>>7825376
Fantastic

>>7825360
This is a /his/ or /lit/ question faggot

And Sam Harris is a fucking dumbass

>>7825403
Quantum physics

I meant this in a nice way, but everyone ITT, please read some books or the SEP before commenting (and please no Sam Harris, and if you did please read Dennett's critique of his book)
>>7825511
>>7828009
It's not really just semantics (or at all), particularly if you're arguing against libertarian free will
>>7827844
>i say physics is deterministic
That doesn't negate free will by itself
>>7825403
Not really what the argument is about
>>7829033
As above, and it doesn't prove free will either (basically the argument goes that randomness is no better than hard determinism)

>>7825360

You didnt even define free will, what makes you think youve disproved it?

>>7828717
yo whats up with that frog?

>>7827845

A coercive act is not a free act.

In any moment I am at liberty to blink my eyes, and control the muscles in my tongue.

>>7825360

Determinism requires you to believe that time is an extrinsic property to your environment. There is no clear cut distinction from your environment and your body/self at the molecular level.

Your environment is a property of your ego that you do not control, and from that same sense, time is a property of your ego that you do not control.

The problem is that your sense of ego is as much an illusion as the separation from your body and the environment. The separation of your environment does not exist, your sense of ego does not actually exist, and time doesn't actually exist.

The lack of control you describe is not the absence of free will, rather a lack of understanding towards what your will is. You are an actor in a mask.

>>7825360
You can have a will. But cannot have a will to have will (?)... I suppose so.

>>7825360
you do know harris is a compatibilist in his own retarded way right

>>7825384
>our thoughts are the result of natural processes, why would you expect something else?
the point is that's not free will

I'm doing what I want to do.
Close enough.

>>7825360
The only views supported by data are determinism or randomness. There really is no scientific evidence for free will.

This is why you need to accept Jesus into your life and take it on faith.

File: freewill.png (9KB, 600x358px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 600x358px

Philosopher here

Free will is probably the biggest red herring in the history of philosophy. It doesn't matter, it has never mattered. Determinism has minimal value for life. The ancients had no conception of this problem and would likely have laughed at anyone who gave them to understand it. Stop with these pseudo-philosophical, pseudo-scientific defenses of an exploded moral lie. "Free will" is logically impossible; actually a real case of sideroxylon, a contradiction in terms. A 'free will' would either be one that is determined by nothing (therefore a violation of causality) or one determined by itself (causa sui).

But as I've already said, it doesn't matter either way. The problem of free will has value only as a spurious mental exercise.

Stop with these fucking inane threads

>>7829560
>that's not MY definition of free will
FTFY

>>7829744
>Philosopher here

Stopped there desu

>>7829751

go finish your homework kid

>>7829754
Kek you mad philosofag?

Why don't you go philosophize about it.

>>7829757

I don't think idle scientific types have anything worthwhile to contribute on this matter. It's beyond the purview of physics, unless you're sufficient of a fool to believe in a materialistic conception of reality.

>>7829768
And what is your conception of reality?

>>7829777

Transcendental idealism, of course.

The external world exits in-itself, but the mind imposes certain forms onto perception which are not intrinsic to things-in-themselves. The empirical world, extended in space, enduring in time, and causally operative does not simply waltz into our heads, direct and unadulterated. The mental picture we have is a carefully composed product of raw sensation and intellectual ordering.

What this means of course is that materialism is perfectly untenable. To say that everything is mere matter and forces is to use contingent data gathered from the apparent world as an account and explanation of the world in itself.

>>7829797

The human body deals only in effects, that is to say, everything we receive from without must be construed as effect. When you run your hand along the bark of a tree, nerve endings in your hand relay a particular kind of data up the nervous chain. It passes through the spinal column and is forwarded to the brain, specifically that faculty known as the Understanding. This faculty takes the raw sensory data and imposes the forms of the intellect upon it, namely time, space and causality. The last is most crucial in grasping the purpose of this function, for it is only through applying the law of causality to sensory data that we arrive at perception of an object. The EFFECT arrives first; it lingers as a kind of resonance, because it is awaiting its ground or sufficient reason, so that it may then ENTER active consciousness in a causal fashion, that is, as the effect of a cause. The cause however has to be worked up and PROJECTED by the Understanding. Only once this process has been carried out do you perceive the object which is the cause of the sensation you just experienced: you then perceive the surface of the tree as an object extended in space, enduring in time, and casually operative. It is just the same with vision: the sensation, that is to say, the stimulation of various cells within the retina, is classified as an EFFECT which needs a cause. The effect is traced back to its source by the Understanding; an object is worked up in the mind according to the data it has received from the eyes and PROJECTED into space to ground the EFFECT which has just arrived and which is currently waiting to appear in the proper fashion. The object then appears in your vision. Thus we pass from the effect to the cause without stopping. This process is automatic and consistent, and moreover it is integral to the human brain. It develops through experience, but it does not derive therefrom. Failure to distinguish this difference is the chief failing of empiricism.

>>7829797
>>7829800

Oh ok fagism. Got it.

>>7829800

The overarching consequence of this process is just what Schopenhauer states, namely:

>Therefore, the fact that, on the occasion of certain sensations occurring in my organs of sense, there arises in my head a PERCEPTION of the things extended in space, permanent in time, and casually operative, by no means justifies me in assuming that such things also exist in themselves, in other words, that they exist with such properties absolutely belonging to them, independent of my head and outside it. This is the correct conclusion of the Kantian philosophy.

http://darkworldphilosophy.com/2016/01/31/you-dont-have-free-will/

I'm really don't understand how concept of free will can be still alive in some brain. It is completely broken concept at any level of rational thinking

>>7829908
I don't think it originates in rationality. Seems like it's there to reconcile the problem of evil; i.e. it's faith-based.

>>7825360
>>7829908

oh no you dont have the free will to decide you arent a cock hungry pillow-biting ass-bandit

guess youre stuck huh

yeah checkmate atheists

It all comes from the mouth of evil, you're are just as much the fire at your eyes and the sound inside your head. A growing catalog of memories, dancing in the aether.

>>7829749
if you define it the way you defined it then computers have it too

>>7828346
what do you mean by the ability to choose between different possible courses of action?

How is something observationally different with or without free will?

>>7830091
>with
We cant predict human behavior.
>without
We can predict human behavior.

>>7829237
No, you can't always control your blinks and tongue muscles, they often spasm and blink on their own without your awareness or explicit conscious control.

>believing in free will instead of being a hard determinist
>thinking with your emotions instead of your mind

pick two

Science doesn't need your type, fuck off.

>>7830101
that's bs.
deterministic doens't mean predictable

>>7830141
then you do not know what predictable means, nor even predicted.

>>7830150
don't be fucking autistic
just because something is deterministic doesn't mean it's technically predictable

>mfw scientific retards still can't understand the difference between freedom of action and freedom of will

>>7825360
>decide every unconscious action
unclear on the concepts, 0/2

>>7830234
>implying those have scientific definitions
>implying you were smart enough to even give concise formal definitions for those phrases and briefly explain the difference.

