do we have free will?

>>733140500
Not all of us, government makes sure of that.

>>733140500
We are free to do as we wish, but not all actions even affect the course of history. Fate chooses which actions shape the world

you have an assignment due soon?

First: what are we?
Second: free from what?

I will be free.

File: 1377635750971.jpg (41KB, 407x330px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 407x330px

>>733140500
No.

Society has rules you must abide and there's nothing you can do about it.

You're free to do many things, but your destiny is pretty much settled by the time you were born, especially if you were born poor.

>>733140500
Soft Determinism best philosophy, we are free when we have control in what we are.

>>733140500
Nice dubs

File: circle of life.jpg (112KB, 974x908px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 974x908px

>>733140500
Free will is an illusion

Of course we have free will, but we must be willing to face the consequences of our actions at times.

>>733141312
>>society tells you you can't do something so you can't
Bitch what?

>>733140500
You are never free. You are always a slave to something.

>>733140500
We prefer to believe so, yes.

>>733141312
our habits are determinism but our spirits are free-willed

>you choose which one to surrender to as to forge your identity

>>733141563
You're free to jump off a building, but if that is what you call "free will" then you're a fucking idiot.

>>733141666
>spirits
There's no such thing as a "spirit". You are your body.

>>733140500
Would it matter if we did?
>>733141337
>1337
This.

>>733140500
I beat my dick pretty much whenever I feel like it, and if that isn't free will then I don't know what is.

>>733141337
>control in what we are.
You don't have control over what you are. You may be able to control your behavior every once and a while, in a sense, but you have absolutely no control over what you are, that's for sure.

>>733140500

>of course you have free will

>the larger part of you is Source Energy
>a smaller part of you Is physical body
>you free will and thoughts create your reality
>you become whatever you vibrationaly send out
>law of attraction is the only universal law always >active and works all the time.

>your vibration is ahead of your reality so reality is >old news. Don't face it.

>the more attention you give something, negative >or positive, will become active, so be careful what >you give vibrational attention.
>
>youtu.be Abraham Hicks

>>733141907
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KETTtiprINU

sorry about ADHD man

>>733141907
>You don't have control over what you are
>you may be able to control your behavior
>but you have absolutely no control over what you are
Either you don't control your behavior (and thus what you are in the moment/s), or you do.

>>733142542
Controlling how you respond to something and controlling why you respond to anything at all are different things.

Also, I made it very clear that you MAY have SOME control over your behavior, IN A SENSE, but I don't see how that implies you always have absolute control over everything you do at all times.

Stop distorting what I said.

>>733140500
Can you close your browser, leave 4chan and never come back? If so, then yes, you have free will. If not, then you're doomed.

>>733143835
/thread

>>733141497
No

File: FB_IMG_1494176284225.jpg (59KB, 552x878px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 552x878px

>>733140500
WHAT IS THAT? NEITZSCHE?!? SHUT THE FUCK UP!

>>733143395
I hope you realize that I didn't distort anything you said, because the greentext is verbatim. What your recent reply gets across is the exactly similar sentiment that your previous reply provided, "in a sense" and all.

>IN A SENSE
How vague and amorphous.

>Controlling how you respond
>Controlling why you respond to anything at all
So, controlling your reaction to the environment, versus controlling the environment. I'm not entirely convinced, though, that controlling why you respond to anything at all is different to controlling how you respond to [anything at all]. You'll have to explain that one.

I mean, what changes between the two, regarding control? Is gouging my eye out with a spoon different than putting an opaque surface over my retinas with regards to denying my retinas light and thus causing me to react to photons?
>I made it very clear that you MAY have SOME control over your behavior
Some control is control. No control is no control. Any amount of control is more than no control, thus you have control if you have some control. "In a sense", is still a "sense" that allegedly fits the bill of "control", as you can still then liken whatever it is that's going on as "control", "in a sense".

It doesn't imply that you have absolute control over everything you do at all times, I don't see how that conclusion is valid either. I'd be willing to say that this is where you are the one that happens to be distorting what I typed. Maybe.

I want you to tell me why having absolute control over everything you do at all times is the particular, ultimate requirement of free will, however, since you're bringing us there. As you didn't make it clear, so much as state it clearly. Whether of your free will or no.

