Free will BTFO

>>3141943
who is this "we" that is independent from our brains?

>Experience confirms that we do in fact make decisions
>therefore out understanding of brain related mechanisms is probably faulty or inadequate

>>3141955
our*

>>3141952
Our conscious selves.

>>3141958
and the conscious is a product of the brain, yes?

>2017
>Not a compatibilist
Fucking brainlets

>>3141952
"We" and "our" obviously refers to humans, or maybe even animals in general if you so prefer.
>>3141955
>Experience confirms that we do in fact make decisions
1. What experience?
2. Did I ever deny we make "decisions" you fucking brainlet with the reading comprehension skills of a chimpanzee? The point still remains that our decisions are not under our control. Reread the Original Post (OP).
>out brain related mechanisms is probably faulty or inadequate
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

>>3141943
There is no way to refute that without resorting to unfalsifiable claims like "God made it this way to test us!" or "dude, *puts down pipe* our consciousness exists in an immaterial plain of existence *sniff*"
>>3141955
>therefore out understanding of brain related mechanisms is probably faulty or inadequate
It is common sense that consciousness as we experience it exists in our brains only. If you want to prove otherwise, try shooting yourself in the head and see what happens.

>>3141961
The conscious self is a product of the brain, yes, but you are making a backwards argument. The conscious self doesn't have control of the brain. If you developed epilepsy or a brain tumour tomorrow would you describe that as a decision that you made?

>>3141967
Compatiblism is ridiculous.

>>3141975
>It is common sense that consciousness as we experience it exists in our brains only.
it is common sense that the soul separates from the body when we die. Most people for most of history believed this in some form.
>>3141969
You're the one making extraordinary claims for which you have no evidence.

>>3141991
>muh soul
Ridiculous. First of all, define "soul". What is a "soul"? Is it something immaterial? If it is truly immaterial, then why is it confined to a material object, the human body? Do you even have any proof for the existence of such thing or are you just coming up with that random bullshit? If the latter, you might as well claim that magical, invisible unicorns exist because you don't have to prove it anyway. On top of it all, assuming this soul thing exists and it is somehow immaterial, then why call it ourselves when our memories, feelings, thoughts, everything that makes you yourself, is material, in the form of neurons (this being scientifically proven)? If anything, this soul is just some kind of parasite in the host creature which is you, a separate entity that does not have anything to do with your life as you understand it.
>You're the one making extraordinary claims for which you have no evidence.
>consciousness existing within the brain is extraordinary claim
>not having conscious control over the brain is extraordinary claim
Sure thing buddy.

>>3142028
>muh science
This is the humanities board. If you are going to be rude like this with all your "scientifically proven" ""facts"", please fuck off to >>>/sci/.

>>3142028
>consciousness existing within
>within
consciousness can't be spacially pinpointed into the brain, that is an absurd, illogical, and extraordinary claim which you have not, and probably cannot, prove.

as for the soul, i said it was common sense not that it was true. chill out *tips*

>>3141943
>I don't know the definition of free will
Hint, it doesn't mean free from causality

>>3142041
Hint: there is no "the" definition of free will.

>>3142032
>consciousness can't be spacially pinpointed into the brain,
Uh actually it can and in fact it can even be physically pinpoited to one specific region called prefrontal cortex.
>that is an absurd, illogical, and extraordinary claim which you have not, and probably cannot, prove.
Not only it can be proven, it already was proven and it is widely accepted as being the truth.

http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/where-is-consciousness-located-in-the-brain
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/351/1346/1413.short
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prefrontal_cortex
http://knightlab.berkeley.edu/publications/detail/113/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3298966/
http://willcov.com/bio-consciousness/review/Prefrontal%20Cortex.htm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jtffLlTgq8
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22329762-700-consciousness-on-off-switch-discovered-deep-in-brain/
https://academic.oup.com/brain/article/124/7/1263/285461/Consciousness
http://www.medicaldaily.com/human-brain-consciousness-episodic-memory-personal-narrative-social-structure-384757
https://www.quora.com/Is-consciousness-totally-the-product-of-the-brain-Or-is-consciousness-ultimately-separate-from-and-independent-of-the-brain

You are the one making absurd claims for which you have no evidence, claiming that everything I say that is held as truth is "extraordinary", "ridiculous", "illogical", etc, without explaining why, which shows you're just a fucking idiot with no interest whatsover in having this argument and are just shitposting for the purposes of either trolling or unwillingly demonstrating the degree of your profound mental retardation. You keep moving the post after every comment, as always.

But sure, if you want to just deny reality, go ahead. After all you have a free will to do so :))

>>3142030
Not him, but the humanities are not some magical thing where science is irrelevant.

>>3142055
DUDE
YOUR SCIENCE
IT'S JUST
WRONG
XDDDDD
WHAT THA FUCK MAN
"SCIENCE"
***TIPS FEDORA***
XDDD
EPIC MEME
ATHEISTS BTFO
DUDE
FREE WILL
LAWS OF PHYSICS? MORE LAWS OF FEDORA XXXXXXXXXD

>>3142051
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/
>trying to BTFO a free will definition that you came up with
Come on son. Either outline your definition beforehand so we can laugh it or don't pretend you BTFO it

>>3142057
It is irrelevant because science is circular logic. He is trying to prove science within the concepts of science which is ridiculous.

