free will or determinism

>>1630657
Only God knows. We humans can only guess

Amen

both seems the most reasonable one
Adapating it to your needs

>>1630661
If god knows what we do how can we have free will?

>>1630657
Define free will first.

If your body as a collection of atoms is technically in control and there is no sentient outside force, does that mean you have free will? Or does the influence of causation and psychology nullify it?

Read Calvin

>>1630899
Primary causes and secondary causes

>>1630657
They aren't mutually exclusive.

>>1630961
Free Will, act by an agent thats beyond the laws of physics.

Determinism, what you do has been predetermined before you were even born due to the deterministic nature of the universe. There are no agents or agents do not bypass the laws of deterministic universe/physics.

Overall I think neither are true. Free Will because, an agent outside the sphere of physics seems very unlikley and theres no evidence for it either. Determinism because it misleads us into a perception that the the world runs on causality. Where as in reality might be simply our perception runs on causality. Causality might not be part of the universe, or rather the linear causality might not be. When you say this causes that, this is what we perceive. But nature might simply be this and this instead of this then that. The issue of perception is known however it hasn't been clearly understood yet. I think future frontiers in philosophy/physics will show this to be the case. In this scenario, both free will/determinism might not be valid, indeed a different outlook might be needed.

This is my own understanding of how things work.

>>1630899
I think he meant "only God knows whether there is free will or determinism"

Let's be honest here, on a macro level, the issue of personalized impacts on society and the world around you is inane and Nietzschean and therefore chaotic. However, Kierkegaard had a better view of free will and determinism.

Ive been going nuts over this recently because I can't find anything that goes against determinism. Some say that there is a feeling when you make a decision that you could have always done something else, but that is not empirical evidence-Unless we could go back in time and actually test it-which is not going to happen.

A lot of free will supporters seem to have not thought it through. There is the argument that you don't "feel" like you are a puppet. That is to say physically you are not forced. But as Tennyson said "I am all that I have seen" and if "I" am my experiences then the objective world is deciding for me. Implying I don't even exist really. At least not as a personal agent.(decisions are subconsciously influenced by experience)

I don't believe in dualism. Free will being true implies an outside agent thus disproving physicalism and meaning there is a mental realm of sorts. That lets all sorts of bullshit on the table.

Help me. I almost passed out in the grocery store thinking of all these nice looking people being metaphorical robots and the children running around screaming; unaware of the great ruse on humanity.

Determinism. If you believe in free will, stop believing in it for six weeks. If you believe in free will, but claim you can't control your beliefs, do some more reflection.

>>1633977
Determinism wins. Think about a rock on planet mars, it is self aware and it knows it is a rock. It has sensory organs that allow it to calibrate which way the wind is blowing, and it knows exactly how far and in which direction the wind will blow it. The mistake the rock makes, however, is that it believes since it knows where it is going, it is acting of its own free will.

This is analogous to a human who feels human, and has a brain. The human can tell what the brain wants, for example, to drink apple juice, but it makes the mistake of believing it chose to drink apple juice. The desire to drink juice simply spontaneously arose, as does every other thought that comes into our minds. We really can't account for them.

>everything for which there is objective proof is part of the natural world including consciousness and thus free will could be part of the natural world and has not been falsified

>consciousness is not part of the natural world even though I directly experience it and need it to observe lab results and other things considered objective proof, therefore I can declare free will to be a superstition like unicorn and le spaghetti monster

who is in the wrong here

>>1630899

God doesn't tell you

God doesn't force you

If you do something different, He knew that too

Free will is not a superpower

You cannot surprise God

What if the results are pre-determined in that the end result is one of 5 possible results that cannot be changed, but the choices you make all lead to one of those 5 results?

Basically, does the guaranteed end result negate the point of having the choice to choose how you reached that result?

>>1631961
How is choosing to turn left instead of right at a stop sign "beyond the laws of physics"?