>>733144324
Yeah, I hope you don't expect me to read all this shit just so you can pretend you have a point by completely distorting or misinterpreting what I said.

>>733144591
Shit, this was bait. Joke is on you though. I have fully understood the nature of man and gripe at nothing in particular.

No. What are we? A fucking mass of cells that are a fucking mass of atoms and molecules. Physics controls everything. Physics controls all chemical reactions and electrical signals in our body. In my opinion we can't say we have free will because "it's already written"

>>733144784
>"it's already written"
Someone doesn't quantum mechanics enough.

>>733144895
You know what I meant.
I agree with you, in quantum mechanics shit happens because of a probability, but I'm not sure we can "control" those probabilities

>>733140500
>philosophy degree finally getting put to use
>if actually interested read Roderick Chisolm
>"Human Freedom and the Self"
the concept of "free will" is inherently flawed. the question is not whether or not we, as agents, are free act as we will. That answer is undeniably yes, we can. The question should be rather, is man able to will anything independent of his/her circumstance.

I doubt it

>>733145194
follow-up/tl;dr

>we can do whatever the fuck we want really
>but we cannot choose what we want
>ergo "free will" boils back down to determinism

>>733145162
Yeah, but as things like decoherence, entropy and the like are alleged to function, it makes you think about the seemingly non-linear, almost circular nature of things as they appear. And the scopes at which they do.

I mean, consider it. From the perspective of photons... they've already "stopped". They're where they end up. To us... they're still moving. We don't even know where they are as we try to determine how fast they're going. Things are even "decided" in such strange and alien, almost unreasonable ways before we even observe them to begin with, allegedly.

I mean, consider the notion of quanta just, popping in, because. Particles, just being spawned into existence, and being annihilated by their respective functional spawned counterparts.

From where? When, even? How is it that one can beam a particle through miles of solid matter, and have it end up in another point in space, almost moments before it was even "sent"?

Controlling and detecting not just ionized atoms, but whole ionized molecules is balls to the walls. Entangling particles to behave in ways, to which their behaviors can be likened to instructions or bits of information. Deliberately forcing a system to occupy all possible states, such that the only other state it can go to, is the lowest possible state. Heating something up so that the only thing it can do, is become colder than naturally possible.

The absurdity of discerning the mathematical harmony of planets that orbit a star over macroscopic periods of time.

There may not be any time travel (yet), but that's... a lot. I'm left with the impression that we very well might be able to "control" those probabilities, but not genuinely, you know. Control them.

There's a limit, to which the system most likely cannot and will never be able to alter itself, because it is subject to it's own limits. Kind of like a computer program trying to process something that requires more memory than it physically has access to.

>>733140500
No, not in the sense you understand. You are genetically inclined to have a base skill set and behavioral style that is honed by your upbringing, everything you do is based on those and what you learn unconsciously and consciously as you live life. You only have some choice of what you learn, and how it influences how you learn, but even this is heavily influenced by what was mentioned earlier. So in the end everything lies with you.

You choose whether to believe in free will or not, you must have free will in order to do so. Next question

File: 1237434458664.jpg (846KB, 1680x1050px) Image search: [Google]

846KB, 1680x1050px

>>733140500
No.

Rain does not choose to fall, the sun does not choose to shine, grass does not will itself to grow. The physical processes that resulted in your existence, while more complex, are ultimately no different. Humans like to delude themselves into feeling somehow separate from the forces of nature but it is not so. The energy you are made of simply had no other choice but to take this form for a while.

You are the universe and the universe is you. One complete whole. Every thing in its right place.

>>733146713
But, you could be predisposed to the choice you make by various other factors, and "believe" you chose of your own volition where it counts, as opposed to merely being wired/conditioned to choose so.

>>733147120
In that specific case I chose to not pay attention to said predispositions, must have free will

>>733147199
And if in this specific case you are predispositioned to not pay attention to the predispositions?

>>733147282
I can still choose to pay attention to them even if I'm more likely not to no? Since the possibility of a choice exist I must have made one. Even if I had no chance to choose the other option, the fact another option exist means there was a decision made, no matter how biased. Since a decision was made, free will

>>733147412
But, can you choose to pay attention to the predispositions, if you are actively not able to acknowledge them because of a penultimate predisposition that prevents you from paying attention to any predisposition? That's what I'm asking.

