What are some non-bluepilled arguments agaisnt determinism?

pls respond

>>8376578

There aren't any lmao. You need to remember that they are all beta nu-male cucks.

>>8376935
they who?

>>8376578

Personal responsibility is impossible without free will, as is any meaning in the things you use to define you and give you apparent virtue. To put it another way, virtue is impossible without free will. Your entire worldview is a bad faith equivocation.

>>8376578
There are none because determinism is true.

>>8376970
This is meaningless babble. If you're going to try arguing against an idea, please understand what that idea is first.

my therapist says determinism isnt real

>>8376578
Consequentialism

The idea of 'free will' isn't absolutely grounded, it's founded on a consensus that is expounded reductio ad absurdum firstly by Facebook faggots and now even by the pseuds on /lit/. The consensus is all about perception, that there is some intellectual tension in thinking and thus acting as though anyone or anything should be held 'responsible' for the temporal consequences of their actions. Yes, everything is, in a purely temporal sense, predetermined. However, nothing is, beyond the immediate, foreseeable, let alone determinable by people. If humanity ever becomes so capable in their technological capability of determination, those that learn of what is to come have the ability to change it - but that's once again predetermination, referring to the former concept where we cannot 'perceive' the future beyond the immediate and vague to any coherent extent. As the initial consensus is based on 'perceptions of reality', an accurate 'perceptions of reality' to assess the situation of temporal predetermination and human shortsightedness as well as meeting biological imperatives as peddled by analytics is to act as though the future has many possibilities and that individuals should pursue the most favourable one they can

>>8376578
Oh also if you use the terms 'bluepill' and 'redpill' you're probably too retarded to digest any proper philosophical arguments anyway so you might as well kill itself because it was predetermined

god gave us free will
are you some kind of edgy atheist?

It's one of the great unsolved problems of metaphysics.

If you have any metaphysical, mystical, theosophical, etc. inclinations whatsoever, you should keep your mind open about free will.

Emergentist compatibilists put sticks in their cock holes.

wtf is this blue pill red pill shit. I only go on /lit so I have no idea what your talking about.

>>8377076
it comes from the movie matrix

>>8376578
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet#Implications_of_Libet.27s_experiments

extreme redpill

File: 1465492708781.jpg (67KB, 480x608px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 480x608px

this meme is the best i got

>>8377065
/thread

>>8377150
this is pretty much it

>>8377150
i dont understand why he calls donald a hypocrite

>>8377166
hol up, so u tellin me dat may may BTFO these >>8376935
>>8377005
>>8377119
anons?

the fact that we always have the capacity to choose? even things that are illogical or against what we believe?
to prove that the way reality manifests itself will be exactly the same each time you set a certain space-time coordinate and press play like a movie, is unprovable with current technology and anyone who professes to know undoubtedly that we understand every law of reality that can possibly exist as behaving in a cause and effect framework is taking as much as a leap of faith as believing in God, humans can only understand reality humanly, and that means we understand time in a linear fashion, but how reality actually works is unknowable to us, other than that I'd say that the fact that we're aware and we're aware that we're aware to an infinite cycle and the freedom of movement and choice our self experience following that characteristic of consciousness is so complex that it's unprovable to actually show how linear time wise it works and what the chain of causes and effects that determine our eventual choices are.

>>8377201
I said non-bluepilled arguments

>>8377087
I think it's from reddit.

>>8377206
you won't find something better than that bro
believe what you will

>>8377206
Le demiurge prefers us to find our own suffering.
There you go.

>>8377201
>to prove that the way reality manifests itself will be exactly the same each time you set a certain space-time coordinate and press play like a movie
You answered it exactly in that last bit of your statement. It is like a movie, because that's a perfect example of proof of determinism. If you record a film of something that happened, that film will play out the exact same way every single time. That is because the event that was recorded only happened one way and no other conceivable possibilities were the ones that did happen. It's impossible to ever go back and alter this event, and therefore it's impossible for it to ever have happened a different way. If determinism weren't true, then the world would be inconsistent chaos and the past would constantly be altering itself. But the fact that consequences and remainders of past events retain their consistency with the present shows that this is not the case. Claiming that determinism is invalid is equivalent to claiming that the past is malleable and inconsequential.

