How come there are so many atheistic people who believe in free

Science has debunked evolutionism.
It's a fairy tale.

We did not come from monkeys.
God created us (scientific fact).

>>894887
*tips fedora* retard faggot. There isn't determinism and free will. Stop dichotomizing and read more and STOP POSTING

File: 1453085310803.jpg (21KB, 500x334px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 500x334px

>>894896

>the creationist fag has returned from his absence

Please link that awful website again. Please.

File: image.jpg (61KB, 420x420px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 420x420px

>>894896
Kek

>>894903
are you fucking deluded?
I know determinism isn't true because of QM, but we still don't have free will.
how was my post fedora tipping at all you fucking 4chan hipster?
go eat a fucking cock stupid piece of shit.

>>894906
http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

Enjoy having your monkey mythology destroyed.

Make sure to send me a bottle of your tears.

>>894907
triggered, atheist?

Coming from someone with somewhat deterministic attitudes, I have to say that there is space for free will to exist. We still don't know exactly how the human brain functions, and as long as there is uncertainty about this (or alternatively, as long as the Turing test hasn't been completed yet), it's not unreasonable to assume such a thing as free will exists.

File: boyc.jpg (247KB, 850x1200px) Image search: [Google]

247KB, 850x1200px

>>894911

Thanks bro, where have you been for so long? Were you admitted for your ramblings and delusions?

>>894915
Ya, but ONLY under the assumption that GOD gave us the free will, as I said in my OP.
Because even in a indeterministic universe, yes even with a indeterministic brain, we don't have free will, because we neither have control over the indeterminism.

>>894918
>scientific facts are "ramblings"

Sure thing, animal.

Don't forget, you came from a rock!
Your grandpa was a fish. I'm sorry I ate your grandpa.

Daily reminder that Kent Hovind debunked the theory of evolution and proved that Creation is correct.

>>894924

Your desperation is hilarious, my man.

I do feel sorry for you, though.

>>894932
You're the one desperately clinging to a debunked theory :^)

>The desire for "freedom of will" in the superlative, metaphysical sense, such as still holds sway, unfortunately, in the minds of the half-educated, the desire to bear the entire and ultimate responsibility for one's actions oneself, and to absolve God, the world, ancestors, chance, and society therefrom, involves nothing less than to be precisely this causa sui, and, with more than Munchausen daring, to pull oneself up into existence by the hair, out of the slough of nothingness.
but at the same time
>The "non-free will" is mythology; in real life it is only a question of strong and weak will.

tl;dr the evidence for determinism (whether the concept is fully correct or not) thoroughly destroys the traditional concept of free will. That said, the different levels of autonomy between people can be attributed to stronger or weaker ability to achieve desired outcomes. Responsibility attribution should take these into account.

>>894887
Well let's hear this scientific refutation of free will. I'm actually quite interested.

>>894887
>science ... debunked
This meme again.

Science does not debunk or prove anything. Science is a method and a body of knowledge. You utilise it to gain further knowledge.

Therefore, only individuals can possibly debunk things *with the use of scientific methods*.

Now tell me, who debunked, using scientific, free will?

>>894957
That's complete bullshit man.
I already mentioned that here >>894921
Look up "hard incompatibilism"
Their is nothing like "weak free will" and "strong free will", If we go after the same definition.

File: YeZGOmLafK.jpg (100KB, 531x525px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 531x525px

>>894933
>Evolution
>Debunked
Even the Papists and Orthodox believe in it. FUNDIES GET OUT REEEEEEEE

>>894970
>>894967
A lot of neuroscientic experiments, and the fact that we neither have free will in a indeterministic universe, as I already said twice now.

the ONLY logical argument for free will would be , god gave us it.

All these theories that quantum indeterminsm gives us free will are total fucking bullshit, becasuse first of all the quantum indeterminsm becomes irrelevant on the level of the neurons, and as I said, we don't have control over the indeterminism. the concept of free will just makes zero sense in a atheistic world view, which I addressed in my OP.
I can say ok with people telling me god gave them free will, but that's not what I said in my OP, you dips.

>>894887
Compitabilism and top-down casualization or w/e it's called, where higher functions determine the properties of lower functions, are common non-religious arguments for free will. Why even bothering making a thread about something you're clearly not interested in.

> The only logical argument for free will would be something religious
Just how would a religious argument even look like? It sure can't be an involving that have an all-knowing God since that fuck things up even further.

>>894982
>how would a religious argument even look lie
God gave us free will because either he couldn't sends us to heaven / hell.

>since that fuck things up even further

Who says God is all-knowing? Who says our assumptions of God are true?

>>894921
A God, or an equivalent thereof. As long as science hasn't "finished", so to say, there is room for the mystic. It doesn't necessarily have to be the judeo-christian God, it's more probable to me that such a divine entity is entirely unknown to us, but some supernatural being could have instilled us with a "soul" (whatever that may be), probably through sheer coincidence, possibly with a certain plan in mind, but that's all speculation.

My determinism isn't based on any pretense of certainty, but more on the logical rule of thumb that when there is no solid proof in favour of something, it's more desirable to assume it's false.

>>894995
Ahmm yes.. But if you would actually read my post for once, before replying to it, you could actually see that I addressed the fact that there are hard atheists who believe in free will.

>>894933
Let's say microevolution and macroevolution are concepts I am going to briefly humor.

Microevolution is easily provable.
>Prepare an agar plate with an antibiotic gradient
>Apply bacterial solution
>Incubate
>Sample bacterial colonies from beyond the point where there is no continuous growth of bacteria (These bacteria would already be present in the original solution)
>Introduce those bacteria into a sterile solution
>Prepare another agar plate with the same antibiotic gradient
>Apply bacterial solution to plate
>Incubate
>Observe that there are bacterial colonies growing beyond the point where there is continous growth again even though this would be impossible if microevolution wasn't possible since the single isolated colony stems from a single progenitor and as such each bacteria growing on the plate would have the same resistance to the antibiotic.