The posibility of the choice may certainly exist. It's the matter of whether you can be made aware of, or have known, or have had the capacity to know, that you could have done or become otherwise. It's the matter of whether it is logically possible that there was another option that could have been had. It's just where you are predispositioned to not do any of those things in the hypothetical scenario, is where I feel you would be incapable of free will. As, being predispositioned to not be able to regard any other choice, you would have never been able to choose, or have been able to choose, otherwise, and so the alternatives could not logically exist.

>>733147721
Think of it this way. Every decision or choice is a Node with a left and right child, which are the outcomes. As an example:

(Free will?)
/\
/ \
/ \
(Yes) (No)

Even if you are so predisposed that you have a 100% chance of picking no, and even if you can't acknowledge those predispositions, a decision was made. In other words, since that yes node exist, no matter your chance of choosing it, a decision must always be made. Therefore free will because decision. I would argue even if it didn't exist even progressing down that tree to the only child would count as a decision, just one where there is only one option. Still Free will. Since you need to have the free will to choose the only option

>>733148158
Do you need the free will to choose the only option, though? Wouldn't the whole ordeal be nothing more than a causal A to B, like a ball being dropped a certain height above a floor, coming to rest?

I just don't feel convinced that a decision would be made if there's only one state to occupy/logically progress towards. It reads a bit circular to say that It's free will, as you need the free will to choose the only option, thus free will. I mean, if there are exactly no other possibilities... what exactly is being deliberated upon in the order of things? What decision is being made between... exactly one thing? How does that work?

I don't believe that a decision was made assuming the premise involving the levels of predisposition. There's no deliberation, just a 100% of one outcome, with no possibility (and thus no existence) of any other outcome. If free will because decision... then no decision, no free will, no? The act of following the tree from parent to child would seem more of a reaction than a decision.

>>733148709
Yes you do because you would also need to choose between making the only choice possible and making no choice at all.

File: 1494092017489.gif (607KB, 800x792px) Image search: [Google]

607KB, 800x792px

>>733140500

File: IMG_2194.jpg (150KB, 401x464px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 401x464px

There is no point to this discussion

No, every action you take is part of your determined destiny.

>>733140500
to quote schopenhauer, man is free to do as he wills, but he is not free to will what he wills

>>733152657
Exactly

Compatibilism is the way to go imo

>>733140500
I believe so

>>733140500
If the actions we take in response to a given situation comes from knowledge or experience we already have, then "free will" essentially boils down to "the ability to make a choice with absolutely no regard for causality," or in other words, the ability to make absolutely arbitrary decisions. Which doesn't really seem possible to me, much less useful in pretty much any area of our existence.

No, the only way for reality to work would be a simulation with hard determinism.

>>733154450
Why would it need to be a simulation? And a simulation of what exactly?

how would we even know

If you have a mental illness that effects your judgment, no.

File: 1492895963672.jpg (207KB, 1439x1374px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 1439x1374px

>>733140500
Hm don't know, i don't ponder about these kinds of questions because they're essentially a waste of time.

>>733154547
>Why would it need to be a simulation?
If it is possible to simulate a reality, then it's likely that we are living in one.
>And a simulation of what exactly?
A simulation of reality

>>733140500
I choose to believe we do

At the hardware level, no. Higher up, at larger levels of abstraction, we appear to. Appearance may be enough. I don't know, I'm not a neuroscientist or a quantum physicist, just a shitty engineer.

>>733154672
Oh, my bad I figured you were going somewhere else with that. I know it's likely that if a reality simulation was possible to create, then our reality is one of the simulations. But why does our reality specifically need to be simulated in order to "work properly?" Wouldn't the real, unsimulated reality also need to be deterministic in order for the simulation to be accurate to it? And if both reality and the simulation(s) based on it are deterministic then why did you bother making the distinction?

File: 1492813386351.jpg (2MB, 670x6484px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 670x6484px

>>733155059
Sounds like you are new to the simulation hypothesis. If a materialist, maybe you should read about it with 'second attention'.. Let the thought sink in without hurry (while remembering that it's only a theory until proven right).

