I've spent all day wondering about free will. Are we just

>>2179031
A good arguement against it?
You couldn't stop wondering all day about while you wanted to have a Proof for it. The Demiurg didn't let you

>>2179031
We are subject to influence, which is a powerful thing, but we certainly have free will. Some will claim divine intervention but our minds work in such a way that we try to see patterns even where there are none. Many people do not like the idea that random and uncontrollable variables play a role in influencing our decisions, but ultimately they are just that simple: random, indiscriminate, and out of our control. But to claim that these variables are controlled by an external force or will, that is pure speculation.

>>2179031
One way or another, does it make any difference to the way we exist? Even if you are a deterministic machine, being that way has let you live the way you have all your life, which has probably been filled with various good times, learning and choices.

tl;dr it doesn't matter, just live your life.

>>2179031
read up on compatibilism on the SEP OP.

This is no where near a finished debate.

Where have you been searching for counter arguments?

>>2179031
Well would deterministic machines wonder about free will?

>people actually equating the physical visualization of the brain as we percieve it to our internal functioning and experience..
Come on, this isnt reddit, dont be so basic.
our internal experience is not deterministic and not causal. determinism is the resut of a survey of the external world through our senses.
To say we operate as deterministic machines is simply an outside observation and a result of the machnistic world view itself.
i.e we think the world is a machine so we see ourselves as machines and apply the same language to ourselves. There is nothing more dangerous than this.
Our actual psychy does not work in causal ways, our own experience is not causal because we cannot probe our own experience or rather us probing is our experiences.
We are the probing machines themselves and our internal experience does not use the same language as the one we use to describe the world.
Deterministic is simply not a word you can apply to human experience, it is a word taken from the world of external objective(as in the filtration of experience to only things many can agree upon) examination and analysis and cannot apply to the way each ofus experinces himself.
when examining a person from the outside and analyzing him using the filtration tools that are objective analysis, it obviously seems that he is a deterministic machine cause the very mode of analysis that is objective analysis and observation cannot get any other result but that one.

>>2179666
>we cannot probe our own experience
a car can't probe its own experience either. but if a mechanic can understand a car, that proves that cars are machines.

the same way i figure that eventually someone or something will eventually understand how thought works. why do people return to the same thoughts over and over? why do thoughts take time to "sink in", and what in us allows us to privilege some thoughts as "better" than other ones?

>>2179666
ill try to rephrase it a bit. the way we observe external reality filters it a certain way that leads us to believe it is a machine in a way that helps us survive and manage ourselves but we should not then turn the same filtration system toward snon objective internal experience.
The mechanistic, scientific, effeciency driven worldview and techniques themsleves are predisposed to come up with a mechanistic world which is why we cannot make the mistake of applying them also to an area which they do not belong in, the realm of personal subjective experience of the self.

>>2179031

You can complain that humans in a deterministic system are machines, but wouldn't humans in a non-deterministic system act so completely erratically that we couldn't talk about free will anyway?

To talk about free will people need to act consistently, i.e. people's behaviours need to correspond to other physical events. This necessitates determinism, it isn't undermined by it

>>2179676
A car has no experience of itself at least not something that can be called so since what we call internal experience is completely tied up with communication. a car cannot communicate.
And obviously our brain and thinking when we are forced to do and make descisions in real life adapts to how we think of the external world.
So if we all think the external world is mechanicstic we will try to adapt our thinking to make sure we make good descisions.
but we didnt always see the world as a machine and we didnt always think accordingly to a world as a machine.
Much like we slowly adapt our thinking to the way the captcha works on 4chan. first we try to think like we are used to and sometimes dont realy understand what exactly the captcha is asking of us but then we learn it and adapt our thinking but our thinking itself is not somehow predeisposed to naturally understand captchas.
We structure our thinking if we wan to acheive a result within a certain frame of reality.

>>2179031
OP if I removed you amygdala you would have no emotions at all so you have no free will.

But we know determinism isn't true. That of course doesn't necessarily mean free will is true, but it does mean you can't use determinism as an argument against free will.

Free will exists for you if you feel internally that you are making descisions according to your own desires.
Thats it. It cannot be observed from the outside as such observation is of a different sort. You cannot ever have the same obsevation as you have of yourself but of the outside world. You cannot boht be ytourself and experience yourself and be the world as it experiences itself or be several people as they experience themselves... You can only observe the outsdie world and then establish some communication with others to be able to agree on certain things.
These are all filtration methods made for the sake of effeciency towards achieving whtever goals we set out to achieve. the world view and the goals are parralel. We agree the world is a machine and thus our contemporary goals are about how to maximize the machine's effeciency.