Macroevolution is simply expanding on microevolution since there are no observed hard barriers between organisms and gradual gene drift allows for speciation as observed when comparing homologous structures in organisms.

Since the two concepts are now rather roughly observed to be the same thing on different scales they can simply be refered to as evolution.

>a bat and a sponge evolved from the same thing in that short a time

LOL just LOL evolutionists

>>895000
Oh well, hard atheists are generally pretty foolish imo and it's no wonder their train of thought is inconsistent. They probably just cannot deal with the possibility of there being no free will so they try to create a rational argument that is rooted in their personal emotions and beliefs. It's a bit embarrassing, really.

File: Anyone-going-to-hell-for-not-hearing-about-jesus-deserves-it.jpg (253KB, 1200x1200px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 1200x1200px

Doesn't many Christian theologians denounce free will as well though?

>>894971
>Their is nothing like "weak free will" and "strong free will", If we go after the same definition.
Of course there isn't in the metaphysical sense, but on a phenomenological level we feel freedom and observe it others. In that context we call the determined wills that can easily bring about desired results "strong wills" and those that are impotent "weak wills".

The traditional-religious Free Will is correct in considering the acts of a consciousness as important from an anthropological perspective, although we now know the entirety of that is reflexive. However it is reductionist to dismiss that qualitative description of "freedom" that value judgements necessarily entail, if we did so then there would be no strong or weak wills. In practice there should be though. Just as medicine assumes growth and decay, autonomy assumes control and impotence.

>>894991
> God gave us free will
Ok but what do you mean by "free will" in this case.

> Who says God is all-knowing? Who says our assumptions of God are true?
I'm pretty sure all faiths with their roots in Judaism believe in an all-knowing God. There's this one called Christianity that I'm honestly surprised you haven't heard about.

I agree. Free will is essentially undefinable. It's a nonsensical concept. Only makes sense if it's magic

>>894887
>free will and determinism cant be logically wedded

Hume and Frankfurt aren't even that hard there is no excuse for this

>>895067
And?
Who is saying that the jewish definition of god is the true one?

>>895075
Free Will and determinism can indeed not be logically wedded with hard determinism, atleast if you go under a satisfying definition of free will, and further more, even indeterminism and free will can't be logically wedded.

>How come there are so many atheistic people who believe in free will?
Because people are naive and don't think about it in any depth.

>I mean seriously, the only logical argument for free will would be something religious, science pretty much debunked the whole concept years ago.
Free will as a concept of consequence pretty much only exists in religious apologetics.

File: 74c.gif (2MB, 460x256px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 460x256px

>>894887
>>894930
>>895043
>>895070

>yfw this is the same guy

It's just utter madness, man. He's trying so hard to create the illusion that people actually agree with his crackpot and frankly laughable theories.

>>895092
OP here, sorry 2 disappoint you, but the other 3 posts arent mine

>>895076
> Who is saying that the jewish definition of god is the true one?
Gee, I dunno, the jews? I don't know why you're getting autistic over this since I haven't argued that a God has to be all-knowing, only that an all-knowing God fucks up the belief in free will even further.

>>894979
I'm sorry, but "the boss said we have free will" is not an argument for its existence, even aside the fact that the boss probably doesn't exist. You're still left with the complete incoherence of the concept on every point of the scale of determinism to randomness.

If you are a hard determinist it seems you don't account for active processes at all since the "original point" would need to set in motion itself. It's far simpler just to assume both reflex and autonomous activity is present in the core traits of things but very intertwined. A thing tries to expand itself despite the presence of all other things. That would explain deterministic evidence (basically things of the world and the past are actively preventing autonomy in something like a human) despite the fact activity occurs at all, and that there are phenomenological accounts of freedom.

>>895104
Are you actually going complete retard now?
I didn't say it does exist, I neither said "the boss" exist, I just said the it would be the only logical argument, you dip.
Seriously why are people on 4chan so degenerated and go on things which nobody even said in the thread?
this happened in this tread like 5 times now.

>>895115
>Are you actually going complete retard now?
First reply to you.

>I didn't say it does exist, I neither said "the boss" exist, I just said the it would be the only logical argument, you dip.
And I'm not saying you said either of those things.

I'm pointing out that free will is an incoherent concept and you saying "if you put a god behind it, it becomes coherent" is fucking retarded.

You can't even begin to defend the statement that a logical argument for free will can be made, god or no god.

Is there a single anti-evolution argument that is neither based on false premises nor reliant upon argument from incredulity?

>>895146
Why are you asking questions to which you know the answer a priori?

>>895146
Tons of them.
http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

And Kent Hovind's 18-hour creation seminar.

>>894979
I was not arguing about what you said in OP, but against the "science proves/disproved..." BS. Doesn't help you still don't provide citations, but I suppose it's not neessary.

But anyways, is atheism incompatible with a belief that souls are a thing? Because that is what determines "free will", at least in my conception.

>>895126
Uhm yes, a logical statement for God can be made, because god could us give something like an immaterial soul, or something which we just can't explain, and where the indeterminism is even in the control of us. I know it's hard to imagine for us human beeings, but consciousness still can't be explained fully, so why not?
..But remember that i'm not even holding the point of free will.

>>895168
It's pretty much incompatible, because atheism assumes basically that we just live by pure luck, or maybe not by pure luck because of the multiverse etc., but also in the multiverse we have no free will...
souls go into esotericism, and atheists are materialists.

Anyone who believes they don't have an inner force dictating certain decisions, beliefs, or actions in their life is a fucking monigold.

>>895169
>Uhm yes, a logical statement for God can be made
Not a valid and sound one, so far as we've seen.

>because god could us give something like an immaterial soul
Which would give us free will how?

>or something which we just can't explain
spooky

>but consciousness still can't be explained fully, so why not?
Can't? What part of consciousness do you think doesn't at least have a reasonable candidate for an explanation?