>>8376578
There aren't.
But then again, the whole basis for the determinist argument is a fallacy in itself, since it boils down to "everything has a cause so you have no control over it".
Discussing the topic any further is useless, since both sides present invalid claims as arguments. Much as the "God is real" debate, the answer is dependent solely on faith and personal opinion instead of "facts".

>>8377247
you forgot to read
>unprovable with current technology and anyone who professes to know undoubtedly that we understand every law of reality that can possibly exist as behaving in a cause and effect framework is taking as much as a leap of faith as believing in God

anyway what you said about the past is complete nonsense, things that happened, happened, but they might just as well happened and manifested differently.

>>8376578
Quantum indeterminacy. The only argument. Although, the Hidden Variable Theory tries to deal with it. I guess we simply don't know.

>>8376578
Think of it as Pascal's wager. Let's break this down:

Everything is not predetermined
>Believe everything is predetermined->you don't really try to control your fate->you lose out on life
>Don't believe in determinism->you will try your hardest->live life to the fullest, assert your will on the universe

Everything is predetermined:
>Don't believe in determinism->you try your hardest->but it was all determined already so nothing changes
>Believe in determinism->but it was determined already, nothing changes

Not believing in determinism is the only logical choice, it ensures that you won't lose out no matter what the truth might be.

>>8377247
If the past constantly altered itself, we wouldn't have any way to notice, would we?

>>8377279
>Believe everything is predetermined->you don't really try to control your fate->you lose out on life

This is a non sequitur. Since we don't know what is the predetermined future, there's nothing to «accept». The fact that I accept determinism doesn't mean I'll stop trying in life, that would be absurd. You either «choose» to live life to its fullest or you don't, it doesn't matter if that choice is an illusion.

>>8376578

That's a cute frog OP

>>8377012

lies to keep from killing yourself

>>8377294
>You either «choose» to live life to its fullest or you don't
so you choose or you don't choose?

>>8377296
i wish i could argument like these other anons itt

>>8377295
thanks, you can save it

i feel there is something to be said about Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and determinism.

Heisenberg states that the outcome of an event is changed just through its observation.
So when we see an event occurring we have altered it ever so slightly due to our perception of said event.

How does this apply to determinism.
things have a set path, MAYBE
we can get a pretty good idea on how things behave
its through this knowledge we can alter said behavior, or bend it to our will.
Kinda like how once we know what's going to happen we can alter the course for a different outcome.

also problem of inducttion
just becuase A,B,C,X,Y are determined doesn't neesicarily mean that z is determined. . sot here you could accuse the determinist of being too generalizing.


also if determinism works then why do we have random number generators?

>>8377318

how? (i really want to ...)

Shit bait
>>8376935
>>8377005
>>8377119

Good posts
>>8377065
>>8377150

>>8377322
click on the image and then right-click the enlarged image, the option to save should appear in a window along with other options
>>8377328
can you explain why donald in a "hypocrite", please?

The determinist argument on a nutshell:

Determinist: Actually free will does not exist because your neurons made your decision for you

Non-determinist: But anon since the brain is mine am not i the one making the decisions?

Determinists: BUT GENETICS OR SOME SHIT DUURRRRR (collapses on a puddle of own urine)


Better a bluepill than a shitpill

>>8377340

>>8377065

>>8377301

determinist BTFO

>>8377321
Yeah, those are pseudo random generators.

>>8377272
>but they might just as well happened and manifested differently.
Actually, no. They happened one way and that's that. The universe is not on your side with this one.

>>8377301
You have the illusion of choosing. You either choose to live life to its fullest or to stop trying. I suppose I phrased that poorly, apologies.

