Does free will exist? I'm thinking no.

>>2053764
Probably not but it doesn't change the fact that you have the illusion of freewill

>>2053780
Does this argument exist?

I'm thinking no.

>>2053787
Why do you think that?

The will is either weak or it is strong. There is no "free" or "unfree" will. the question is nonsensical.

>>2053780
Well yeah naturally. But the fact that it can be recognized as an illusion means that there's no reason to assign any significance to the illusion.

>>2053805
If you're referencing Nietzsche I'm quite positive he was in the decisively anti-free will camp.

>>2053810
On the contrary he said the will was radically free

>>2053809
But you didn't really though.

You felt compelled to post in this thread, perhaps you also felt compelled to do something else. But in any case the urge to post overpowered the rest.

>>2053816
He did? If that's true then I've been reading him all wrong.

When did he say this?

>>2053764
There are two possibilities.

1) The universe is a big machine and the entirety of the future was decided the moment it came into existence, with sufficiently advanced technology and knowledge of the initial starting conditions, we could extrapolate any given moment in time to describe it, including the feelings and thoughts of anyone. In this case you have absolutely no control over the initial conditions and free will cannot exist, you are a cog moved by the laws of nature.

2) The universe has some kind of random element to it like quantum mechanics, making it non-deterministic, but you still have absolutely no control over these truly random occurrences (after all, random would imply that it is not connected to anything that came before, so you can't make a decision that will be carried out in the next slice of time). In this case you don't have free will.

Free will is only argued for by necessity, because it would completely change the landscape of morality and ethics, and people are not prepared for that.

>>2053820
Not him but I think Nietzsche said the individual has free will, but not other people(society)

>>2053786
Does this argument of an existing argument exist?

No.

>>2053831
I'm quite positive in The Antichrist he makes it very explicit that free will as far he can see doesn't exist. Though perhaps I'm interpreting this wrong as like 75% of reading Nietzsche is interpretation

>Even a man who makes the most modest pretensions to integrity must know that a theologian, a priest, a pope of today not only errs when he speaks, but actually lies—and that he no longer escapes blame for his lie through “innocence” or “ignorance.” The priest knows, as every one knows, that there is no longer any “God,” or any “sinner,” or any “Saviour”—that “free will” and the “moral order of the world” are lies—: serious reflection, the profound self-conquest of the spirit, allow no man to pretend that he does not know it.... All the ideas of the church are now recognized for what they are—as the worst counterfeits in existence, invented to debase nature and all natural values; the priest himself is seen as he actually is—as the most dangerous form of parasite, as the venomous spider of creation..

>>2053831
>>2053844
Nietzsche is arguing the will doesn't exist. He's a sophist. We have radically "free will" because there is no will to be free or not.

>>2053852
>We have radically "free will" because there is no will to be free or not.
Can you elaborate on this?

File: 151231415.jpg (120KB, 536x531px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 536x531px

Simple argument for free will existing.

1.) Man's most basic primal mechanism is survival.
2.) Man will eventually make true artificial intelligence, knowing full-well it can backfire and destroy him.

Thus, a man going against his base primal mechanism (if he was truly "programmed" this way) consciously (and perhaps subconsciously through fascination of progress into this research) directly counters the notion that he has no free will.

>>2053898
>1.) Man's most basic primal mechanism is survival.
Here's where this argument went wrong
That would assume that man is driven only by one desire and his pursuit of this desire is faultless. Which is not true.

Well, my collective being has a will which it enacts as it sees fit. So, in that sense, it has its own will which it is free to manifest. It doesn't really matter if I am consciously aware of it.

>>2053925
But on a conscious (and unconscious) level, your instinct for survival will influence everything you do.

>>2053952
Naturally. But it's not the only thing that influences everything we do.

And furthermore the fact that you're constantly influenced by your instinct for self-preservation is a testament to the fact that man isn't entirely in control of what he wills. And the only time in which you'd like to overpower this instinct is when other urges are so irresistible that survival becomes the weaker instinct.

>>2053950
>Well, my collective being has a will which it enacts as it sees fit.
But does it tho?

File: 1479634168030.jpg (84KB, 750x749px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 750x749px

>>2054036
IDK I AM JUST FLESHING OUT IDEAS

>>2053852

>there is no will to be free or not.

Ah, so all that blather about the will-to-truth and the will-to-power was just window dressing?

>>2053806
>>2053786
read Dennett

>>2053780
>>2053806
It's not an illusion. It's just insignificant. We behave like ourselves. We always will. So what's the difference?

>>2054054
Nietzsche had syphilis he was mentally ill.