I hope so. I had a long conversation about free will, time, and space with my gf. It ended with me thinking suicide is the only way out of a set path but is my suicide predetermined? If it is I don't want to die. But is that what's supposed to happen?

>>733155201
Well im not terribly educated on it but I understand the basics I think. Your post just sort of struck me as worded oddly I guess, when you said that the only way reality works is to be a simulation with hard determinism, but then also say that the simulation would be a simulation of reality, doesn't that imply that the reality itself would also need to be deterministic? If so then you could just say that "reality only works when it is based on hard determinism," rather than "reality only works when it's a simulation based on hard determinism," since both the reality and the simulations are both based on the same principle of hard determinism, no? I dunno, maybe I'm just being overly analytical of your word choices.

No, we don't.

Everything is a chain reaction. Every choise you make is a reaction to previous actions. Everything is just the way it is supposed to be.

>>733155464
>both the reality and the simulations are both based on the same principle of hard determinism, no?
Yeah well, the "original universe" is a paradox in and of itself. I mean, where would it come from? For there to be life there always has to be a source. Too bad our current science is too primitive to answer such extra-cosmic questions, but that doesn't mean that we will *never* know, and chances are that when that time comes that we'll know where did life come from really, there was no free will involved. So you are probably correct in that ultimately hard determinism reigns everywhere, at least in each simulation; after all there is no true random when it comes to computer programs. I wish I knew everything but instead I don't know shit, I can just assume. I like reading about this stuff though.

>>733155718
Yeah same here, I like reading and thinking about stuff like this but I'm hardly intelligent enough or well read enough to consider myself any sort of expert.

Although to the statement that "life always needs a source," I'm not so sure about that. If we're talking about the idea that a creation must have a creator, thar might not necessarily be the case. Lots of people will cite the conservation of energy principle as proof that reality needs an outside source to create it, but when it comes right down to it, the laws of thermodynamics only really apply to a system that already exists- a true, zero-dimensional nothingness sort of thing like what we generally think of as what things were like prior to the big bang wouldn't be bound by the laws of physics if there was no physical existence. So while it's impossible for energy to be created and destroyed within our universe we have no reason to believe whatever, if anything, is outside our universe would act in a similar manner.

There's fate, which manifests in probabilities to lead you down a certain path in life (normal distributions always tend to the centre over a long enough period of time).
Then there's perceived free will, to go with or fight against that fate. If you go along with it, it's not really free will. If you fight against it, sooner rather later you'll be pushed back onto the path. That's not to say you shouldn't try.
The problem lies in you don't know what fate has planned for you. Maybe the plan is for you to fight against it.

That's my understanding of the consolidation of free will vs determinism.
In this sense, whether you choose to believe in this struggle as true free will is up to you.

>>733156005
I doubt that nothing exploded, but that's just me.

File: 1491430128983.jpg (29KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 600x600px

>>733156268
Pretty much this.

>>733156581
And that's fair, I'm not trying to say I think that's definitely how it did go down, just that it's a possibility. But, considering we have spent our entire existence, to be redundant, existing, then "nothing" is about the least understandable concept to any of us.

>>733156921
Not him, but that may be the case to you, but I understand existing then not existing perfectly.

You do too. Problem is you don't accept it at an emotional level. The idea makes you uncomfortable.
The intellectual aspect of it is very simple. It's the thought of not existing that is emotionally unacceptable as it goes against all ones core beliefs. This in turn leads us to reject the concept as a whole, hence it not being fully understandable.

I took a lot of hallucinogenics and experienced ego death to get to my point of understanding.

>>733156921
Point taken. But the code of life is rather obviously coded, and it's highly improbable that it isn't. Then we also have endlessly unlikely events like the meteorite (it wouldn't surprise me if "they" killed the dinosaurs on purpose), and if there is a purpose, then there is "them" too.

Since my mind happens to be science oriented I have never been able to believe in free will myself, but it'd be interesting to hear more points of view like yours.

>>733140500
checked

If you can kill an innocent in cold blood, then never harm or distress another being as long as you live (barring doing the anhero thing)....

then you can make an amoral choice, then live morally. To live one way, then live another is to make a free choice.