>>3142041
That was never implied idiot. Regardless of being free from causality or whatever other factors (or not), your decisions still happen inside your brain and you don't have control over your brain, so you don't have control over your decisions. This is a perfectly logical conclusion. If you do not accept it, it means that you are being illogical. In other words just being a try hard retard who holds his personal beliefs because muh feelings instead of holding reason as your compass.

File: 1461441428213.gif (324KB, 401x353px) Image search: [Google]

324KB, 401x353px

>>3142055
>youtube as a source

>>3141943
you suck, instead of taking responsibility for your actions you choose to blame nature
very brave of you

why are childrens cowards today? is it their shit parents?

>>3142069
Atheists BTFO.

>>3142055
>http://sys.4chan.org/derefer?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.newscientist.com%2Farticle%2Fmg22329762-700-consciousness-on-off-switch-discovered-deep-in-brain%2F
Not that guy but this article didn't prove what you said. They mentioned that specific portion is a critical portion but not where consciousness reside. That is like saying only the car key makes the car move or only the conductor makes music

>>3142076
>That is like saying only the car key makes the car move or only the conductor makes music
Can you start a car without a key, or have an orchestra without a conductor?
And nevermind all the other articles btw.

>>3142079
If you exist in a superior plan of immaterial existence with God, yes, it is possible. In the analogy, that proves my point which consciousness is immaterial and exists regardless of our brains. Please inform yourself before spreading disinformation.

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news1100/science.html
Science means Satanic in Latin

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u22qp_nMXpU
Science is a Religion and a Satanic One at That

>>3142055
you're like zoolander trying to break open the computer to find the files inside it. there's no consciousness "inside" the brain. that's dumb and wrong, and in any case unprovable

File: ac7316cbebd6e0e589791068e5097a0c.jpg (8KB, 196x196px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 196x196px

>>3142082
>>3142085
Reading these threads make me think that the prime reason for why today's youth is extremely non-religious is because of idiots like you two. You waste every opportunity at conversion by being, well, the idiots that you are.

>>3142097
He has fallen for the deceive of Satan and his "Science", there is no saving the poor soul now. The best we can do is make fun he will go to Hell and repent later.

>>3142097
conversion? to what?

>>3142079
>necessary part means the only part
Learn to logic faggot.

>post so many links
>expect someone to read them in such a short time

>>3142060
>https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/

Second sentence....

>Which sort is the free will sort is what all the fuss is about.

You are literally retarded.

>>3142062
Feel free to outline the epistemological framework you are working under.

>>3141943
>we have no free will
>thus we have no choice but to act the way we act
>we act as if we had free will
>we can't act in any other way except as if we had free will, because we lack the free will to do otherwise

Uuhhhh dotards?

>>3142114
And the first sentence already shows that everyone agrees that free will is the ability to choose what effect from different causes. As to what effects or causes is up in the air. That is enough to prove what I meant that free will doesn't mean free from causality. Learn to read.

>>3142144
That's not what the first sentence says at all. Did you just literally Google the Stanford page on free will and post a link without even reading it?

>>3142156
>"Free Will” is a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives.
That means choosing an effect from different causes since various alternatives will have different causes. I can choose to sage, report or reply to you and there will each have different causes, choosing one action/effect over the other is the definition of free will

>>3142170

Course of action and effect do not mean the same thing. Ability and and capacity do not mean the same thing. 'Particular type' implies there are lost of different mooted types.

You have some cheek telling me I can't read. You've taken a sentence, ignored a particularly important chunk of it and inserted different words with different meanings.

>>3142135
Plant wards on your brain

>>3142181
Different causes have different effects regardless of ability or capacity.(besides, that counts as a cause too) Course of action is the result of the causes that propel the rational agent to make that decision ie causality.

> ignored a particularly important chunk of it and inserted different words with different meanings.
I have only explained what it meant. You are the one who not only ignored that part of the page before everyone starts disargeing, but also the only moron who seem to have his own definition of it

>>3142215
>I have only explained what it meant.
No you haven't,you've failed to understand what it meant and posted a link that proved what I said in my very first post in this thread that there is no such thing as "the" definition of free will. Primarily because you clearly have comprehension difficulties.

>>3141943
Holy damn what an absolute cutie. Is there any more of this semen demon?

>The substantially less cute friend taking the photo

gets me every time

>>3141955
experience confirms that we have the sensation of making decision.
being conscious and able ot respond to stimuli with awareness doesn't imply being able to decide on then carry out actions freely.

File: 1487751053239.jpg (45KB, 681x496px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 681x496px

>>3141983
>If you developed epilepsy or a brain tumour tomorrow would you describe that as a decision that you made?
Would you describe that as a decision that the brain made? Because that would be ludicrous. Neither your conscious self or the brain can decide whether to have brain tumours and epilepsy, or not.