File: 1421418324407.jpg (5KB, 251x241px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 251x241px

How could you discuss the existence of free will without free will?

>>7830314
Why do you need free will to do so?

>>7830323
Maybe I misunderstand the definition of free will but if you are fully deterministic how could you notice you are not actually in control?

File: 1453281455343.gif (1MB, 360x240px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 360x240px

>certain things can't be controlled
>therefore nothing can be controlled or is currently under control

This is Jaden Smith tweet logic

>>7825360
>if you pay attention
>haven't you noticed?
>you're trying to focus

This is where free will for the soul is. Awareness. The only true choice you have is where you put your consciousness. Will it be on the external events? Will it be on the fickle mind? Will it be the singular drive of intelligence fueled by ego? Will it be the blissful peace of pure awareness?

>>7830343
>certain things can't be willed
>therefore will is limited, not free
In fact, the more you search for freedom, the more controls and limits you will find.

>don't define free will
>tell people it doesn't exist
>+ 9001 posts omitted.

>>7830379
So you didn't open the image?

>>7830408
>he's still not defining it

the absolute madman

>>7830409
why don't you define it if you want so bad for it to be true

>>7830412
see
>>7830412

>>7830415
woops, I meant the previous post

>>7830419
quote it again im confused

>>7830422
:^)

>>7830409
I was pointing out it was defined pretty well in OP's image as the freedom of will or the control of will as a brain's ability to control its own thoughts or you could just be a normal person who can look up free and will in a dictionary to get the same basic understanding that free will is ones ability to control their own desires without limits.

>>7830438
>defining free will out of the fact that the universe is deterministic
There is not a single person on /sci/ who believes otherwise.

>>7825360
Whether or not free will exists in the strictly deterministic sense doesn't really have any practical importance. What's important is that our cognitive systems allow us to assimilate relevant information and react based on that knowledge.

>>7830448
I don't understand what you are trying to say (there are plenty of dictionaries online to check more definitions) but you are wrong.

>>7830453
:^)

>>7830332
>Thoughts cannot be created in a fully deterministic/indeterministic world.

>>7830449
Why did you come to this thread then? It seems like you are not interested in the discussion and omit the possibility that free will is a physical problem that can be solved by science.

Hard determinist fags are really just Christfags in denial.

I mean, really, how is this shit any different from believing in predestination and "hurr god has a plan 4 u".

I mean, you're essentially saying the entire history of the universe was scripted from the start, which is absurd in the face of how many physical processes truly are random and chaotic.

>>7830666
Also, deterministfags think that every thought has origins in reducible, predictable biochemical processes but they never consider the prec8ense of feedback loops that allow thoughts to influence and change biochemical processes.

Have yet to see a deterministfag who can explain a Buddhist monk lowering his body temperature by pure power of will.

>>7830681
doesnt the thought itself have a reducible origin?

>>7830666
>I mean, you're essentially saying the entire history of the universe was scripted from the start
You sound retarded, nothing is scripted but matter, any sort of matter in our finite universe has finite number of configurations and there are finite set of states, the brain itself as piece of matter follows the same rules, humans likely aren't truly free per se as we are restricted by set of states inherent from the very structures that form our brains with limited processing power, we have thought patterns and to a degree is possible to determine choices that an individual will never take or take, we are also limited in sensorial input as much we are limited in output, similar stimulus is likely to result in similar response.

>>7830666
> determinists dont believe in god
> how is it different than believing in god
kek

>>7830681
>they never consider the prec8ense of feedback loops that allow thoughts to influence and change biochemical processes.
Just like recursion in CS, a process/thought can and will change the behavior of whole process but only to a degree and the degree of influence is both limited and predictable..

File: 14536520912860.jpg (38KB, 1440x900px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 1440x900px

Why do you mix determinism and free will?
Just why? What logic is this?
WTF. How random events in the brain give you a free will? Just how? No one explains how randomness leads to the freedom of the will, everything just say
>muhduhbuh i do not know what i will make it next moment, so it means that free will exists
JUST WTF??????

>every one just say

>>7830129
> tongue and eyes often spasm
A free will argument may not be your worst problem

It's kind of like arguing what brand of detergent is best for removing blood from your clothing.

>>7830255

Freedom of action: freedom from physical hindrance (e.g. fetters, illness, etc) or intellectual impairment (false knowledge, errors, delusions).

Freedom of the will: freedom from needing a sufficient motive in order to act

You can DO what you will; you cannot CHOOSE what you will

>>7825360
>inb4 "hur dur I have the free will to raise my right hand"

What do you think of Compatibilism?

>>7830049
I turn my computer and tell it to execute programs. No one turns me on and tells me to execute programs/actions. All actions that I execute are a result of me telling myself to do so. Free will means that the actions I commit are conceived and decided within my own brain.

If one states the question less ambiguously the answer becomes clear very easily.
What is it truly you want to know, or show?

>>7829739
I know this is a joke/bait but
>There really is no scientific evidence for free will.
Someone who says this doesn't understand what free will means or thinks that the only "good" knowledge is empirical
and that's fucking stupid
>>7829744
>Philosopher here
No you're not

Free will matters for blameworthiness you tard

>>7830883
What the fuck is this reddit tier writing?
In any case go fucking read about compatibilism you idiot

>>7831321
>free will means that the actions I commit are conceived and decided within my own brain
that's the same this as what's happening in a computer. the actions it performs are also conceived and decided internally. just because you gave it some input doesn't make it any different; the input for your brain happens to be more complicated.

>>7830883
>Why
>Just why?
>WTF.
>Just how?
>muhduhbuh
>JUST WTF??????
take your meds, Billy

"I do not believe in free will. Schopenhauer's words: 'Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wills,' accompany me in all situations throughout my life and reconcile me with the actions of others, even if they are rather painful to me. This awareness of the lack of free will keeps me from taking myself and my fellow men too seriously as acting and deciding individuals, and from losing my temper."

>>7832027
it's funny that even though he's aware that free will is incompatible with reality, he still behaves like he believes in it
>this awareness keeps me from losing my temper

>>7832034
Behaving in the contrary seems impossible?

>>7829744
>Philosopher here
why are you on this board?

>"Free will" is logically impossible; actually a real case of sideroxylon, a contradiction in terms. A 'free will' would either be one that is determined by nothing (therefore a violation of causality) or one determined by itself (causa sui).
false dichotomy. ur philosophy teacher would be ashamed.