And to answer the "why not" part, because free will is an incoherent concept. It posits that one's action is ultimately of one's own volition, which is not only demonstrably wrong in our reality, but completely incompatible with any sort of existence.

Taking the extremes of determinism and randomness, for determinism it is incoherent because everything follows a set path (causal or not) and there is no point at which one can choose outside that path; for randomness, it's even simpler - if it's random, it doesn't depend on you. The same is true on every point of the scale of determinism to randomness, and is thus true for literally any possible form of existence.

>..But remember that i'm not even holding the point of free will.
I acknowledged that. I'm just saying that "it's magic I ain't gotta explain shit" is moronic.

>implying religion solves the problem of free will

a ahahah HAHAHAJAJAJAJAJAXAXAXA well memed sir may i have another?

>>895150
How could that be knowable a priori?

>>895329
There he goes again.

>God is incomprehensible to us if he's real and omnipotent. He gave us free will. Free will is also incomprehensible. Therefore you are wrong and don't fully understand why and how we have free will because you don't fully understand God.

Is this a valid argument? It just feels so wrong but I can't point out why

>>895339
Do you know what a priori means?

>>895382
Will you ever stop?

>>895838
You really ought to limit your usage of technical terms to those that you understand.

File: the_original_shitposter.jpg (55KB, 431x450px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 431x450px

>>894887
But what IS free will?

Free will as a concept has never been sufficiently defined, and only matters if you're religious (without free will, sin becomes meaningless).

>>895858
This is funny and all, but the expression literally means "in advance". So go fuck yourself, dipshit asshole.

>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/a%20priori

>>895146
God did all of it, and we are just mistaking correlation for causation.

>>894887
I don't fully believe in it but I believe we should hold it as a sort of guiding principle. Society, law and order are built on the shaky foundation of the concept.

>>895888
It's not as necessary as you think. Even if our actions are rooted in causal determination, the presence of society, law, and order just become determining factors and still serve an important purpose.

>>895880
Yes, and when you shit explosive bloody diarrhea all over your bathroom walls, the fact that your eating habits are cancer has nothing to do with it, it's actually god sending you a message to chloroform your neighbor and play golf with her cunt.

>>895897
Maybe. There is no way to tell.

Pretty basic stuff brah.

>>895903
Durrr cant know nuffin

>>894887
Free will is a subject outside the realm of science. And when scientists do try to weigh on it they tend to support the idea. Things like the double slit experiment make it very hard to be a determinist.

>>895907
>it's an indeterminism allows for free will post
wew lad

denigrating science is not going to help you here, the concept is invalid at its core

>>895907
To add to this. The reason a scientist cannot properly answer whether free will exists is because to do so he must define 2 things


1. What is "will"
2. What is "self"

These are philosophical questions.

>>895878
Oh God, now it's really clear you don't understand it. In future, just say 'in advance', because 'a priori' just is not interchangeable with that term in most cases. Or, if you insist on showing off with latin, learn about the basics of the concept here: http://www.iep.utm.edu/apriori/#H1

>>895906
You can only know backward. The theory of evolution (and any scientific theory) presumes to be predictive, too.

>>895916
Why don't you pull that pole out of your posteriori, maccaroni?

>>895925
>presumes
They actually are predictive.

>>895930
Is that you, Saul Kripke?

>>895930
Are you seriously getting mad at being corrected for missuing philosophical terms in a philosophical discussion?

>>895932
They have been. It remains to be seen if they will be.

>>895352

It's "wrong" because it's not saying anything.

>we have free will

But everything we know about the universe suggests that while we appear to have free will, on a fundamental level we actually don't

>you just don't understand what is meant by "free will"

Ok, then what is meant by it?

>it's impossible to understand

???

You can apply this argument to fucking anything.

>the sky is red
>no, it's blue
>you just don't understand what I mean when I say the sky is red
>ok, what do you mean?
>it's beyond human comprehension lol

>>895893
No I mean if you take out assumed free will out of the equation criminal law is pretty much done for and we would need some substitute that accounts for determinism. I reckon the majority of the people (including me) still cling to concepts such as revenge and vindication.

Same goes for contract law and the binding effect of a contract, without free will one could argue he did not want to get a mortgage but simply got pushed in that direction.

>>896213
>No I mean if you take out assumed free will out of the equation criminal law is pretty much done for and we would need some substitute that accounts for determinism. I reckon the majority of the people (including me) still cling to concepts such as revenge and vindication.
Where did this come from? Yes, by embracing the fact that free will is a vapid concept we will shed revenge as a thing and provide more room for compassion and understanding. That does not undercut criminal law in any way. We would lock up hurricanes if we could.

>>895990
They have been and they are, every single second of every day.

>m-muh can't know nuffin

Go jump in a vat of acid and pretend gawd will save you, you fucking philistine.

>>896322
I'm not sure in what kind of country you live but our generally adheres to a principle that only guilty people are locked up for certain acts. A hurricane being a force of nature is not guilty of anything. A child or someone with limited mental capacities is not guilty too if he or she did something that isn't in accordance to our criminal code.

Guilt is intricately linked to free will because someone who lacks free will or is forced to commit a crime cannot be said to be guilty.

>>896357
Guilt does not imply or need any sense of absolute agency. If you did it, you're guilty. "Not guilty by plea of insanity" exists as a statement, but it does not carry the full effect of actually not having done something. People get locked up in institutions despite being "not guilty".

>A hurricane being a force of nature is not guilty of anything.
A hurricane that fucked up thousands of people would be put in jail if it could be done. It has nothing to do with whether it intended ultimately intended that or not.

Jail is simply separation of criminal elements from civil society. Free will does not factor into maximizing safety. And not just that, the threat of jail is an active tool for preventing crime.

>>896381
Someone puts a gun on your head, gives you another gun and tells you to shoot a third person. You commit the murder and are guilty of the act, but no court will find you guilty.

Obviously you realize I am talking about that kind of guilt...