If you are forever amoral, or forever moral, you do not have free will, you are a slave to a code, or to precisely no code.

>>733157115
No offense but I have to doubt that. I've worked extensively in the manipulation of the subconscious mind and one interesting thing I've learned is that the mind can't, in the most literal sense, understand concepts like "no," "none," or anything of the sort. I can explain in further detail why this is how it is if you like but for the sake of brevity I'll just leave it at that. The idea of "nothingness" is, to the mind, something impossible to fully understand just like how someone who has been blind their entire life can't fully understand the experience of seeing color. Sure, they could understand how light and wavelengths and such work but the actual experience of seeing can't fully be understood except by someone who has seen color, themselves. To fully understand what nonexistence entails we would have to have consciously stopped existing at some point which is simply not possible, no matter how close you might think you've come through who death and that sort of stuff.

File: 800.jpg (48KB, 800x450px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 800x450px

>>733140500
Nope.

Sam Harris nails it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCofmZlC72g

tl:dr: we cannot blame the psychopath for his murderous deeds because of a head injury he sustained.

free will to get dubs

File: IMG_6873.jpg (24KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 320x240px

>>733140500
Of course

>>733157292
Why would the meteor that killed the dinosaurs be unlikely? Looking at all the craters in all of the other planets and asteroids etc. in our solar system, we actually got quite lucky with how little stray debris has impacted our planet.

>>733140500
>do we have free will?
You might choose to have.

>>733158180
The meteorite is an easy example, but it's not the only event among cosmic or evolutionary events that support intelligent design. Just look at the DNA.

>>733157785
That's what ego death does.
It is a temporary loss of awareness of the self. In that moment I lost myself and understood nothingness. It is merely impossible to comprehend because a person has an ego, an identity. And therefore cannot comprehend the absence of such things.

Out of interest, what experience do you have?

File: I+made+a+non+poop+version+for+anyone+who+just+wants+_5f19232db15e8376ed0404ecdd91de4e.jpg (14KB, 226x242px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 226x242px

>>733140500
Yeah sure why not.
Nobody gives a shit.
Except for this ass.

>>733141312
Well, if you were born in a shit third world country you're maybe right, but in the US for example everyone has the same oppurtunities

>>733158180
Actually, we've been hit just as often.
The difference is that we have an atmosphere that can soften the blows and we have weather that erodes any static geologic features.
There's a website that shows documented and suspected hits on Earth and of course Wikipedia has "List_of_impact_craters_on_Earth".
Some are very hard to see and are detected only by things like shatter cones etc.

>>733140500
No, I'm an alcoholic. I have no free will. I literally have to drink to stay alive

I know im free, i shared a Facebook post about it so the government can't touch me.

>>733158299
I agree that life seems fantastically complex in many ways but I don't see it would imply a creator. I mean if there was a creator God sort of entity, this universe and life actually seem quite sloppy and ridiculous. The incredible size of the universe seems less grand when you realize how empty and hostile it is, with gaping holes in it's topology and DNA with the myriad of ways it can cause problems for it's lifeforms, makes you wonder why someone would go through the trouble of making things so complex only to do such a haphazard job.

File: image.jpg (32KB, 180x235px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 180x235px

>>733158299
When you think about it ~50% of animals on this planet are male and ~50% female which does seem purposeful.

>>733150071
its impossible to make no choice at all

not doing something is doing something

>>733154672
simulation theory is a meme

its like saying there are billions and billions of planets so were probably not on earth, statistics just doesnt provide any insight

>>733158355
I work in hypnotherapy and have also done quite a bit of research into putting various subliminal messaging into different types of media.

As for experience with hallucinogens and ego death, I wouldn't say I have too terribly much experience but I've had quite a few experiences with ego loss and death, and while it does mimic what I imagine non-existence may be like to an extent, it's far from absolute. If you were LITERALLY stopping existing every time you took a large dose of hallucinogens then there's no reason why you'd ever begin existing again. You'd either disappear fully or end up a braindead husk, because there's be nothing left of "you" to rebuild.

>>733156581
have you delved into quantum mechanics?
for me it really illuminated how useless our intuition is for this sort of thing

>>733159242
What is the most probable scenario in your mind then?