>>1633977
How about personal responsibility?

How about that?

>>1634037
Consciousness doesn't mean the same thing as freewill. Free will is the idea that even if we were omniscient(knowing everything including your experiences, subconscious, and thoughts), we could not determine what your actions would be. You-in free wills system- have the ability to start new causal chains uninfluenced by prior cause effect relationships. Do you believe in God? Because in your edifice we all share his power and are unchained by physical limitations and reasoning. Occam's razor would easily refute free will.

>>1634069
Because if is really your choice then you ignore causality egghead.

>>1634072
I'm not sure what you question is. Personal responsibility is another influence that determines our will.

How come everybody on free wills side doesn't know what they are talking about? Is there a relationship between ignorance and free will?
[spoiler]this is bait. Please help me understand your position[spoiler]

Can someone differentiate between free will and freedom to choose?

>>1634072
A delusion for stupid people. An excuse that allows the lawyers to do their job and pretend they have the 'moral high-ground'.

>>1630657
determinism

the only weird thing is that we still feel morally responsible for our actions despite the fact that we don't have free will.

>>1630657
There is a refusal to accept that there is a limitation to the amount of choices that are able to be made, and ultimately most actions are afflicted by causality, so in a lot of ways there is only determinism. Free will is lubby dubby we are free from our emotions nonsense, when the idea itself is born of emotions.

>>1630661
Oof it's so fuckin hard to discern bait on /his/

>>1630657
You cannot prove free will. It's unscientific and unfalsifiable in the very same way good is.

There is only determinism, cause and effect.

possibilism desu

This question can't be resolved be the noumenal world is out of our access. without it we can only view the world of appearance.

also the problem isn't free will but causality.

Determinism, by mere virtue of our non eternal self

We did not create our own minds and or that which "chooses" likewise we did not create the planet/environement/parents that which influences our choices

At some point these elements were put into play ultimately beyond our control for who asks to exist? Who asks to have wealthy parents? Who asks to be smart or have whatever quality it is that makes some work harder than others? Who asks to be mentally retarded or psychotic, etc.

>>1630657
Neither, the future of the universe is not determined yet free will is an illusion.

File: bad eyesight feel.png (5KB, 205x246px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 205x246px

I like to look at it in two ways. One is that even if free will doesn't exist and every single action everyone takes has already been determined, we're still conscious beings with feelings and emotions. So, while we technically don't have a choice in anything, that doesn't mean nothing matters, because we're still conscious and capable of experiencing real things.

The other way of looking at it, and I think is the better way, is by simply acknowledging that free will is logically and physically impossible, but that it actually does exist and we have control over our actions and thoughts and nothing is predetermined. In a way it's a form of Pascal's Wager, as believing freewill exists is more beneficial than not. This relates to an idea of mine where one shouldn't necessarily always believe what is true, but what is beneficial, even though in almost all instances believing the truth is ultimately the best option.

Oh boy, we've got ourselves 8th grade philosophers in here.

There is, from our current understanding of logical cause, no world in which metaohysical free will exists, even in an indeterministic one. A deterministic world obviously does not; there are only a series of causes and effects, including one's willfulness and actions. In an indeterministic world, in which effects cannot be conclusively held to follow from what we think are causes--the classic induction problem--then, even if there were some kind of metaphysical stuff like a soul or something that could allow us to act beyond the previous effects that have acted on us, we cannot logically conclude that we are even able to cause an effect--it could just be God lifting up the atoms in our arms every time, not us. Because we have split cause and effect, we might be able to think our wills are free, but they cannot then act on our wills.

>>1636360
>even if free will doesn't exist
>even if
Prove that free will exists. Protip: you can't.

>that doesn't mean nothing matters
Nobody said that.

>acknowledging that free will is logically and physically impossible, but that it actually does exist and we have control over our actions and thoughts and nothing is predetermined
That's the dumbest thing ITT. Congratulations you even beat the Christfags.