>>2053828
I'm perfectly content with the 'illusion'. because it's how my mental schema works out. if I can't tell the difference, that's good enough for me honestly

>>2054066
It is an illusion though. Free will doesn't exist but intuitively you're led to believe that it does.

> So what's the difference?
Free will or the lack of it has a lot of implications particularly as to how society is structured. If we accept that
a) Humans aren't born equal
b) Humans don't truly independently control their lives.
This means that human lives don't actually have the significance and potential that we assign them. Meaning that perhaps social Darwinism (not eugenics mind) isn't such a bad idea after all.

The freewill-causality dichotomy is an illusion.

We in fact, do all possible choice that lead to all possible outcomes. The universe branches infinitely, but we can not see the myriad other not quite parallel universes, only our own present universe at any given moment, and it's own history as recorded within itself. This gives the illusion that we pick one choice or the other, and causes debate if it is because of freewill or causality. But we in fact choose all possible choices.

>>2054070
You need to be a little mad to be as redpilled as he was.

>>2054108
>redpilled

Stop getting your vernacular from a pair of failed transvestite film makers.

>>2054107
That assumes that people still have a choice rather than that random quantum deviations in the infinity of universes spiral into different outcomes.

File: 8681a0c37f91f1b3b10d26e627de91d6.jpg (15KB, 236x354px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 236x354px

>>2054118
The Matrix was an alright movie and there's nothing wrong with boipucci.

>>2054124
I see you've been given over to a reprobate state of mind.

there is no proof of either free will or determinism, however it is obvious which one is superstitious ad people's motives for supporting it

if free will exists you have to take responsibility for your actions

determinism is basically fate, a superstitious concept

File: greek homos.jpg (57KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 600x600px

>>2054148
Twinks and traps are the pleasures of a higher kind of man.

>>2054151
>This level of non-argument.
Free will is superstitious as fuck and is culturally intertwined with concepts like the soul and morality.

Determinism (whilst not true either) is probably most popular among hardcore science worshipping atheists than it is among religious people. Even Calvinists contrary to popular belief do believe in free will.

File: 1480348304740.jpg (365KB, 2464x1648px) Image search: [Google]

365KB, 2464x1648px

>>2053764
Only if it's free from cause and effect. So no, it's an illusion

>>2054152
WE WUZ ROMANS AND SHIT HAVING MAN BOY LOVE AND SHIT

>>2053828
Nice unsubstantiated claim. You can't just assert that those are the only two possibilities, you actually have to back it up somehow.

>>2053764
Compatibilism, my friend

>>2053818
You can't have your cake and eat it too, anon.

These free will arguments to me, are like atheists gathering up to bitch about God.

If you don't believe in something, stop using it as a source of debate at all.

>>2053764
I prefer not to think about it. Not because I think it's a bad question, but that it's not practical.
If every tiny movement is destiny, then it is your destiny to question it. If destiny does not exist, then it is your own doing to question it. Either way, the question and its experience are the same.

>>2053764
In absolute terms most likely not, but apparent free will is of the same value as actual.

>>2053952
So consciously you still have no free will as another unconscious force controls you.

>>2053898
1.) Man's most basic primal mechanism is survival.
2.) Man smokes tobacco and drinks alcohol.

Thus man isn't faultless in his pursuits, and your argument is bad.

>>2054203
>all effects have causes
>some effects are uncaused

what is the third option

>>2054347
>every physical effect has a physical cause
>mental incidents can have an effect on the physical world
>mental incidents are not a part of the physical world

choose 2

>>2054261

actually i think more so.

Probably not, don't see why it should exist.

>>2054118
you're on 4chan m8

>>2053764

How can you think "no" without free will?

>>2054347
There are no causes. Everything is one big coincidence and completely random.

>>2054552
>random mental incidents with spontaneous and mysterious origin somehow make us "free"

Easiest way to prove free will does not exist

If you believe in free will, stop believing in it for a week. If you can't even control your beliefs don't you dare say free will exists.

File: 4e1109bdc8cb30123559a15d839a8083.png (509KB, 566x413px) Image search: [Google]

509KB, 566x413px

>>2055454
That's not how free will works.

>>2054234
I was interested in hearing counter-arguments because I'd very much like to believe in free will. Not proselytizing the lack of it.

>>2054249
>Either way, the question and its experience are the same
This is true. But the greater implications of a lack of free will aren't in the livelihood of you or I, it's in what this means for society.

>>2055439
Because my will to say no overpowers my will to say yes.

Neither of those wills being things I consciously chose.

>>2053780
>you have the illusion of freewill
What do people even mean when they spout this horse shit?