>>733140500
no. it just feels like it

>>733159345
Explain?

>>733159345
Aside from the basic stuff like what string theory and whatnot are, quantum mechanics is becoming so ridiculously abstract that it verges on utter nonsense. Look at how many people have submitted theses papers that were literally nonsensical but sounded like the writer understood what he was talking about through the use of buzzwords and jargon, who were just fucking handed PhD's by their professors who never even bothered to actually READ their thesis papers and try to make sense of what was being talked about, much less actually challenge the claims they made. They need some serious fucking QA if they want to continue to get taken seriously by the scientific community.

>>733159242
It's true that shit like simulation theory and multiverse theory are unprovable and unfalsifiable but they were never originally intended as hard science, but instead as simple thought experiments. Then, as with just about everything, once the pop-sci community got it's hands on it, it got blown out of proportion and mistaken by laymen for actual fact.

>>733140500
so basically the universe that we perceive to be our reality is either:

A) completely deterministic
B) not completely deterministic and has some form of randomness which we might or might not be able to influence

universe B would have to be real for us to be able to have a true free will.
Since we don't know how to prove if we have free will (every action might as well be pre-determinated by a multitude of factors outside of our grasp) a friend of mine suggested the following as a help to decide if you should believe in free will:

In a deterministic universe:
-if you believe in free will, you are wrong, but it is not really your liability since you were predetermined to believe it
-if you don't believe in free will, you are right, but it's also not really your liability, since you were predetermined not to believe it

In a non-deterministic universe:
-If you believe in free will, you are right, and you have your own free mind to thank for getting to this conclusion
-If you don't believe in free will, you are wrong, and it's basically your own fault for getting to the wrong conclusion.

So he said there's only one option where you are wrong and also in charge of this decision, which means you should always believe in free will, because even if you are wrong in this case, you were predetermined to be wrong and who could blame you for that.

I had a hard time arguing against that.

>>733159350
>statistics doesnt provide insight
>What is the most probable

you cant make sense of these things through probabilities or statistics, or at least in this manner. Whatever is is. We might get closer to the nature of reality through scientific models that incorporate probabilities but we arent there yet. To me simulation theory is like trying to see in the dark, your brain can work like mad trying to identify objects and you can make some guesses and maybe you even 'see' some things but they dont really reflect reality, its mostly your brain just chugging along without any actual data.

>>733159473
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/

>>733160222
As much sense as that makes I'm getting a very Pascal's-Wager-esque give from that train of logic. Not that it's necessarily a bad thing, or a big deal at all in this case, I just had a flashback to my apologetics-debating younger self, that gave me a good chuckle.

>>733160517
Vibe* not give

>>733140500
I think it's a matter of perspective, and I believe that it seems to take into account our knowledge/ignorance/life-experience/etc. level. So to the ignorant, life may seem random and unpredictable. But to the knowledgeable, life may be measurable and orderly.

>>733160235
>To me simulation theory is like trying to see in the dark
>To me simulation theory
>simulation theory
And that's what it is - a theory. There is no current means to prove it.

>>733140500
everything is predetermined, so no

>>733142284
become part of the real world please

>>733160823
Technically it isn't even a theory in scientific terms, the way gravity for instance is a theory. Scientific theories actually have a large degree of supporting evidence. Simulation "theory" barely even qualifies as a fucking hypothesis, and honestly could be more closely likened to a religious or spiritual belief than anything concrete. Same for multiverse "theory."

>>733160517
I get what you mean. The thing with pascals wager, if I remember correctly, is that it excludes a number of possibilities.
In pascal's wager there either is a (christian) god, or there is none, while in reality there could be a thousand other gods or entities with higher power than us which are not the (christian) god he wagered on.
But what possibilities are excluded if you say "the universe is either predetermined or it is not"?

>>733161048
Why wouldn't simulation qualify as a hypothesis?

We could, but we are not.

>>733157912
nice

Yep. That drunk driver who chose to have one to many and run that red light that hit you, and paralyzed you. When you are being fed, shitting your pants, and waiting to die, just remember, everything that happened was all predestined.

Okay so here's how it is.