>>7832042
>why are you on this board?
because he's not actually a philosopher
any actual ones died of aneurysms because of this board's logical positivism and shit like this thread

>>7832034
Don't tell me looking at his awareness is something ephemeral and not causally connected to the world? Because if you are you're missing the point.

to play devils advocate
I define free will as the ability to choose between multiple outcomes at any given time, I often use this analogy to express my trane of thought; If you went to work a month ago, and you decide to hypothetically observe yourself at that time you went to work, would you or would you not go to work? If you say yes you would, because that is what happened before, then you must acknowledge that at that present moment you did not have the ability to call in sick. If you say no, then you would have to explain why given that his environment is 100% the same, he acted differently. Quantum physics is often used to rationalize the second one. Its easy to understand if you imagine time as either a straight line or a tree with branches, where the straight line has a direct fate with no detours, and the tree has many other paths branching from every possible moment. The difficulty comes when trying to explain why different paths (branches) would come into existence in the first place, how can two 100% identical enviroments lead to two different outcomes, this is why people come to the conclusion that we must live in a deterministic world, and that quantum physics may suggest we do not, its just very hard to put into words

>>7832088
train*

Just gonna leave this here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann%E2%80%93Wigner_interpretation

>>7832042
>why are you on this board?

Because we make use of science too, bitch.

>>7832088
>If you went to work a month ago, and you decide to hypothetically observe yourself at that time you went to work, would you or would you not go to work?
>[. . .] If you say no, then you would have to explain why given that his environment is 100% the same, he acted differently.

How is everything 100% the same if you're making the decision a month later? Your mind isn't 100% the same, it's a month changed. I don't see how this has anything to do with quantum anything, you've just got your head up your ass.

>>7832101
>How is everything 100% the same if you're making the decision a month later?
not a month later, you're looking at the exact same event, at the same time that already happened as if you were time travelling, sorry if that wasn't clear.
to sum up
>something happened on june 10
>you go back to june 10 and observe what happenes
>will that thing happen or not?

>>7832108
>Masturbatory Thought Experiments About Time Travel For 100, Alex

>>7832100
being made to draw a truth table in your intro to philosophy class does not a scientist make

>>7825360
>Sam Harris
top kek OP

top fucking kek

>>7831871
>blameworthiness

As in culpability, of course. But that's only if you believe in moral fictions such as god and the afterworld.

Christianity is hangman's metaphysics after all

>>7832042

nice refutation m8. i especially liked the part where you didn't refute anything

OP before you philosophize with your philosopher friends here show me how the formidable gap matter and consciousness could
be bridged.

Show me direct studies not philosophical claims.

What you people need to realize that with all this mambo-jambo against will-power does nothing but hurt the will-power.
Many studies including some from Columbia University that I remember shoed that we need to train the will-power faculty of the brain... as it is as real as anything else. You can use it to stop complex ideas and decisions even after they were finalized by subconscious mind.

>>7825420
Conscious mind and subconscious mind are the same stuff, the same principle behind your awareness guides everything for you based on what you are.

It's like you're split in two but the both parts constantly talk with each other - awareness play a big roles in what subconscious do - and if you awareness say NO, then no matter how much subconscious moved on a action it will stop.

>>7832115
thats why I avoid dumbing down with the word time travel, because autists like yourself will sperg
time travel is not necessary, introspection, and ability to conceptualize determinism and free will is

>>7825360
Free will =/= your choice
Its something against hard determinism

>>7832000
The input and output are both coming from me though.

>>7831224
That is far from scientific, it isn't even the common definitions of the terms, you just made them up without realizing that you just said any action you take that has a motive is not an act of free will and if you don't fully understand your choice and all of the possible consequences then you aren't even acting freely, so not only did you disprove free will, but you disproved free action as well.

>>7831321
You weren't born and raised, you just manifested language and morality on your own with no input?

>>7832034
That is not him behaving like his actions are the result of free will, that is him directly tracing the external cause of his behavior.

>>7832454
No the input comes from your senses and the output is a reflection of your limited perspective.

>>7832604
>input comes from my senses
I say that is enough. What more could you possibly ask for?

>>7832614
They are called senses because they are sensing external stimulus, not because you are manufacturing your own inputs.

>>7832590

You're not understanding. Freedom is negative in character, it implies a LACK of a positive obstacle. There are three classes of obstacle: physical, intellectual and moral. Freedom in the first two cases constitutes freedom of action: I can move my arms so long as nothing impedes them, and I can solve an equation so long as I have proper understanding of algebra. The third class alone would constitute freedom of the will, or liberum arbitrium indifferentiae. This means freedom from necessity, from requiring a sufficient motive to act and being compelled to act once a sufficient motive is furnished.

>>7832693
What about economic, biopsychosocial, cultural, political, technological or even military?

If you say they are just examples or combinations of the three you mentioned, then why couldn't you just say moral obstacles are a combination of intellectual and physical or even that intellectual obstacles or just an example of a type of physical obstacle?

>This means freedom from necessity
There isn't freedom from necessity, you still just need to do something to occupy time and only have your own perspective, genetics, and physical needs that is forced in complex interaction with all the other agents with their own perspective, genetics, history, and physical needs that have the same time and general space to occupy.

tl;dr you are always necessitated to do something and it must involve your current environment

i am a chemical reaction, like a flame, or a star, and i browse 4champ. life is beautiful.

File: 1454521186265.jpg (26KB, 473x437px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 473x437px

>200 posts and not a single mention of the wave function collapse

>>7832790

because it has no relevance to the question, dumbass

File: Schopenhauer.gif (46KB, 339x398px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 339x398px

>>7832768

>There isn't freedom from necessity

Q.E.D.

:)

>>7832822
>implying you can do nothing

>>7832826

You can refrain from doing a particular something, but you can't do anything without a sufficient motive

>>7832836
You mean like an involuntary compulsion is impossible?

>>7832229
Your thought experiment is still nothing more than a thought experiment because something that happened months ago had already happened and will not happen again, at least with our current capabilities. It's nothing but mental masturbation.

>hurr durr quantum

>>7831260
>Compatibilism
How does redefining the subject in question solve anything?

>>7832639
So the fact that anything external exists other than yourself means you don't have free will? You manufacture your own inputs based on your perception of your sensations.

Why am I aware of myself right now in this group of atoms, right in this time? Why not in another?

>>7833506
Well because it seems your cognitive consciousness spawns from within the brain which currently resides inside your head.

>>7833464
>You manufacture your own inputs
How are external inputs "yours". Elaborate please.

>>7832842

'Involuntary compulsion' is borderline contradiction in terms. A more correct term would be 'remote/proximate compulsion'.

>>7833676
Saying that senses are external inputs and thus making you not have free will is silly. You are saying that any being with any sort of means of interacting with its environment can not have free will by virtue of its environment influencing its decisions. Unless you are some amorphous blob with no sense of anything or anywhere at all, you can not have free will by your definition. You're saying that the inputs must be entirely from within and intrinsically motivated in order to have free will. So I suppose if you're that determined to limit the definition to that degree, then you would be right. But at that point it's just not even worth talking about because who the hell cares. What value does free will carry if you're unable to interact with your environment?

>>7834045
Free will means choosing freely with no constraints. There is no universe, either deterministic or indeterministic, which proves this.
There is no paper showing any proof of f.w. The burden of proof is on free willers like you.

