Determinism is on the rise as more and more people believe we

>>8641997
sam harris

>>8642004
Sam Harris is in favor of determinism if I remember correctly from a podcast

>>8641997
first of all, compatibalism.

Second of all, Kant.

Third of all, compatibalism, but using Sartre to pretend it aint.

>>8642006
exactly.

There are none, it's airtight

The best argument people have come up with is "I'm free because I just feel free"

Compatibalism is a cop out

People like Sam Harris and Rand will acknowledge determinism but still insist on the individual will. This is your best option because it takes into account that, despite determinism being true, we cannot live our lives as if it is.

>>8642013
10/10

File: hitchens.jpg (78KB, 620x465px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 620x465px

>>8642013
Nice.

>>8642013
literally this

File: 1475378680477.jpg (99KB, 703x516px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 703x516px

>>8642013

Free will atheists - where does your will come from?

It makes no difference. There's no reason to believe we'll ever have an understanding of reality that's complete, and until we do determinism can't be taken seriously. Those who think otherwise are putting the cart before the horse.

>>8642016
You're an idiot. To your final question: 1) without individual will how not? And 2) why not?

Babbys first philosophy

>>8642083
Of course it's from G-

Holy shit...

>>8642262
...I want more

What is living without free will? A man can never come to terms that his will isn't free. For when that happens, he has already declared himself dead. We may or may not have free will, but so long as we remain sane we will never truly accept determinism even if we tell us otherwise. For a man without free will is already dead.

>>8642278
>For a man without free will is already dead.

Experience tells us otherwise. Also, whether or not we can come to terms with it is of not really relevant at all, now is it.

What's the proof? I keep seeing people post there is no God, there is no truth, there is no free will, but without explaining how they came to this conclusion. It's as if simply because it's 2016 or because everyone else is saying it this makes their claim self evident. This it seems to me is a complicated problem that not even meming can solve. Please don't refer me to a book or link a video. Explain in your own words.

>>8642394
Here is the argument:

P1 - In order to make what we call meaningful statements, we must consider our incomplete information about the world as definitive.

P 2 - We have so far many things that point toward the fact that everything is causally chained, and nothing points against it. (Hume is """solved""" with P1). This includes the will.

P3 - Being free means not being causally chained.

______________

C (P1-P3) - There is no free will.

>>8642394
For determinism, in the simplest terms- think of it like this. Everything has a cause-effect sequence of events (think dominoes falling) which is proven to apply to everything physical- ergo, theoretically, every event in history can only occur in one specific manner because all events leading up to provide no other option (just like how the last domino will fall because the one preceding it fell, so the culmination of a man's experiences may drive him to suicide.) Free will, it is generally accepted, is a phenomenom that occurs in the brain, but since the brain is too composed of physical elements (chemical and electrical signals etc.) it too must be subject to this cause-effect fate of events. Therefore its decisions are predetermined and technically predictable- so, in conclusion, no free will.
In terms of "truth" or "meaning"- both concepts are artificial and subjective to the individual, therefore cannot be inherent to a universe that lacks the consciousness to create them.
As for god, it's more of a question of why you would come to the conclusion of his existence, there's no evidence to support it- you really could substitute god for any other imagined concept and it would be just as valid- the idea, for example, that there is an invisible donkey that visits your room each midnight is really just as possible as the existence of an unseen god that millions bow unto everyday.

>>8642440
here we see how unconvincing the explanation can sound when you omit P1.

>>8642452
I didn't see P1 as essential to the argument. It just seemed like a fallback in case the other two axioms seemed inadequate. It kinda just instantaneously begins undermining the credibility of believing otherwise, while simultaneously buffering the argument from any potential criticism.

>>8641997
if you wanna be a useless cunt then fuck off and go live on welfare on your lazy ass for the rest of your life and take all the abuse for it and see if you still sing the same tune

>>8642469
It doesn't do any of the things you say.

-It isn't a fallback because if it is not accepted by the criticizing party, it is nullified.