First of all, we must understand that we as humans are bound by certain patterns of behavior, which are known as archetypes. We know of the existence of these archetypes and the control they exercise over us through the knowledge of the unconscious. The entire study of psychology is based upon these unconscious processes. Frued was the first to tell us of this, but it was his understanding that these unconscious processes were innately linked to sexuality. But it was his contemporary Jung who postulated the theory of archetypes, and it has since been validated to be true by psychoanalysis.

So the implication of this is that we, as humans, are bound by certain patterns whether we like it or not. At their most fundamental level, the archetypes are synonymous with instincts. These instincts define what it is we will, as living beings, want form life, and how we go about obtaining it.

So the knowledge of such a boundedness can be taken to be an argument in favour of a lack of free will. We can never not be human and not function like humans, bound by instinct to the earth.

But here's the thing. Jung also believed that the purpose of human life, in fact all life, is the expansion of consciousness. And this is proved by the fact that all creatures that have a greater consciousness, have a better chance of survival. Clearly evolution has given such beings a better chance at survival, and thus its hidden agenda is revealed.

And as humans, for us, the growth of consciousness means the ability to reconcile the opposites. All religious experience, psychologically understood, has this underlying process at work. Buddhism is the best example of this.

From my personal experience, which has involved a significant growth in consciousness through concerted effort at reconciling the opposites, i can tell you that at the peaks of revelation, all is paradoxical. We are both free and bound by the will of god, simultaneously. Continued..

>>733161378
If we could even prove it was possible for us to run a simulation anywhere near as powerful as our own universe would need to be (even if it was only even a universe one billionth or so the size of our own) then it's be enough to qualify as a hypothesis. But currently even the most powerful computer ever invented by us can barely simulate a puddle of water, so we're nowhere near proving universe simulation is doable to the degree that ours would need be simulated.

>>733161761
The universe may be amoral but to inner (and sometimes outer) senses it also appears to be spiritual. Or otherwise how does evolution explain things like Kundalini / enlightenment / becoming born-again out of the blue? In that respect one could take up daily LBRP like those magicians do or some other kind of daily 'prayer' to connect with the universe and hopefully avoid overly negative happenings such as what you described. If you don't believe in the power of spirituality then by all means give the abundant exercises a go lol.

>>733161863

A lower consciousness cannot be aware of this duality because it lacks the capacity to know or contain this paradox of duality in its mind. But a higher consciousness can. Therefore I can say that life is both meaningful and meaningless, and to me this is true but to you it may not be because you lack the capacity to understand.

Maybe.

>>733158355

Full catatonic psychotic break. Complete loss of contact with reality.

>>733162025

We as human beings are both material and immaterial, both matter and soul. The experience of living forces us to make choices, to prefer one over the other. But that is only because our form is a very great determinant of our understanding. But the soul of man in not bound by such dynamics, and the soul is the only entity that can experience real truth.

File: 1466081594055.jpg (33KB, 500x633px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 500x633px

>>733140500
The answer depends entirely on your definition of free will.

>>733162025
so if I give you a white piece of paper, is it black or is it white?

>>733162331

knowledge of duality, and the experience of it for a man who is sane, has to be limited or else he is just a schizophrenic. If i could see all things in that manner at all times, I would have to be god to be able to maintain my sanity.

>>733162331
Neither, color doesn't exist outside of a being's perception. And even within that, you don't know for certain whether that entity would perceive the same wavelength of light as the same color as another being.

>>733140500

No, to have free will one would need a brain capable of considering all variables in existence so you could act accordingly. We live in the obscurity of ignorance our entire lives, even the little knowledge we gather is not always present when needed.

>>733162905
That's... an odd way of putting it. I would think, as another anon had said earlier in the thread, your brain or mind would need to be capable of making decisions without consideration for ANY variables, rather than all of them. Purely arbitrary decision making, that is. Which seems more likely to me, since according to hard determinism the choices you make are essentially determined by how you have learned to react (or, perhaps, how you have learned that you ought to try to react) to a given situation. Your choices are all effects of a cause (the situation, that is). And so a truly "free" decision would have to be entirely outside the realm of causality. Which, as far as we know, should be essentially impossible.