>>896405
Well yes, and I'm saying it's completely irrelevant. The only thing that's relevant is the danger element. A generic serial killer should be locked up regardless of whether he did it for fun or because voices told him. Not because he's "guilty", but because he's plausibly going to do it again.

>>896415
So what about a one time offender? Someone predestined to kill a single person and remain pious ever after.

Assuming no free will he cannot be locked up as punishment because a lack of "guilt" nor can he be locked up because he is a danger to society because he is mentally sound and no longer a danger.

Highly hypothetical I realize but punishment is rarely dished out to those who are not responsible for their deeds.

if i kill a man and i dont have free will, should i be jailed for it? after all i didnt do it

>>896474
You shouldn't really. We can put someone in an institution for being mentally ill and a danger to himself or others. Jail is meant to give pain and suffering to an individual who deserves punishment for his deeds. If someone cannot be held accountable for his deeds because a lack of free will then he should not be punished.

>>896452
>Someone predestined to kill a single person and remain pious ever after.
We don't know the future. And deterrence, like I pointed out earlier.

>>896488
I said it's a highly hypothetical scenario and if free will is absent deterrence is a rather moot concept.

>>896494
>I said it's a highly hypothetical scenario
Yes, one that possibly points out a flaw in any realistic application of the law.

> and if free will is absent deterrence is a rather moot concept.
And you say this why? Free will is completely orthogonal to the fact that our actions influence others' actions, in fact it's the cornerstone of causality.

If we put people in jail for crimes, it acts as a deterrent to those who might think about committing crime. What's so difficult about this concept?

>>894911
>We tie a hammer to the wagging tail of a dog and let him wander about the work site for as long as you please, even millions of years. The swinging hammer on the dog is as likely to build a house as mutation-natural selection is to make a single new working part in an animal, let alone a new creature.

hurr durr muh watchmaker

>>896509
>If we put people in jail for crimes, it acts as a deterrent to those who might think about committing crime.

You can't really commit crimes if there is no free will right? Would be akin to putting innocent people in jail and I am not sure that is going to deter people who lack free will too from doing what they might do.

>>894887
Ever since I was a kid I felt like all our decisions are the product of outside influences. Where you were born, who your parents are, your religion, etc. I feel like free will exists within our own realm of existence but in the grand scheme of things we have already made our choices.

>>896613
>You can't really commit crimes if there is no free will right?
Jesus fucking christ, man. The lack of a free will does not remove the fact that we are still physical agents. Not having free will does not mean you didn't just do whatever you did, like pick your ass.

So yes, you can commit crime. And no, crime is not some sin against the nature of man that your immortal soul has to be "guilty" of. It's simply a list of things you don't do or get thrown in a hole.

>Would be akin to putting innocent people in jail and I am not sure that is going to deter people who lack free will too from doing what they might do.
No. Putting someone who did do something is different from someone who did not do something. I already explained why - twice.

Lacking free will does not mean lacking causal connection, are you just pretending to be retarded at this point? If I put a gun up to your head and tell you to eat your fucking broccoli, free will does not enter into your decision of whether to comply, but my action does influence you. Same goes for punitive action.

>>896638
> If I put a gun up to your head and tell you to eat your fucking broccoli, free will does not enter into your decision of whether to comply, but my action does influence you. Same goes for punitive action.

I would say that limits me exercising my free will.

But to go back to me saying society needs to accept the principle of free will for our justice system to function.

If we do not accept free will we cannot really punish people. Putting someone in jail or any other punishment is typically primarily meant as vindication or revenge for doing something we don't like. If someone is forced to commit a certain act we don't like we can not punish him for it because he is not to be blamed, every criminal code assumes purpose or purposeful negligence before someone can be send to jail for an act. If we accept that no one has any free will whatsoever the whole idea of punishment can be thrown out of the window. You could still throw a person who stole a bike in jail to prevent him from doing it again true, but like you said we don't know the future so to actually prevent him from stealing a bike again we would have to lock him up forever. How would this deter the outside population? Someone who never had the will decide on his act and whether to commit it or not was sent to jail, to the sane it would seem arbitrarily and tho those lacking free will it would not make a difference, that person was doomed to steal that bike whether he would have wanted or not, it's a lottery and he got unlucky.

>>896705
I realize the last line is a bit fuzzy so allow me to illustrate it in a different manner.

is sending a psychopath who committed arson to an institute for the mentally ill going to deter me from becomming a psychopath?

We can send a pyromane to jail for setting a house on fire and that might prevent sane people from setting houses on fire but it has absolutely no impact on other pyromanes or the chance a random person becomes a pyromane.

>>896705
>I would say that limits me exercising my free will.
There is no such fucking thing. I dare you to define free will in such a way that a fucking rock doesn't have it. I fucking dare you.

>But to go back to me saying society needs to accept the principle of free will for our justice system to function.
You are officially retarded. Society needs no such thing, and I've pointed out three times why. Locking away dangerous elements and disincentivizing undesirable actions are all that's necessary to create a functioning law system completely synonymous with what we have now. Free will does not enter into it and it doesn't exist in the first place.

>>896734

Different anon. I agree with you about punishment but you're kinda abusing language when it comes to free will. Free will absolutely exists and it represents a useful distinction embedded in everyday usage and common sense. It is simply the capacity to act for reasons. A person acting freely can cite the reasons for why they act, including their awareness of certain legal sanctions against certain actions, their values, and so on. People who do not act freely are not morally or, in most cases, legally responsible for their actions. For example, if I kill someone after being secretly drugged with a poison that induces homicidal rage, this will at least serve legally as a mitigating factor.

Should have gone into a trade, lad.

>>896762
can you cite reasons for not acting?

>>896762
>I agree with you about punishment but you're kinda abusing language when it comes to free will.
I'm not. I'm responding to a definition of free will that is used by most people most of the time, and it's this belief that one is the cause of one's own actions. It is false.