>>8377280
Yes, we would. The past only exists in the consequences and remainders of it, and these things always remain consistent.

>>8377353
but if everything is predetermined, you don't "choose". if there is a choice, determinism is false

>>8377345
nice strawman
nod an adgument

>>8377366
It's not an argument shitsteak
It's just someone more intelligent than you stating determinism is for morons and faggots who shield themselves with pseudo-science and bullshit logic

>>8377350
you don't know, because you, as a little human, don't fully understand any piece of information that forms the whole of reality, and thus limited by your knowledge also don't have any evidence to indicate that what you said is true.

>>8377372
so... analytic philosophers? did i get that one right?
pls dont be rude i just want to learn

human beings can't help but believe in free will

:^)

>>8377373
If you don't believe in knowledge, then what are you doing on this board ? Go back to >>>/b/ where you belong.

>>8376578
>>8377366

this is a veiled Kek thread, right?

>>8377379
im just LARPing tbqh

>>8377375
>so... analytic philosophers? did i get that one right?
No

The fact is determinism is based on some really bullshit claims that cannot be proven nor unproven, yet act like they have science on their side and have achieved omniscience or some shit. Not that the other side of the coin is much better. They are just more grounded, that is all.

File: smug egoist.jpg (10KB, 200x237px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 200x237px

>>8377378
>If you don't believe in knowledge

File: manofspiders.jpg (71KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 900x900px

>>8377372
since when is genetics pseudo-science

>>8377392
Every science is a pseudo-science when wielded by a pseudo-scientist

>>8377393
thats a really pseud thing to say, but i guess you are right :D

>>8377372
If you're so intelligent, then why do you not have an argument ?

>>8377404
becasue intelligent people dont argue :^)
you can tell someone is clever because they never argue, bet you didnt think about that, huh kid?

>>8377404
You make a decision
You act on your decision
You willed something
Your will became reality
Free will is real

There you go. Here's an argument.

>>8377411
>the """""you"""" make a decision" meme

>>8377416
>The """""Genetics""""" make a decision meme

>>8377424
is physics, brainlet

>>8377378
I didn't say I don't believe in knowledge, I said I don't believe you have the specific knowledge required to answer that specific question in a satisfactory manner, and that as I said, the universe is not fully comprehended by humans and subjectivity is even less understood and thus trying to imply that freewill doesn't exist is nice and all but doesn't go hand in hand with direct human experience and thus worthless.

>>8377364
That's why I talk about the illusion of choosing. My «choice» is predetermined by the way I am, but also by my experiences, like this. Our interaction is a factor. But knowing that everything is predetermined is not the same as knowing what is predetermined. If you don't know what's going to happen, then it doesn't matter. I don't know what's predetermined in my life, so I don't see why I must stop trying to get joy and happiness.

>>8377386
How is indeterminism more grounded?

This is all bullshit. If we were able to observe the universe from an outer position, would the brain of some mammals be the only obstacle for determinism? (Not taking into account quantum indeterminacy, I'm merely attacking the argument from free will).

>>8377428
>>8377444
is this the ultimate redpill? can /pol/ even compete?

Any discussion on the existence of free will is destined to fail if a definition isn't agreed beforehand. Anons are discussing about different concepts.

>>8376578
Tell me, Anon. What are some bluepilled arguments against it?

>>8377431
Pragmatically, we need to have a concept of free will.
But I don't think it's worthless to discuss whether it exists or doesn't, since the non existence of free will obliterates the concepts of punishment (besides as a deterrant) and guilt. You say that we don't have the specific knowledge, but that borders on challenging people to try to prove a negative. Why would we think brains don't follow the laws of physics?

let me /thread
the only thing that matters is that what determines our choices is infinitely complex like the subjective experience itself and thus even if it is predetermined we will never have the ability to understand exactly the full chain of causes and effects that produce the specific result of our choices and because of that it's a worthless concept and freewill exist as a part of our healthy conception of the self, if not totally outside of causality than at least far enough so it wouldn't matter, freewill exist because that's how we subjectivity experience reality and being a part of reality it must also be real to a certain extent which it is, the whole concept of illusion is false as everything exists inside the limits that determine its existence the only thing that concerns us as humans is trying to grasp the limits and laws that enables a specific existence to be.