>>7825360
Determinism has been proved wrong.
heisenberg uncertainty principle

>>7834208
I'm not asking you to prove anything. I'm asking you what value does free will carry if your environment is one of these "constraints".

And choosing what freely?

>>7834218
This sounds like a subjective question. Why does it matter how I value something that possibly doesn't even exist?

>>7834235
If we're talking about something that is not provable nor disprovable of course the discussion is going to be entirely subjective, based in opinion and based in semantics. Are you now changing your assertion to "free will doesn't exist" from "you (ie humans) don't have free will"?

>>7834211
You don't know shit about quantum mechanics.

>>7834250
Considering that our world is mostly deterministic and even indeterminism wouldn't provide us with any evidence for f.w. should make us tend to believe that f.w. has little chance to be true at all.

>based in opinion and based in semantics
Everything is subjective regarding this, but you cannot possibly argue that the question of the existence of f.w. is based on opinion. Its a physical problem.

>Are you now changing your assertion to "free will doesn't exist" from "you (ie humans) don't have free will"?
Not at all. I cannot assert to have absolute truths of anything, but its obvious that there is not evidence for it and that our current understanding of the world kinda disproves it.

The whole discussion about free will is pretty retarded, even if there is indeterminism in physics it wouldn't give us free will, only chance for actual free will would be something like descartes dualism

>>7834275
>our current understanding of the world kinda disproves it
How so? 5th dimensional branching timelines within a 6th dimensional phase space are quickly becoming a widely accepted theory.

>>7834289
How do these dimensions create free will?

>>7834295
They don't create free will, they are a product of free will. It is the idea that one decision will result in you observing one particular timeline while another decision will result in you observing another separate but equally valid timeline.

>>7834301
This sounds like pop science to me. Creating theories upon non-existing concepts is a very vague move.

>>7834305
Not popsci, 6th d phase space is well documented, just because you haven't heard about it doesn't make it any less valid of a theory.

Also you have yet to back up "our current understanding of the world kinda disproves it."

I'm not creating a theory. I am telling you what I choose to believe based on another theory that I also believe. Free will is not within our realm of understanding, so this is all we can possibly discuss about it. If you wanted an oh so objective discussion about something, I don't know why you posted in the first place. It's not proven one way or the other so you can believe whatever you want, but I'd rather be on the side of hope and dreams.

>>7825360

people should pick up his book because its a really interesting a quick read. great coffee table material.

I agree with quite a lot he says within the book but feel like hes missing something. His ideas are definitely not 100% accurate but I think hes on the right track.

>>7825397

You don't have the ability to choose what you think but you can influence it.

you can choose (somewhat) to focus on a thought or try and ignore it. We dont have 100% free will but i do think we can affect it, even if our ability to do so is very small.

>>7832984
>because something that happened months ago had already happened and will not happen again
you clearly have no idea what I am inferring. The whole point of the thought experiment was to question "is it possible for two events to happen at once." Two outcomes out of one environment. If you don't understand the 'time travel' explanation, i summarized its implication in the same post
read the second line I posted which explains it directly.
>Its easy to understand if you imagine time as either a straight line or a tree with branches, where the straight line has a direct fate with no detours, and the tree has many other paths branching from every possible moment. >The difficulty comes when trying to explain why different paths (branches) would come into existence in the first place, how can two 100% identical enviroments lead to two different outcomes, this is why people come to >the >conclusion that we must live in a deterministic world, and that quantum physics may suggest we do not, its just very hard to put into words

>>7834459

and choosing to focus on certain thoughts means that you are more likely to think about them and related thoughts. (which is why people who choose to focus on music/math/etc have lots of thoughts and ideas in those areas. They chose to focus on the thoughts that came to them regarding those subjects and ignored the others.

This then brings up why people focus on those areas which are also somewhat determined by genetics (but just because your mind is good at art for instance doesn't mean you have to focus on it. if you know that you are naturally good at something you could consciously avoid it and focus on something else)

Generally most people do what they are naturally good at and pick up easier and the people that do this clearly have very little free will as they are doing pretty much what nature intended.

The people who strive to be good at say math or art or whatever even though they such at it naturally and find it hard to grasp are in a sense more free than those who follow what their genetics have laid out for them.

Really interesting stuff. So many variables
oh and im super tired and high as fuck so ignore my shitty grammar/spelling in the last few posts :D

>>7834467
and with regards to the quantum physics aspect, some people think the double slit experiment proves there can be two different outcomes simultaneously from the same environment

>>7834467
Yes, yes, your idea is that each decision or point in time or whatever creates separate timelines or universes or whatever you want to call it. Cool. Now where's the experimental proof? [protip: Double slit experiments are not proof.]

>>7834486
1. its not my idea
2. I didn't say it was true, i gave arguments for both sides
Im just trying to explain the arguments since people (myself included apparently) are having a tough time getting their words out, and people have said my explanation helped
People are saying shit like 'free will is the ability to choose' and shit like that because 90% of this thread is stuck in semantics
If 'each decision or point in time or whatever creates separate timelines or universes' then free will exists, if it doesnt, then it does not, thats all im saying. I also said however that the double slit experiment suggest multiple outcomes simultaneously, which is why a lot of people besides myself believe it proves free will

>>7834486
also, just because double slit experiment is 'pop science' that doesn't make it irrelevant

>>7834571
It's not irrelevant, but it's not proof of anything.

>>7832083
no, his awareness is determined just like everything else

>>7832598
maybe, but to me it sounds like he thinks he has the freedom to act otherwise

>>7834045
the point is that your conscious thoughts and decision-making aren't removed from cause and effect, they're the result of physical processes. external stimulus interacts with your brain (which, through a series of historical accidents, has ended up in a certain physical state) and they will interact deterministically so that you go through a predetermined, conscious thought process. you come to think your thoughts because of the external stimulus on your brain.

>>7834896
I see what you saying

>>7825360

Generally accept biological determinism; still consciously subvert process by, for instance, jerking off into a sock prior to having unprotected sex with GF using pull out method which statistically, is about as safe or safer than using a condom.

Bottom line is that if you think you might have free will, the extent to which you possess such is proportional to the frequency and dedication to which you actively engage in behaviors inspired by non-deterministic systems, eg., your own brain.

Example, homonid obeys speed limits and stop signs without thinking -> deterministic behavior drive.

Alternatively, homonid makes own rules cutting corners, rolling stops, hops out to sniff flowers, then engages in more non deterministic behaviors like drawing pictures using classical or stream of thought methods, composing song lyrics, etc....

In other words, since creativity is possible, volition and will can be exercised (or not) and thus some of us humans can transcend biological limitation or programming. For example, manipulating metabolic processes through exercise.

tl'dr didn't read Sam Harris pic, I'm sure hes based

>>7834896
>cause and effect

This is a simplification of brain processes which operate more like clouds of probability. It is a chaotic system. If it wasn't then human behavior would be predictable. I argue that through analysis and logic you can predict with a high accuracy but at the same time some individuals will resist analysis because of the non-linear character of the massively complex neural network.