The rest of what you're talking about are extremely useful legal (or otherwise) distinctions and I agree with all of them. Free will simply does not factor into it as a thing. A "sound mind" or equivalent is a better expression.

Free will is the ideological basis for the concept of justice.

>>896787
Do you not believe you're the cause of you're own actions? I mean we're being a bit capricious when we attribute a cause to anything: e.g. the electrical short caused the fire: why not the presence of oxygen in the house? Why not the lack of rain that day? Why not the architect designing the house in such-and-such a way? Obviously naturalism entails that every event is embedded in a vast web of causes. Still, causation language is useful, and obviously people cause their own behavior insofar as their own cognitive, conative processes are sort of a nexus of causal inputs into their own actions. It's why there's a meaningful difference between a person and a marionette.

>>896734
Many peoples throughout history and some countries today still put animals on trial. I believe it was in 16th century Switzerland that a rooster was put on public trial and sentenced to death for the unnatural act of laying an egg. While that act is no longer punishable we could still put animals on trial for other acts.

Some 30 year ago a cow killed the local butcher and while he was killed he was not put on trial. The killing of that cow was no punishment or vindication. Dogs still regularly kill people, sometimes even their owner with the full intent to do so yet we do not put them on trial. A dog might then be killed to prevent him for harming another person but I have yet to see anyone argue the dog being put to death is his punishment. Maybe you could jail a dog and it would serve the same purpose, he would not longer harm other people. But would this deter dogs from killing humans in the future? If the trial was held in public or on television?

>>896826
>Do you not believe you're the cause of you're own actions?
Not in any tangible sense, no. Something as simple as what you think literally does not depend on you (that is your conscious part) in any direct sense - thoughts are fed into consciousness by subconscious processes. Decisions too.

>I mean we're being a bit capricious when we attribute a cause to anything:
Not really. Some facts are more relevant than others. The presence of oxygen in the house is something that is true for pretty much every house. The event of a short circuit is not true for every house at all times. Etc.

>Still, causation language is useful, and obviously people cause their own behavior insofar as their own cognitive, conative processes are sort of a nexus of causal inputs into their own actions.
Causation language is useful, people causing their own actions is not relevant at all and is not true in any direct sense. People's actions are the only relevant part, and their possible actions in the future based on facts of the matter.

>It's why there's a meaningful difference between a person and a marionette.
The difference is the marionette does not have its own volition. If it sprung to life murdering people, we'd be perfectly justified to throw it in a hole. If it only "acts" as controlled by something else, it is just a tool and that something is going to be thrown in a hole.

>>896828
>But would this deter dogs from killing humans in the future? If the trial was held in public or on television?
You're still talking like a full-on retard. Dogs do not comprehend anything that is not another dog or a food. Obviously jailing a dog will not garner any social change in the dog society, that's why it's pointless and rational people don't do it.

And violent dogs do often get put down. Because they're a threat. It doesn't have anything to do with how "guilty" they are, again.

It looks and feels like free will, how is it practically different from actual free will?

>>897440
>only caring about the practical uses of things.

Wow, it must be awful to be surrounded by philistines.

>>896879
>Dogs do not comprehend anything that is not another dog or a food

That's a pretty bold claim to make, considering he last 25 years of animal behavioral research indicated most large species including most mammals including dogs comprehend more and more the better our testing methods get.

Please explain to the class the structural, neural differences that determine comprehension in canine brains and human brains and how the fuck ya know more about intelligence than every neuroscientist working in the field. Thanks.

>>894911
>Evolutionists believe that all we need is an open system with sufficient energy flowing into it for evolution to succeed. If that were so, you could just stand right behind a jet engine as the aircraft prepares for takeoff, absorb that blast of energy, and evolve to a higher life form. In reality, of course, you would be incinerated because absorbing energy without a mechanism to convert it to a useful form and employ it is destructive or useless.
my sides.

>>896213
Again, the enforcement of these matters just become determining factors, and still serve a function. I'd say the main thing it would change is that criminal law would be focused primarily on rehabilitation, and contract law primarily on making sure that everyone gets what is owed to them, rather than punishment in either case.

>>894887
Are you shitting me? Science has debunked anything BUT free will, atheists don't believe in a puppeteer, so how could one not have free will?

>>894887
Universe isn't deterministic fuckwit

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

>>897962
Well, one could deny free will and believe our acts are meaningless and determined.

Truth be told most scientists don't really care about philosophical problems like this and most likely haven't ever considered it.

>>894977
I don't believe in it.

>>897967
>>897962
non-determinism is still no free will you fucking pseudo-philosophical hyper retards.
As Sam Harris already said - Not even doesn't free will exist, you can't even think of a logical universe where it does exist

>>898290
>Sam Harris

Point at him and last.

But I'll humor you. Define "will" and "self", this is necessary to say if you have free will (and if you haven't noticed we have already moved into a realm beyond empirical science)

>if you are logical you believe in god
>if you don't believe in god you must be logical

>>897518
>That's a pretty bold claim to make, considering he last 25 years of animal behavioral research indicated most large species including most mammals including dogs comprehend more and more the better our testing methods get.
It's called hyperbole. Obviously animals are able to discern more than food or other animals in their own species.

>Please explain to the class the structural, neural differences that determine comprehension in canine brains and human brains and how the fuck ya know more about intelligence than every neuroscientist working in the field. Thanks.
Don't take things so literally, mong.

>>898294
>Define "will" and "self",
You're the one who thinks free will exists, so you're the one who needs to define your spooks.


>Point at him and last.
Great argument. Still leaves free will as an incoherent concept and the fact that you didn't even pretend to defend its validity says something.

>>898377
If you want to say "you have no free will"
you need to define "self" and "will" otherwise the statement makes no sense.

You made a pretty bold that not only can free "will" not exist but it can't be in any universe. So you are the one making the claim and need to define those terms. I'm not going to define your own terms for you, you are the one making the case.

And self by defination is not a spook, just thought you should know. Will is rarely a spook.