>>8377469
un/threaded ;)

>>8377463
first you materialisticly assume that the brain is the only thing that determines if the self exist or not even though the very fact that we have a self, and the reason for why it specifically exists, is unknown to us, secondly you assume humanity knows and understands every laws and forces in the universe even though it doesn't.

>>8377469
I like how scientific and brain uses alot of the deterministic fall back on but if they knew anything about science
they would see how scientists are more akin to say this is the "likely" or "most probable" explanation
whereas the arguments have completely forgotten about the problem of induction.


or how ANY testing done on live subjects usually has to be repeated on the magnitude of a few hundred times, and the results are put under a bell curve.
There's outliers in MRI studies. The pop sci journalists don't like to bring it up though. (at least not in the headline anyway).

so even if determinism were true, it would be more of a "probableism" where the future isn't certain, its only probable. So there we have room for free will in a determined universe.

>>8377504
We deal in probabilities because we don't have the knowedge or resources to assess all the factors. Determinism is independent of humankind.

>>8377490
I most definitely not assume we understand every «law and force» of the universe. But you're dangerously veering towards solipsism. Is there any reason whatsoever to not think about the world in a materialistic way? Solipsism is unfalsifiable, therefore we must tend to the reality that presents to us, we have no choice. Provide evidence for a non materialistic worldview or don't bring it up. You can't demand to prove a negative.

>>8377504
>>8377513
Solipsism prevents the claim of any absolute truths; but that borders irrelevance.

>>8377513
so either determinism is too complex to comprehend
or humans are an exception

>>8377525
might as well lump it in with the "does an all knowing, all powerful creator exist?"

>>8377517
I don't need to provide any evidence for non materialistic reality, the very fact that subjectivity exist with the full range of subjective phenomenona(feeling seeing thinking imagining etc) is evidence enough

>pill

You sure you belong here, pal?

>>8377530
Citation needed. We understand perfectly how «seeing» works. As for «feeling, thinking and imagining» we are making progress daily and can already explain a lot of phenomena, specially regarding «feeling». The fact that we don't have complete knowledge on a subject doesn't mean that it must be non-materialistic.

>>8377525
The concept of determinism is not too complex to comprehend; but it doesn't provide the knowledge needed to make absolute predictions. We are striving to further that knowledge.

>>8377534
Matrix memes are fresh.

>>8377540
you don't understand
I don't say that things aren't made of other things which is what you call explaining, surely they are,I say that the very fact things exist as themselves and we subjectively experience them as they are and not as what they are made of, is a proof that the human reality is a non materialistic one.

>>8377540
Su madre es una puta.

>>8377547

Yes, but it's no longer the pills of The Matrix. In the movie, Morpheus showed Neo the information and then left him to decide what to do with it. He didn't force him or even suggest he do anything with it other than what Neo wanted. He let him choose whether to even believe it or not.

See, people want to force a metaphorical pill onto you now. If you don't accept it and join them in their (often wrong or biased) "enlightenment" then you are wrong. That completely goes against the overarching message of the entire movie. There were choices that you didn't even have to choose. Inaction was as loud as action.

tl;dr the retards at /pol/ ruin everything

>>8377550
The subjectivity of human perception lies in materialistic reasons, some we understand, some we do not understand yet. The sole concept of human consciousness doesn't provide evidence for non materialism, we simply don't fully understand it yet. Would you call an advanced AI proof for a non materialistic reality?

>>8377544

so you are saying you can't predict stuff in a determined reality?

or if you want to be a stickler for definintionsd, even something independant of humankind and determinism couldn't predict anything in a determined reality?

>>8377560
It's only memes ya know
no one actually takes them seriously and it's obvious that once someone is expressing himself with a meme that he's at least partially joking and being non-serious which is the whole philosophy of 4chan as a community and culture.