Eg., some people are freer than others; perhaps some, not at all.

>>7834955
would you say that it would be possible to predict human behavior to the same accuracy that we can predict simple physical processes if we had a better understanding of how neural networks are related to consciousness?

Again and again and again, this "random" shit = free will exist. Determinism is the only justification for such flawed logic.

>>7835000
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3052770/

http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v11/n5/full/nn.2112.html

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811912009822

http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/content/106/3/623

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=7279280&fileId=S0140525X00068321

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=7279280&fileId=S0140525X00068321

File: scientific american letter.png (127KB, 758x1525px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 758x1525px

>>7835006

>>7833785
No, if anything its borderline unnecessary repetition since involuntary and compulsory basically mean the same thing in this context and no remote doesn't make sense because involuntary muscle twitches don't come from remote coercion.

File: costanza.jpg (10KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 250x250px

So many people ITT don't understand what free will is at all.

PRO-TIP: We don't have it.

>>7834955
>some people are freer than others
Such predictable.
>People believe they have more free will than others
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/52/22469.abstract

>>7834887
Its your bias, he is just trying to understand what motivates him.

>>7835222
Its always the same people. They don't understand that redefining free will to fit their agenda is inevitablly going to prove free will. They don't understand that redefining X to prove X is not a valid argument.

I guess their brain is too afraid to the consequences of what is told in ops pic. Their current comfort doesn't allow to accept that idea.

>>7825360
"hur dur I have the free will to raise my right hand"
Funny you mention that OP, have a look at this:
https://youtu.be/vaVHRRxUpog

>>7835298
It's not just about comfort. It takes training to disbelieve in free will and retain full cognitive agility.

http://scan.oxfordjournals.org/content/10/2/262.full

File: 2000px-Square_compasses.svg.png (164KB, 2000x2109px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 2000x2109px

There is no Free Will. there are only statements, made by something that indexes edicts into the composition of corporeal substance. There is free will.

When people think that "nothing" is null, it is still something in a cardinal precept. When people conceptualize the world, it is by their choice in what they take to make means of substance around them. The mind is different and phenomenal by something overlooked by most. It's ability to conceive of things that don't actually exist. Lines, circles, numbers, and other entries in cognizant thought. These things are never the same, and don't exist outside ourself.

You can not make perfect with these tools, but it can be done with God.

>>7825406
free as in beer

>>7827869
this

>>7827879
there is such a thing called randomness

>>7825397
Both for me, sometimes at the same time.

>>7827835
>>7827836
>>7827839
This anon got me wanting to convert GoTDDAMn nigga!
>>7827844
just chz you don't understand how it answers the question doesn't mean it didn't answer the question and adequately explain the logic behind it.
>>7828267
>>7827907
Where is this from?

i don't really understand the concept of free will in the first place well enough to question whether or not it exists.

the idea presupposes there is some element of our self resides outside of our thoughts.
when one says, "you can't control what you think about next", what is the "you" in that context? How can you separate sense of self from your thoughts in the first place? Aren't they one in the same?

So let me try to prove to you now, by argument, that you don’t have freedom of will…

Consider, for a moment, what it actually means to say that you are the final and exclusive author of your choices – that you and nothing else constitutes the cause. Just think about how wonderfully circular that claim really is:

X chooses Y because of X.
You choose pancakes because of you.
Let X represent the mental state in you which causally brings about Y and let Y represent your “choice” to eat pancakes – and let’s assume, as proponents of free will certainly imply, that you are synonymous with your mental states. In other words, that you are your mental states.

The simple question then follows:

What is the cause of X?

X either has a cause or it doesn’t. It really is that plain and simple. Remember what X is in this thought experiment. X is you, or more precisely, X is the mental state cause of Y of which you are conscious at the moment you “decide” to eat pancakes. If there is a cause of X, what is that cause? Well it can’t be you because we already started with you. Remember, X chooses Y because of X is circular reasoning and must be abandoned. But if X has a cause and it can’t be you then look what we’ve established by reason alone … We’ve proved that you cannot be the cause of X. Now we must look outside of X for the cause of X and we see that the existence of free will has been refuted because we’ve completely circumvented you in the causal process.
Either,

1. All human behavior can be explained by genetics, childhood, psychological and sociological factors…

Or,
2. They are random acts with no explanation at all.
But note something of great importance … 1 & 2 both end up saying the same thing about human actions … that they are not free.
In conclusion, you don’t have free will.

>>7832210
/thread

>>7835376
Adding another uncontrollable variable does not impart you more control and free your will, in fact randomness and probability explains most of the phenomena you mistake for evidence of free will.

>>7835430
>the idea presupposes there is some element of our self resides outside of our thoughts.
It presupposes that you have a conscience in your thoughts that knows what is good and bad and tries to coerce your behavior, but you can still choose to act contrary to what it is demanding even though you think that would be wrong.

>>7825360
If there's no free will you're not trying to convince me.
You're (assuming you did have it) trying to flip certain switches in my brain.
There would be no actual convincing, just brute forcing someones psylocks.

>>7825360
If that's the case you could predict what I would do tell me and I wouldn't be able to act differently out of spite.
Determinism can't handle basic conditional logic.

File: 1454614644010.png (688KB, 460x628px) Image search: [Google]

688KB, 460x628px

>>7825360
Don't remind me OP

>>7835550
I predict you will not got find a weapon right now and kill yourself on webcam just to spite this prediction.

>>7835550
This is only true because we don't fully comprehend how humans work.

Nice fallacy tho.

>>7835445
>randomness and probability explains most of the phenomena you mistake for evidence of free will.
probability explains things for groups of people (or things, etc.), it can't predict shit about single individuals, only guess.

File: 1452150990751.gif (2MB, 360x240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 360x240px

>>7825360
>implying you don't choose to shitpost this same exact thread over and over again

theorem: free will does not exist
proof: Let OP = the original poster of this thread. Note that OP is a huge faggot. Now, assume that free will does exist. Then OP would not will himself to be such a huge faggot. Contradiction. QED.

Reminder that arguing about free will is like arguing about astrology

>>7835550
if he knew everything about your brain and how it works then he would be able to predict exactly what you were going to do.

Isn't determinism a pretty nice philosophy to cope with your failure

>>7834950
>Alternatively, homonid makes own rules cutting corners, rolling stops, hops out to sniff flowers, then engages in more non deterministic behaviors like drawing pictures using classical or stream of thought methods, composing song lyrics, etc....


how is creativity non deterministic? How could anything ever be undetermined from preceding events? Would that not just be randomness? Are you insinuating that all art/creativity is random?

>>7829803
REEEKT!!! SAVAGE AF!!!!

>>7828346
Yes but you are looking at it from the simplest terms. What makes you choose that course of action over the other?

>>7835550
This is like saying in the 1,500s "We will never be able to build an aircraft because we can't at this moment."