There is free will from our dimensional perspective, but not if you consider the universe from an "outside" perspective.

The universe, at its most essential level, consists of the interactions of massless particles. Massless particles experience no time nor distance traveled. From the perspective of light speed (the 'speed' of causality), a photon traveling from a star in the Andromeda Galaxy to the surface of a pine needle in East Texas only experiences two events: emission and absorption, which occur simultaneously and instantly. Therefore, the universe can be modeled as a static unchanging object which occupies no volume yet has a point energy value and an "internal" structure consisting of every causal interaction that has happened or will happen in its lifetime. Every interaction is fixed, every event is "determined," although they technically all happen at the same time, and don't actually take any time to happen.

Our perspective limits the extent to which we can examine this causal web, because any attempts to observe it or predict it are by their nature a part of it.

>>894887
>How come there are so many atheistic people who believe in free will?
It's pragmatic. Even if I don't have free will, I should act like I have free will. And if everything is deterministic, it's not up to me whether I believe in free will or not.

>>894887
I believe that in underlying mechanics, there is mathematical determinism, but that there are so many levels between the underlying mechanics and so much static between when the experiment started and its current that we are functionally existing in a state of free will, born both of the complexity of the situation as well as the fact that the future, for all intents and purposes, cannot be predicted.

>>898422
Yes you're right you should still act like you have free will, but there's no point believing in free will.
And even in a deterministic universe we have to discuss about these things, even if the outcome is already set.

>>898387
I don't need to define anything when I'm using a generally understood term in terms it's generally understood. If you think there is a better definition of free, you're free to define it.

For the sake of argument, I could "define" free will as the capability of a being to ultimately cause its own actions. Being - something with a brain, will - desire, choice, willingness, consent.

>You made a pretty bold that not only can free "will" not exist but it can't be in any universe.
There's nothing bold about it. It's simply an honest application of definitions. Free will cannot exist as it is believed in by the majority of people who use this term. Especially, as in this board, the christian morons.

>And self by defination is not a spook, just thought you should know. Will is rarely a spook.
The self is most definitely a spook and an illusion brought on by higher brain function. One only needs to learn how to meditate to see how false it is, or look into what brain damage does to the "self".

>>898439
>And even in a deterministic universe we have to discuss about these things, even if the outcome is already set.
That's what people don't get. Denying magical thinking does not mean denying agency. It's like knuckle-dragging religious twats who think "we're all just atoms, man" implies that nothing matters.

>>898418
*slow clap

>>898455
There is no generally understood concept of "self". Religious concepts may use a soul, but self can also be understood as an idealistic thing, a creative nothing, or a purely material aspect.

You have not defined anything until you tell me what the hell defination of self you are using

> I could "define" free will as the capability of a being to ultimately cause its own actions

For instance. Let's say you understood self to be a purely material aspect. In which case you would have free will. After all if the self is chemicals in the brain and the chemicals in the brain cause interactions among them-self. Than they are determining their own action.

>self is most definitely a spook
A spook is an abstract concept that is put ahead of yourself. You cannot put yourself ahead of yourself. This is basic logic.

>an illusion brought on by higher brain function
Ok we are making some progress. You beleive that the the brain is not yourself, after all if you did beleive the brain was yourself than you wouldn't be saying something like this.

So it sounds like your concept of self is non-material

>an illusion
Well if the self does not exist than your defination of free will is incorhent.

>capability of a being to ultimately cause its own actions
"it" in your term refers to "self" but if there is no self than the it you are referring to does not exist. The opposite of your defination would be
"a being that does not cause it's own actions" but the "it" again is something that does not exist which is also incoherent.

Since you like to pretend to read Stirner you should actually look into his concept of self, as it's very air-tight.

The fact our will follows along causal factors doesn't mean it's not free.

>>898455
>One only needs to learn how to meditate to see how false it is, or look into what brain damage does to the "self".

The fact you can delude yourself into thinking you're not a distinct entity (while somehow lacking the self-awareness to realize the fact that it's you doing this intentionally invalidates this position) or can be brain damaged into losing recognition of yourself doesn't mean the self doesn't exist. The self is simply a blanket term that encompasses your inner experience, influenced by the processes of your body. In a physical sense, it ends at the exterior of your body, and in a mental sense it's entirely trapped behind the shell of your senses.

>>898497
>There is no generally understood concept of "self". Religious concepts may use a soul, but self can also be understood as an idealistic thing, a creative nothing, or a purely material aspect.
Souls don't have a mechanism for allowing free will either. This is irrelevant pedantry on semantics.

>For instance. Let's say you understood self to be a purely material aspect. In which case you would have free will. After all if the self is chemicals in the brain and the chemicals in the brain cause interactions among them-self. Than they are determining their own action.
I think free will is a vapid concept if it applies to literally anything.

>You beleive that the the brain is not yourself
No, the brain is all that I am. There just is no "self" as a thing.

>So it sounds like your concept of self is non-material
Yep, just like anyone else's. That's why it falls apart once you look closer.

>Well if the self does not exist than your defination of free will is incorhent.
I guess that's one more level on which it is incoherent? I'm not here to defend the concept. So now it's apparently incoherent on two different levels. Do you have a better concept we should be talking about?

>"it" in your term refers to "self" but if there is no self than the it you are referring to does not exist. The opposite of your defination would be
"a being that does not cause it's own actions" but the "it" again is something that does not exist which is also incoherent.
I'm not claiming beings don't exist. It's pretty demonstrable that we have brains walking around producing thoughts and actions. They are simply not the ultimate cause of those thoughts and actions.

>Since you like to pretend to read Stirner you should actually look into his concept of self, as it's very air-tight.
It's called memeing, look into it.

>>898534
The most logical conclusion to reach if you are a hard materilist is the self is a physical thing like the brain.

But Harris-fags are either too stupid to realize this or (more likely) hell-bent on denying the Will. Truely this is the philosophy of the Last Man.