>>733163524

I see what you mean, even if we had the power to run all variables before a decision, we would still be able to question free will by the mere fact we have innate factors affecting us. I guess you are exactly right, there's no way to have free will. Maybe the concept itself doesn't have any sense outside our minds, if there's anything outside our minds to begin with.

>>733163737
Well, to be fair it's only impossible if we, and our universe, actually are ruled 100% by the laws of causality. Although all the evidence I can see points to that being the case, it still might be possible that other entities and/or realities exist, besides our own, where free will could legitimately exist. Whether they exist, whether we could ever access them, and whether if by doing so we could become free of the laws of causality governing our home reality, I don't have the slightest clue. And I don't think any of us will know the answer to that for a long ass time, if ever.

>>733163524
Taking this a step further, if "free will" is really just "the ability to make an entirely arbitrary decision in regards to the situation," then even if free will DID exist, it's be entirely useless to us. Even with how much we romanticize the concept of free will and lament the concept of determinism, it's actually the determinism itself that allows us to make decisions that allow us to respond to a situation in the best manner, and thus improve our quality of life. If free will does exist we have literally nothing to gain by it.

>>733143395
>Answer a question rudely
Am I rude?
>Answer no question rudely
Am I rude if someone else thinks that I am?
>Answer half of the questions in a rude manner
Am I rude sometimes, at my discretion, or only to certain people or themes?

You are what you appear to be to other people. You control what/how you are to other people.
You can change your physical body through action. You can never not be human without not being.
>inb4 "I'm otherkin."

>>733165114

Farts.

Bet you never thought that you post would get this reply.

Not true free will biology demands we live a certain way

>>733165514
Not the guy you're talking to, but it's pronably not exactly surprising to him to get responses like that. Considering what site we're all sitting on, you know?

>>733158417
Top kek.
The american dream, they have brainwashed people pretty good

>>733140500
>do we have free will?
Of course. With the multiverse, we simultaneously make every possible decision every time a decision is required.

File: no12.jpg (17KB, 607x400px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 607x400px

>>733141312
>You must abide
No, you can break them whenever you want. Literally nothing stops you, and society doesn't ntervene until you've already broken the rule.

>>733165883
Yeah, because, you know, there's any proof whatsoever that multiverse theory is true. Oh wait...

Although, for the record, even if we operate under the assumption that multiverse theory IS correct, the whole "new parallel universes get created every time a conscious entity makes a decision" thing is a bit of a misunderstanding. In fact new universes would get created every time an electron changes place in it's atomic orbit, as the place it moves to is, as far as we can rell, entirely random. So if there are, say, 10 places the electron could move to in an atom's electron cloud, then 10 universes would get made every time the atom moved, each with the electron winding up in a different spot.

Now, consider how many atoms currently exist in our universe, and consider that EVERY electron moves around in this fashion something like 60,000,000,000 times per second, per electron, per atom, and you can see that it's way fucking more than new universes coming into existence than simply "every time some random fucknut decides what he's eating for dinner that night," although to be fair there will be enough universes coming into existence for all those choices to be accounted for. But they aren't coming into existence on account of his choice is the point.

But again, M theory has absolutely no supporting evidence as of yet, and unless we can actually travel interdimensionally, it never will be. It's just as much a belief as any religion, at this point.

>>733162568
>>733162773
ah great. so we are not arguing philosophy but semantics.
of course we can delve ever deeper into existentialism, but if we can't agree for the sake of argument, that a piece of paper is white, we won't come to any meaningful conclusion. Equally we can break down the words "meaningful" and "meaningless" into such small parts, that they mean basically the same, or both can be true at the same time, but I don't think we come any closer to a fundamental truth through this.

>>733140500
You have the illusion of free will, isn't that the same thing?

>>733140500
Yes, only retards with 2deep4u myspace meme tier thought processes think otherwise. As soon as you prove you have freewill by doing something stupid like pricking yourself with a pin, they'll pull out some little kid level circular logic.
There's a reason they push this in the Marxist Indoctrination Centers though, makes you feel like less of a human. Easier to control.

>>733166581
I wasn't even following you two's actual argument, I was just being a smartass. Although, after reading it, I must admit I have no idea exactly what point your question about the paper had to do with anything he had said.

>hurr durr you can't just go smoke crack and kill people without getting arrested. we aren't truly free. deep thoughts