>>7832210
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16876476
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0021612

In layman's terms, FMRI scans of the brain can detect the decision(s) one is going to make before that individual is consciously aware of them

>>7839730
will we be able to transport outselves almost instantly in 2500?

>>7829744
This. Who gives a fuck, senpaitachi? People who argue about this type of shit are retarded af tbqh

>>7828346
I highly doubt that's in the US

Free will is real, faggots. Just because your actions have consequences doesn't mean you're not free.

>>7835430
POO

>>7829098
>It's not really just semantics (or at all), particularly if you're arguing against libertarian free will
This.

File: de Lubac.jpg (63KB, 386x600px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 386x600px

I want you all to know that this thread is giving me a hearty laugh.

Well.
http://qrng.anu.edu.au/index.php
Here we go. Do freewillfags really believe that all or some part of their behavior depends on some quantum random generator? And it makes them masters of their own destiny?

>>7828444
>quantum autism
= quantism

>>7830252
↑ this

>>7840375
Trips Tell Truth, 3/3

Max Plank itt.
And here a question arises which seems to set a definite impassable limit to the principle of strict causality, at least in the spiritual sphere. This question is of such urgent human interest that I think it will be well if I treat it here before I come to a close. It is the question of the freedom of the human will. Our own consciousness tells us that our wills are free. And the information which that consciousness directly gives us is the last and highest exercise of our powers of understanding.
Let us ask for a moment whether the human will is free or whether it is determined in a strictly causal way. These two alternatives seem definitely to exclude one another. And as the former has obviously to be answered in the affirmative, so the assumption of a law of strict causality operating in the universe seems to be reduced to an absurdity in at least this one instance. In other words, if we assume the law of strict dynamic causality as existing throughout the universe, how can we logically exclude the human will from its operation?
Many are the attempts that have been made to solve this dilemma. The purpose which in most cases they have set themselves has been to establish an exact limit beyond which the law of causality does not apply. Recent developments in physical science have come into play here, and the freedom of the human will has been put forward as offering logical grounds for the acceptance of only a statistical causality operative in the physical universe. As I have already stated on other occasions, I do not at all agree with this attitude. If we should accept it, then the logical result would be to reduce the human will to an organ which would be subject to the sway of mere blind chance.

>>7840849
In my opinion the question of the human will has nothing whatsoever to do with the opposition between causal and statistical physics. Its importance is of a much more profound character and is entirely independent of any physical or biological hypothesis.
The logical disjunction goes back to the critics of Epicurus' swerve. I am inclined to believe, with many famous philosophers, that the solution of the problem lies in quite another sphere. On close examination, the above-stated alternative — Is the human will free or is it determined by a law of strict causality? — is based on an inadmissible logical disjunction. The two cases opposed here are not exclusive of one another. What then does it mean if we say that the human will is causally determined? It can only have one meaning, which is that every single act of the will, with all its motives, can be foreseen and predicted, naturally only by somebody who knows the human being in question, with all his spiritual and physical characteristics, and who sees directly and clearly through his conscious and sub conscious life. But this would mean that such a person would be endowed with absolutely clear-seeing spiritual powers of vision; in other words he would be endowed with divine vision.
Now, in the sight of God all men are equal. Even the most highly gifted geniuses, such as a Goethe or a Mozart, are but as primitive beings the thread of whose innermost thought and most finely spun feelings is like a chain of pearls unrolling in regular succession before His eye. This does not belittle the greatness of great men. But it would be a piece of stupid sacrilege on our part if we were to arrogate to ourselves the power of being able, on the basis of our own studies, to see as clearly as the eye of God sees and to understand as clearly as the Divine Spirit understands.

File: 220px-Max_Planck_1901.gif (40KB, 220x337px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 220x337px

>>7840851
The profound depths of thought cannot be penetrated by the ordinary intellect. And when we say that spiritual happenings are determined, the statement eludes the possibility of proof. It is of a metaphysical character, just as the statement that there exists an outer world of reality. But the statement that spiritual happenings are determined is logically unassailable, and it plays a very important role in our pursuit of knowledge, because it forms the basis of every attempt to understand the connections between spiritual events. No biographer will attempt to solve the question of the motives that govern the acts of his hero by attributing these to mere chance. He will rather attribute his inability to the lack of source materials or he will admit that his own powers of spiritual penetration are not capable of reaching down into the depths of these motives. And in practical everyday life our attitude to our fellow beings is based on the assumption that their words and actions are determined by distinct causes, which lie in the individual nature itself or in the environment, even though we admit that the source of these causes cannot be discovered by ourselves.

>>7840854

What do we then mean when we say that the human will is free? That we are always given the chance of choosing between two alternatives when it comes to a question of taking a decision. And this statement is not in contradiction with what I have already said. It would be in contradiction only if a man could perfectly see through himself as the eye of God sees through him; for then, on the basis of the law of causality, he would foresee every action of his own will and thus his will would no longer be free.

>>7840856
But that case is logically excluded; for the most penetrative eye cannot see itself, no more than a working instrument can work upon itself. The object and subject of an act of knowing can never be identical; for we can speak of the act of knowing only when the object to be known is not influenced by the action of the subject who initiates and performs the act of knowing. Therefore the question as to whether the law of causality applies in this case or in that is in itself senseless if you apply it to the action of your own will, just as if somebody were to ask whether he could lift himself above himself or race beyond his shadow.

In principle every man can apply the law of causality to the happenings of the world around him, in the spiritual as well as in the physical order, according to the measure of his own intellectual powers; but he can do this only when

>>7840857
he is sure that the act of applying the law of causality does not influence the happening itself. And therefore he cannot apply the law of causality to his own future thoughts or to the acts of his own will. These are the only objects which for the individual himself do not come within the force of the law of causality in such a way that he can understand its play upon them. And these objects are his dearest and most intimate treasures. On the wise management of them depend the peace and happiness of his life. The law of causality cannot lay down any line of action for him and it cannot relieve him from the rule of moral responsibility for his own doings; for the sanction of moral responsibility comes to him from another law, which has nothing to do with the law of causality. His own conscience is the tribunal of that law of moral responsibility and there he will always hear its promptings and its sanctions when he is willing to listen.

It is a dangerous act of self-delusion if one attempts to get rid of an unpleasant moral obligation by claiming that human action is the inevitable result of an inexorable law of nature. The human being who looks upon his own future as already determined by fate, or the nation that believes in a prophecy which states that its decline is inexorably decreed by a law of nature, only acknowledges a lack of will power to struggle and win through.

>>7836025
>>7836025
I mean, how depressing would it be to be a faggot like OP?

He shitposts about free will daily -- if he really believes in what he's saying, he's literally saying he is incapable of stopping himself from shitposting.

He is asserting that he basically lacks the fundamental agency to stop being a massive fucking insufferable faggot on a Burmese Braze-Welding BBS.

That sounds like a pretty terrible and depressing life to me. I'm so sorry OP

>>7825360
soft determinism is as soft as an individual is self-actualized

File: 1441967687190.jpg (30KB, 400x345px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 400x345px

>>7825360

>What is the Will ?