>>8377551
El hecho de que mi madre sea una puta o no, no constituye de ninguna manera un insulto, como vos implicás de forma tan concisa.

>>8377566
Yes it could. We, humans, don't possess all the knowledge needed and maybe we never will. We are talking about knowing all the variables to a subatomic degree. Here's when quantum indeterminacy becomes a threat for determinism, but the hidden variables theory tries to deal with that. In that sense we're still trying to figure it out.

>>8377576
sounds like the answer to the question when posed to us humans will seem to forever be

"maybe"

>>8377565
what you say is that consciousness is made out of things but we don't know what they are exactly yet and I'll add that we'll probably never actually know.

what I say is that the very fact things exist in a specific way as we subjectively experience them as they are and not as what they are made of is immaterial, the subjective feeling itself of listening to music doesn't equal what it is made of, or what enables its existence, it exist as a thing our self experience in a certain way outside of the concept that it is material because subjective phenomenona capture the essence of things as they are and not only the fact that they are made of other things.

>>8377567

I would like to think that but I truly believe the majority are no longer being satirical.

>>8377065
Only answer in this thread worth reading

>>8377065
your whole post is simply a pretentious way of phrasing what everyone else in the the thread are saying, which is that causality is real but infinitely complex and everything that consciousness is aware of is liable for change, your conclusion that eventually the most efficient way of seeing it, is as if the future has possibilities and we can choose to pursue the possibilities we want is basically meaningless as that is how people already see the matter of choice, it puzzles me as to how much people react to a certain kind of prose and not to the actual content.

>>8377635
How's it pretentious? I found it pretty succinct and comprehensively explaining while other repliers were incomplete in their arguments

File: david-hume.jpg (522KB, 1334x1600px) Image search: [Google]

522KB, 1334x1600px

>>8377272
>but they might just as well happened and manifested differently

Robert Kane cam up with an argument called Ultimate Responsibility (UR). It's somewhat convincing.

>>8377590
The feeling of listening to music can be explained materialistically.

>>8377431
I do know enough to make the claim, actually. The only thing I need to know is that time is a vector and that it only goes forward, never backward. It isn't possible to change something that's happened, therefore past events could only have happened one way.

>>8377635

>it's an anon thinks his capacity to summarize a passage means the passage is obscurantist episode

>>8378432
again, this is hard to grasp to some people for some reason, I don't argue with the fact that it is made of certain things that enables it to exist(soundwaves, ear bones, neurons etc) I say that it doesn't equal those things, in the dimension of our subjective phenomenona music exist not as the things it is made of, but as the subjective experience itself and the way it effects the self, and in that way everything is alike, our subjectivity is a dimension in which things actualize and made into being inside our self, as they are and nothing more. water=water not h2o,music =music

>>8378914
your logic is false
what it means is that past events happened one way, not could have only happened in one way.

>>8379001
The effect of music in human beings, again can be explained by how the stimulus is received and how, depending on the individual, certain neurotransmitters are secreted and/or asimilated in reaction to said stimulus.

>>8379036
But the fact that they only happened one way is proof that they could have happened only that way and no other. There is only one true course of events and it is entirely quantifiable, just not by humans.

>>8379343
God I'll never get some materialists inability to understand this concept, it's like you're hanging on for dear life over your simplified view of reality.

>>8377150
This type of shit is always ridiculous because it rejects human thought as a whole, which is a pointless non-argument.

>>8377065
This is the only real argument "against" determinism that there is. I put that word in quotes because it's not truly against determinism, only it offers a framework whereby one can still function in a determined world.

>>8378914
>The only thing I need to know is that time is a vector and that it only goes forward, never backward.
That's not what a fucking vector is you cunt. That's a scalar.

>>8380579
self-awareness

>>8380631
Well, I guess that refutes my whole argument. Good job, anon, you successfully disproved determinism.