>>898534
Who said I'm not a distinct entity? This is the problem with you magical thinkers. Can't address the argument on its own merits, gotta build a strawman.

I said the self as a sense of "me sitting behind my eyes, making decisions" is an illusion in every sense of the word, not the fact that we have [relatively] distinct entities walking around.

>>898554
>the self is the brain

I'm sure I haven't yet seen people claim they're actively controlling their digestive system. But maybe I'm wrong.

>>898554
I would contend it's purely physical. I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea of non-materialistic explanation, but see no reason to believe there is one.

>>898560
The self is you as a distinct entity. It isn't you sitting behind your eyes making decisions. It's you perceiving through your senses and making decisions, and it's a product of your body; something that's a property of its components greater than the sum of its parts. The self distinctly does exist.

I'm not a magical thinker in the slightest, but I suspect you may be a special thinker, desiring to split hairs to support his point. If you as a distinct entity exists, the self exists.

>>898576
Is there a difference between your definition of a self and a brain, or are they synonymous?

> It's you perceiving through your senses and making decisions, and it's a product of your body; something that's a property of its components greater than the sum of its parts.
>greater than the sum of its parts
And then you claim not to be a magical thinker? Where does this come in?

>>898588
>Is there a difference between your definition of a self and a brain, or are they synonymous?

My definition of the self also includes other components of the body, as it's not just your brain that influences your perception of the self.

Greater than the sum of its parts as a car is greater than the sum of its parts. They work in relative cohesion to accomplish more than they could otherwise. This isn't a magical thought in the slightest, special one.

>>898553
>No, the brain is all that I am

Well congratulations. You just admitted your brain is yourself.

The word "I" detonates a self. Problem solved.
So to review your laughable concepots
A. All is material
B. Free will is one something causes it's own action

1. Since all is matierial, the concept of self must also be material.
2. The material place for the cause of action is the brain.
3. The brain is not myself because fuck you.
4. I do not exist. Only my brain which makes all the descions and causes of the material body does
5. I am an illusion, it's just my brain doing it, which is totally not me

Bonus fun
A. All material things are just atoms.
B. Free will is one something causes it's own action
C. Since self is an illusion the distinction between beings and and non-beings things is also an illusion
D. Atoms actions are self-caused

There for atoms have free will. Since all things are made of atoms, all things have free will.

Congratulations, you just revived animism with your hilarious logic! This is what happens when you stick entirely to materialistic world views

>>898594
>My definition of the self also includes other components of the body, as it's not just your brain that influences your perception of the self.
Sure, does that mean that the self in your eyes is the whole body?

>Greater than the sum of its parts as a car is greater than the sum of its parts.
What a vacuous statement. Nothing is just the "sum of its parts" in this asinine sense.

>>898570
Ever heard of unconscious mind. If you define the brain as "self" that includes both the conscious and unconscious parts.

>>898597
>There for atoms have free will. Since all things are made of atoms, all things have free will.
I reject useless definitions. Which is pretty clear from my post way back when >>896734

Thanks for playing.

>>898600
>Sure, does that mean that the self in your eyes is the whole body?

Are you fucking stupid? I just fucking said that.

>Nothing is just the "sum of its parts" in this asinine sense.

Indeed, anything operating in cohesion towards some end or another is more than the sum of its parts in human perception.

>>898603
>Ever heard of unconscious mind. If you define the brain as "self" that includes both the conscious and unconscious parts.
You're defining it thus. My definition of the "self" is the classical "ego" type thing, that is the only interesting part of consciousness. Redefining it to include unconscious processes again reduces any definition of free will down to the level of atoms.

You don't feel your brain and wouldn't have the slightest concept of its inner workings if not for our having poked around in it. The self could not reduced to the brain until very recently. I think simply referring to the brain (or the body) as the self is disingenuous and makes the term useless. Which is again my contention.

>>898610
>I reject useless definitions.

I've been using the very definition you gave me

>For the sake of argument, I could "define" free will as the capability of a being to ultimately cause its own actions.

>Thanks for playing.
You defeated yourself....

>>898612
>Are you fucking stupid? I just fucking said that.
Then why not shed a useless term? We already have words for brains and bodies. Referring to these as "the self" involves intellectual baggage, baggage you are most definitely aware of.

>Indeed, anything operating in cohesion towards some end or another is more than the sum of its parts in human perception.
And yet again this concept can be applied to literally anything. A chair is greater than the sum of its parts. So fucking what?

>>898622
How does it make the term useless? It's just a product of your body. Saying that blood cells are a product of your marrow does not make blood cells useless.

>>898624
I defined it, and then you yourself helped me prove how incoherent the concept is. What's the problem here? You are aware that I'm pointing out the incoherence of free will of a concept, and not trying to figure out how to make it work?

If you have a better definition, for the third time, please go right ahead and we can work out if that one is coherent.

>>898626
>Then why not shed a useless term? We already have words for brains and bodies. Referring to these as "the self" involves intellectual baggage, baggage you are most definitely aware of.

Because it's a product of those things and refers to a specific aspect of them.

>So fucking what?

It's greater than the sum of its parts. That's what. You're the one sperging out about it.

In fact, are you autistic?

Didn't compatibilists already win this debate a while ago?

>>898629
>you yourself helped me prove how incoherent the concept is. What's the problem here?

Your defination sucks, that's why it was incoherent.

I already gave you 2 excellent examples. A materialistic answer would be that you ARE your brain so there is a self. An idealistic answer would be Stirner's creative nothing: the self is a nothing that creates itself through distinction.

If you want free will this guy NAILED IT
>>898418

Just as the the direction of something's movement depends on perspective determinism and free will depend on perspective.

>>898627
Because it makes it synonymous with other terms while disregarding any philosophical baggage it has. Or, rather than disregarding, pretends it doesn't exist. I guess that's your prerogative and all, but that isn't going to get you anywhere other than to a place where literally everything has "free will", making it a useless term.