>>7841619
This was a good post.

Upvote.

File: dilbert.gif (116KB, 1000x430px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 1000x430px

>>7825360

>>7843023
panel 7 makes no sense

>>7825360
Humans have, in a sense, a degree of self-determination that inanimate objects do not.
For instance we can predict to some degree the influence events and experiences have on our personality/mind, and can seek out experiences which lead to the desired change in personality, thereafter likely bringing about a change in our behaviour (since personality feeds into behaviour).
Now it's a fair point that we didn't choose to have the idea to seek out those experiences, but you have to admit that knowingly and purposefully setting out to alter your future behaviour entails a degree -not complete- of self-determination. This is preddy cool.

EVERYONE ON THIS THREAD
READ THE FUCKING STANDFORD'S PHILOSOPHY ENCYCLOPEDIA ENTRY ON FREE WILL
>>7832172
What
Moral Realism doesn't need a god
>>7834208
>Free will means choosing freely with no constraints. There is no universe, either deterministic or indeterministic, which proves this.
What
No

>>7825384
no, free will is a divine/transcendent quality, or do you not realize it was used to define the differences between man, beast, and angel

free will is why original sin can exist, why evil occurs free of being blamed upon God

free will is a sectarian construct

what most people consider free will is mere 'the state of being free from [direct and forcible] coercion', but the more you think about that the more you should notice that the marketing industries of the first world have developed whole sciences for the purpose of making you think you want [thing] and making you think that desire is intrinsically yours

you do not possess free will as it necessitates the existence of an immutable soul which can not be proven by scientific means, neither do you possess a mind free of coercion as you have been drenched in propaganda and indoctrination techniques by at least four separate groups of people (family, peers, authority, advertising)

your thoughts can never be your own unless you grew up alone devoid of human interaction and knowledge and then, paradoxically, you would have very few thoughts of any significance at all

>>7843639
>this whole post
where are my READ A FUCKING BOOK pics when I need them

File: it doesn't matter.jpg (17KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 480x480px

>>7843657
is this meant to be complimentary or derisive?

>>7843670
Not him, but obviously derisive. I'll be charitable for a bit and explain more or less why.
>>7843639
>free will is why original sin can exist, why evil occurs free of being blamed upon God
>
>free will is a sectarian construct
This is just wrong. Charitably, the first sentence could be interpreted as free will being necessary for blameworthiness, which is true. However free will is not an inherently religious construct. That's not the way it's used in academia either.
> the more you should notice that the marketing industries of the first world have developed whole sciences for the purpose of making you think you want [thing] and making you think that desire is intrinsically yours
Somewhat tricky. But the common reaction would be that influence isn't a violation on your will, although it could be immoral.
>you do not possess free will as it necessitates the existence of an immutable soul which can not be proven by scientific means
Big assertion. The problems are:

Asserting that free will requires a soul; and

Scientific means being the only mean to get knowledge.
>your thoughts can never be your own unless you grew up alone devoid of human interaction and knowledge
Misunderstanding of the self, basically.

>>7843023
That entire comic is just a straw man. Whether you believe in free will or not, we need to rid our society of dangerous individuals, acknowledging the fact that they are a product of their environment doesn't negate the fact they are dangerous

>>7843023
Scott Adams is a fucking idiot, what else is new

File: compatibilism1.jpg (395KB, 1000x1500px) Image search: [Google]

395KB, 1000x1500px

Alright.

File: compatibilism2.jpg (394KB, 1000x1500px) Image search: [Google]

394KB, 1000x1500px

>>7843972

File: compatibilism3.jpg (297KB, 1000x1500px) Image search: [Google]

297KB, 1000x1500px

>>7843974

Believing in free will is anti-intellectualism.

>>7843972
>>7843974
>>7843977
I like it.
>>7843978
What books on the subject have you read?

>>7843977
The last panel is the essence of it.

Yes, atoms and the laws of physics control my actions -- specifically, those atoms and laws of physics that we call "me" do. Thus, this "me" is in control of my actions. Determinism does not change this at all.

>>7843890
right, but that doesn't require a construct like free will to exist, you can act completely morally through a mechanistic consideration of the facts

how you feel about that method is irrelevant until it causes you to interfere with moral operations destructively

>>7844002
They don't originate in the atoms called you, thus no free will.

>>7844011
>They don't originate in the atoms called you,
Why does that matter? D-separation, do you speak it?

>>7844013
Sanus' point can be refined further, if the universe interacts deterministically, then all of you internal freedom is, in essence, predetermined by the prime motions of those natural forces, both inside and out.

The complaint is not that we are part of separate from our determination of our actions, but that we are only a small part of something massive and unknowable.

To reduce it to a religious analogy, Adam is angry that god ever made the fruit or created his wife from him so that the potential of a fall should ever exist.

If Sanus is a domino in a set, he wants to be the hand placing them, not merely a single unit.

>>7844022
>part or separate

>>7844002
Yes it is "you" who controls your actions but it is not your conscious mind that controls them. I think that is the basis of the determinism argument.

Does a single celled organism control it's actions? Yes, but does it do so consciously? No.

>>7844022
>The complaint is not that we are part of separate from our determination of our actions, but that we are only a small part of something massive and unknowable.
How is that a complaint, and what does it have to do with free will? Sure, it's true. But how does that have any bearing whatsoever on the free will thing?

>If Sanus is a domino in a set, he wants to be the hand placing them, not merely a single unit.
They don't conflict.

>>7844022
>Sanus' point can be refined further, if the universe interacts deterministically, then all of you internal freedom is, in essence, predetermined by the prime motions of those natural forces, both inside and out.
amentia's point is, in essence, that that doesn't matter for free will
>If Sanus is a domino in a set, he wants to be the hand placing them, not merely a single unit.
the natural conclusion to this is a god, and sanus isn't arguing that

>>7844027
>Yes it is "you" who controls your actions but it is not your conscious mind that controls them.
Er, yes it is?
Of course, said conscious mind consists of parts, and none of the parts *individually* fully determine my actions. But the composition does.

>>7844027
Even if it's subconscious, it's your subconscious.

>>7844030
Because you are determined by outside forces in addition to inside forces that one can identify with.

>>7844033
Amentia's point is that every person's will is more or less equally free.

Sanus' point is that even though Amentia is correct on the state of humanity equality of will, those wills are not free from deterministic forces.

At this point the idea of complaining about not being aware of the universal gestalt, if such a thing could be termed as conscious, is ridiculous because it cannot be solved from our position.

It's like a skin cell whinging that its entire existence only serves the propagation of the spermatazoa and that its fragile position will soon be erased by a random itching of the organism. The scale of self-awareness and utter helplessness of the complaint makes the anti-will argument useless from a utilitarian standpoint, but it isn't incorrect.

>>7844030
these dense fucks cant use their eyeballs to see where their skin begins, and where the goddamn air around it is.