>>8380652
The important thing is that you're wrong and I'm right.

>>8380657
Well you've got me convinced.

>>8380579
You're making your ignorance (and humanity's ignorance in some instances) of how things work an argument for the immaterial. The human subjective perception of things and the human attribution of arbitrary concepts to said things, does not in any way argue in favor of the existence of the immaterial as you mean it and much less argues about the existence of free will. You might need to define «free will» first, because it seems you're playing with a concept that changes its definition constantly.

>>8377345
Determinism does not say neurones made the decision. It says the decision made in the brain is the result of complex chemical reactions and the laws of physics. Those laws existed before the decision making process thus even if we couldn't foresee the result, it was predetermined. Which means there can't be any free will.
I know you're bait but still

>>8377201
It's not a leap of faith, it's the reasonnable guess on which science has relied for the last 600 years or so. You expect that each time you make the same experiment you will get the same result.
It might not be true, but it's the best guess we have so far until we can prove or disprove it

>>8380916
if you're unable to grasp the concept I won't waste time arguing with you anymore.

>>8377069

Nowhere in the Bible does it say we have free will.

>>8377065
Legitimately helped me thanks

I had a professor last semester who told me that Spinoza was a determinist but not a fatalist and I'm still trying to figure out what he meant.

>>8381122

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKv2pWZkgrI

>>8381075
Fair enough. Yet, if you decide to reply, I ask you to provide your definition for immaterial. Ideas and concepts are immaterial, although they need a material medium to exist, ideas and concepts are self replicating matter. Subjective perception is not immaterial, the idea of it, is.

>>8376578
Determinism is a gestalt. If/when the intrinsic implications of language and thought are seen to be divisive in effect of their functions, as well as apprehended as the representations that they are, in spite of the fact that the world exists as an inseparable unity - then determinism is BTFO.
One of the implications of the above is that then you are not determined by the world, because you are in fact also the world to an extent and only representations delineates that imagined separation. Likewise, you are not free to have your own will as a fundamentally autonomous entity in the world.
Determinism and free will are both conventionalities of linguistic gestalts and are both equally off the mark when it comes right down to accuracy.

How about giving a decent argument for determinism, instead

How do you prove that a seemingly random event was, in fact, predetermined?

Like, lets say I use a random number generator or a dice or some other seemingly random decision-making system to decide things which I do or don't do. Whether there is free will or not doesn't matter at that point.
The outcomes should be random, unless the chemical reactions in my brains are wired to the laws of physics in a way that what values I assign to different "random" outcomes affect what kind of outcomes I get.

I'll put it in an example: I will use a dice or random number generator to decide what I will do next, to go to the store or read a book or go outside to light a fire.

How can the outcome (what I will do) be predetermined unless my brain directly affects (or already knows) the outcome of the dice or generator? Doesn't even matter whether the dice itself is truly random; the combination of my thought processes and the dice should give us a random result.

by the way I'm a beginner at philosophy and don't know much about physics so don't shoot me please

>>8382395
determinism=/=fatalism

>>8382395
>The outcomes should be random
4u.

>>8382619
How can my brain processes and the outcome always align then, if I always decide with a dice? Unless my brain affects the dice or knows how it will turn up. Or there is an all-knowing god controlling my will or something as crazy as that.

>>8382606
Okay, so determinism doesn't always completely deny randomness etc. Well, I suppose we'd need to define which determinism we are talking about before discussing it.

>>8382743
Your examples are not random. We only have pseudo randomness generators and the roll of a dice depends on physical laws, having all the data would enable to predict precisely the outcome of the roll.

plus that the chemicals in your brain are what chose to roll the dice anyways

>>8382395
Chemical reactions and laws of physics determined your decision to make a decision based on the dice. The number given by the dice is the result of the laws of physics.

Nothing random there.

Also, computers are unable to provide a truely random number, they just give the result of complex formulas. I was amazed to learn this when I was like 15 and programming on my old calculator. If computers can't give a random numbers, how could our brain?