>Saying that blood cells are a product of your marrow does not make blood cells useless.
First off, we're talking about terms and not actual objects. Second, blood cells are actual things that actually do stuff. The self under your definition is a process that describes a "distinct" entity's awareness, not an actual thing, so this is not even analogous.

Again, go kneel in front of your chair and grovel about how much greater than the sum of its parts it is.

>>898644
>I already gave you 2 excellent examples. A materialistic answer would be that you ARE your brain so there is a self. An idealistic answer would be Stirner's creative nothing: the self is a nothing that creates itself through distinction.
I agree that you are your brain. The problem is your brain is ENTIRELY a product of the environment. I don't know where you think free will enters into it. You're still left with the exact same result - literally everything has free will. Which is my contention.

Again, this hangup on what you think the "self" is, is completely irrelevant pedantry.

>>898646
>Again, go kneel in front of your chair and grovel about how much greater than the sum of its parts it is.

Not the other annon but I think if you can't see how a chair is the greater than the sum of it's parts you really are brain-damaged.

Think about the parts of a chair: the legs, the seat, the back. Now imagine you cannot use any of those things to at your computer indivually. even if you were to put them in a pile you still couldn't do that.

But the combined parts procedures a greater function, and not just any combination but a very specific one.

>>898644
By the way, this guy >>898418 didn't nail it, he went from "photons don't experience time" to "therefore the universe has no volume" and "everything happens simultaneously", which is demonstrably false on every level. He deepak'd you.

>>898656
>But the combined parts procedures a greater function, and not just any combination but a very specific one.
Yes, and again that applies to pretty much everything. I grant no significance to expressions this broad and non-specific.

>>898654
Well if your brain we need to find a distinction between the brain's actions and the actions of non-living things. Free will is generally understood as this distinction.

I think Stirner fills this in nicely. The brain mind creates it's own identity. How did it come to be that you are your brain and not your chair or your house? How did it come to be that chairs, houses, and brains are even different. The mind/self/brain created it.

>>898669
>Free will is generally understood as this distinction.
False. Free will is generally understood as the ability to choose. The ability to choose is reducible to physical activities and is therefore applicable to anything from computers to rocks rolling down a hill.

>Free will is generally understood as this distinction.
But let's take your definition now. How do you think free will is exerted? And more importantly, why do you think it's of any use?

>>894911
He really is back! The absolute madman!

>>898646
>but that isn't going to get you anywhere other than to a place where literally everything has "free will", making it a useless term.

That doesn't follow. Only brains have will, so only they could have free will.

>>898778
Considering a rock is about as free to choose which way to roll as your brain is, nah.

>>898681
>But let's take your definition now. How do you think free will is exerted? And more importantly, why do you think it's of any use?

Let's take a "hard problem" me vs a very sophisticated computer. Why I have free will and the computer doesn't. Let's say you give me some colors and a canvas. Whatever I put on the canvas is unique to my desire.

I have distinguished what is preferable, what is not, what I want to convey, and what I don't. And most imporaintly I may invent new concepts that distinguish things, to help me into action. All of these are done in my brain, me.

Now the computer may be programmed to create something too. But it's will was not it's own. Someone had to give the computer an algorith, that is the computer is an extension of his will. The computer lacks creativity.

>The ability to choose is reducible to physical activities and is therefore applicable to anything from computers to rocks rolling down a hill.

A rock has no way to gather information and so it cannot distinguish. A computer can gather information but it has no will of it's own. Wikipedia's hard-drive contains more data than any human ever will but it could sit there for a trillion years and not have a single desire or act of Will.

The physical activity is my own will and my own choice. Create a machine with the power to calculate the trajectory of all atoms in the universe, and have it predict what physical activity I will do. Show me the prediction and I will do something else. THAT is free will. If you show a computer or rock a prediction about what it will do than it will not alter it's will. That is UNFREE will.

>>898793
The rock does not chose. The brain does. The fact that brain follows a causal pattern in doing so doesn't mean it's not free.

Also your whole argument that it makes the distinction meaningless is stupid. It's like claiming that an operating system is a meaningless distinction from the components of the computer that process its functioning.

>>898813
You're equating idiosyncrasy with will. Machines are built to be replaceable tools of communication and automation. It is possible for every computer to be created in a way that each would function differently and this would fulfill your criteria for having a will.

You have some fantasy of seeing a story written for you and being able to edit that story, but you cannot step in the same river twice.

>>894887
You want verbal arguments for free will or neurological explanations and proofs?

If you pick the first one you're retarded and you should be left alone with your autistic friends that talk about this everyday.

>>894979
You are right - I just intervene now, but based on my own humble research the universe is very deterministic as everything inside it.

But derived from orthodox theology - this is the explanations and the cause of our free will - God gave it to us because there's an part of us which is not material, not bound to limitations of the universe ( pnēuma ).
While the rest of Creation is automated - God said for everything to come to being and it came, but for man He crafted him with His "hands" and gave him breath of life.

>>898658

I said that it can be modeled as having no volume, with all events occurring simultaneously, if you consider the universe from its component parts, which are all massless particles.

Time and the volume of space obviously exist from our viewpoint, but that's not the case if you're looking at the causal body of the universe.

>>901950
>I said that it can be modeled as having no volume, with all events occurring simultaneously
The only way to model it with all events occuring "simultaneously" is as a static hyperdimensional object. Which would have hypervolume.

> if you consider the universe from its component parts, which are all massless particles.
Massless particles TAKE time to travel even though it doesn't exist from their perspective, you fucking clown. This is about as stupid as saying time doesn't exist because a vegetable doesn't experience it.

> but that's not the case if you're looking at the causal body of the universe.
No, that is absolutely the case.

>>898823
>The fact that brain follows a causal pattern in doing so doesn't mean it's not free.
No, it absolutely means that it's not free and is the result of causal interactions just as much as a rock. What you get from higher brain function is an illusion of choice, not actual choice.