I'm starting to think that its some sort of NEET right of passage philosophical struggle that everyone has to go through on their way to wizard-dom.

TLDR: The problem is people are too lazy to do a good job imagining what free will would ACTUALLY mean or look like.

its like qualia, or god, or "what is outside the big bang?"

You're using words speak about things that dont exist and its confusing......

>>7844041
they may be your cells, but you only command a few select subsets, you don't control your subconscious, you can use persistent meddling to anchor some ideas to it, sure, but that's comparing operating microsoft office to doing the same job by utilizing only binary inputs

All major thought processes happen about a second late because we do have two levels of thought. There is prethought and full thoughts.

Prethought is like a roulette of all the thoughts you could be thinking before you choose them, or pluck them out of the well in order to form sentences and ideas. Mental Lego pieces that are always flowing like a stream of water would be the easiest visual image of prethought.

This is where the idea of free will comes from. You can choose whatever you want, from what you have. If you don't learn, you have less choice. To learn everything would allow true "free will", so the debate that we can only do so much with what we have not being free is silly, at best. That's like a god yearning to know more than everything.

>>7844041
Using that logic any living organism has free will. I'm sure you see the problem with this logic; because an organism's heart is beating or its cell's are replicating, does not mean said organism has free will.

>>7844050
>>7844049
>>7844045
>>7844054
So we lack control over all the factors of our life, opportunities, and urges? that's the complaint? I mean, yes, that's annoying, but you need those subprocesses and even a partial lack of information to even think about complaining in the first place.

/lit/ here
You guys are going to make me drink to an early grave

>>7825360
If there is no free will then can we agree life is a pointless experience fraught with unnecessary agony for all involved and accept antinatalism as a viable solution for the problem of the human condition?

>>7844054
The question is, do you consciously determine your prethoughts, or do you simply witness the product of them?

If you do not control your prethoughts then how is it that you control your thoughts if said thoughts were not consciously chosen?

If I ask you to pick a number between 1 and 10 did you have the freedom to pick 548? This same can be applied to your thoughts: If your subconscious mind gives you the choice between vanilla and chocolate ice cream then were you free to choose strawberry?

>>7825376
>chose to want

>>7844063
No, i am >>7844049

I meant to say that since we are all one, and my definition of free will is self influence, that I have free will.

I am influencing myself by talking to you, get it?

bingo bango free will.

File: gary-gastrolab-immanuel-kant-caricature.jpg (37KB, 366x488px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 366x488px

>>7825384
>For my next trick I will nudge these goalposts gently to the left!

>>7844030
>How is that a complaint, and what does it have to do with free will?
Free will implies that your actions have at least some degree of independence from external forces. Otherwise why call it free? Saying "we are a part of the universe acting" is what has nothing to do with free will, unless you define free will outside of any useful context.

>>7844081
and if I should talk to you by my own initiative (kek) and you should decline to engage and I should persist to the point of harassment, I am influencing your will- even choosing to ignore me as if I didn't exist is allowing my actions to influence your will

free will only exists when we speak of a sentient universe

Nevertheless, this entire thread is a cluster fuck of people that have different definitions of freewill.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/

If anyone here can even put the mechanism of "free will" into intelligible language and give a detailed summary of how it works then I will buy them a game on Steam.

Are you free to not get a boner in public with gym shorts on?

Checkmate free will fags

>>7844098

>You are one with the universe.
>As a human body, you influence your surroundings and your surroundings influence you.
>Self influence = free will

Dark souls II please.

>>7844109
how can you be at one with the universe if you separate you self idealistically from the whole

how can the self influence the self, the self can only 'be'

>>7844109
>one with the universe
>intelligible language

Go fuck yourself please

>>7844112
All of your words mean the same thing man.

To be is to influence, the self is everything, ect.

These words are only to transmit to you that we are the same, despite the fact that I do not know what is in your mind or if you are a dog on a computer. It doesn't matter.

>>7844115
You clearly do not understand what I am saying lol.

File: just stop.jpg (121KB, 960x627px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 960x627px

>>7844126
>dog on a computer
four legs too few, m8

>>7844079
Yes, you constantly determine your own prethoughts, actual thoughts are the formation and witnessing part of the process. Prethought is silent, like moving a limb. It doesnt require form to do.

Prethought is why you can hold onto an idea for later, even while thinking something else, or say no/ refuse to answer a question, or lie. The first response was correct. The ability to answer however you feel like, correctly or not, is your free will. Sure, you can choose to abide, since that's what most of us do. I'm pretty sure if all of us decided to "free will" it up and disregard what everyone ever said and just did what we thought, we'd all end up dead very quickly.

Free will exists, it just needs to be monitored because people are greedy, wrathful, lusting, gluttonous, slothlike, envious, priding fucks who would, and did, live like barbarians without structure.

>>7844126
As long as I don't understand it you can take your Dark Souls II and shove it up your ass Deepak. What I wanted was a scientific explanation of Free Will's interaction with the universe at the quantum level.

>hurr durr my cheerios just created a rift in the fabric of time.

>>7844098
Really? Read my posts.

>>7844054
>>7844144

Free will is easily the most dangerous 'thing' in existence. Do you honestly think it would just be handed to you?

>>7844152
Yeah, that's hardly a "mechanism". I want to know the quantum implications of free will.

>>7844167
are you saying one can "earn" free will?

>>7844084
>libertarian free will is the only acceptable free will
u dumb
>>7844098
>>7844092

>>7844169
Why? Quantum implications of something simple is just trying to overcomplicate what could be explained in layman's terms.

I could say prethought is like an orb inside of another orb, or atmosphere, that grows as your knowledge and experiences do. Between the pre and full thought, or mental sound barrier, imagine little Tesla connections, like lightning from any side we deem. Anything we want to keep bounces back in, and anything we deem unnecessary gets expelled out. Our thoughts are essentially the sounds from it making selections.

I'll be patient in trying to explain it, since it can be understood simply without incredible detail.

>>7844146
And what I am telling you is that I can give you something better than a scientific explanation.

[spoiler]YOUR OWN FUCKING EYES AND EARS.[/spoiler]

Maybe you don't understand because you have some sort of disease that promotes whatever is the alternative to sentience.

>>7844210
I posted Kant for a reason. Your argument was a "compatibilist" one but compatibilism is not really talking about "Free Will" in the truest sense.

Either we are deterministic and so we have no free will, or our actions are the product of nondeterministic phenomena such as quantum fluxuations and so we have no free will.

>>7825427
Witness these dubs

>>7844524
This. Another thread without any evidence for free will. When will people start acknowledging there is probably no f.w.?

>>7844976
I don't know. It triggers some of my friends whom I consider to be a bit intelligent. They get defensive and say, "So, Hitler wasn't able to freely choose not to kill Jews?"

This retort bugs me because it confuses what ought to be versus what is.

>>7844524
determinism doesn't negate free will you tard
>>7844976
a long ass encyclopedia article was posted