-It isn't undermining the credibility, because it *constitutes* the credibility of the argument, namely by making P2 defensable

-It does not buffer the argument from any criticism as it is the core of the criticism to this solution of the problem of free will.

You either say we put Hume outside of the parenthesis we are operating in, or you give up your claim to have anything meaningful to say about free will.

>>8642479
..what?

>>8642469
I agree, P1 is implied anyhow

>>8642485
l2r

>>8642482
Arguing against free will by arguing against the possibility of knowing anything is pretty retarded mate. The point of P1 is to set up the parenthesis we are operating in.

>>8642414
Anyway the problem lies in P3. See how people use the word "free" or open up a dictionary. You'll find something like "able to act or be done as one wishes; not under the control of another".

Example: "Did you force her to do that?" "No, she did it out of her own free will."

>>8642534
>Arguing against free will by arguing against the possibility of knowing anything is pretty retarded mate.

The question of free will is a question of the nature of the world. It must be understood that this solution is not such a statement, but a conclusion drawn from one made earlier.

>The point of P1 is to set up the parenthesis we are operating in.

Exactly this.

Free will doesn't exist if you can get (and are getting) manipulated by others. You're nothing more than a pawn in someone else's game, and that person in turn is a pawn in someone else's game as well etc etc...

At the highest point is God, who may or may not even view you as more than a speck of worthless dust.

>>8642482
Whatever. You're too defensive.

I'm not reviving Hume. I'm just saying that the core of the determinists argument--that humans are casually chained, therefore they have no free will--is not very convincing. I honestly was hoping for something more exhaustive. It seems to me this argument reduces the human to a moving body, in which case forget Hume we'd need to go all the way back to Hobbes to find anyone who'd take it seriously.

>>8642554
defensive of what?

I haven't even assumed a position, and I am already defending it?

Looking at it though, you likely mean defensive of my premises. Well I just think your criticism of them is unfounded.

>>8642553
The fact that you need to be manipulated suggests there is something your manipulators see worth manipulating. You bring up a good point though. So much for what people see as the manifest proof for determinism are the conditions set by a higher ruling power. If you wanted to cut to the chase to see the ultimate ruling power by adopting a Christian worldview and accepting God as the highest cause, we wouldn't be having talks about free will. The Churchs stance on the problem of free will is well known.

File: oooHHHH.gif (189KB, 360x270px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 360x270px

>>8642013

ended his fucking life desu senpai

>>8642558
>You either say we put Hume outside of the parenthesis we are operating in, or you give up your claim to have anything meaningful to say about free will.

this defensive, not that your defending anything in particular. my criticism is that although I accept that humans are casually chained beings, I do not accept that that alone is their defining function. I think we could agree there is something that sets humans apart from matter or animals, and this would be the source of any supposed free will, not enumerated arguments cherry picking which characteristics of humans will be their defining predicate within some closed system of deductive axioms based on where predicates equal causality.

>>8642096
That's a fair point, but to be honest a shit ton of philosophy is jay taking wild guesses at questions we can't possibly answer for sure

>>8642603
>something that sets humans apart from matter or animals, and this would be the source of any supposed free will

surely you would call that something "will"?

Heisenberg's uncertainty?

I've been involved in some AI research, and I'm fairly convinced that you can't simulate consciousness on a Turing machine.

That doesn't necessarily mean consciousness is non-deterministic, but it was enough to turn me from an Athiest to a deist.

People like that determinism fits a Newtonian physics model (which we see more and more is an incomplete model) that they understand. If this model is accepted as complete, then determinism makes total sense. When that model is accepted as incomplete, then it is not so clear

free will is completely illogical if you think about it for a while, it's just a meme invented by christians to punish and guilt you better

there is will but it isn't free, like some ghostly force acting without being acted upon

File: image.jpg (14KB, 205x198px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 205x198px

>>8642013
:O..... >:D

why does determinism have to do anything to do with divinie powers?
all your thoughts, actions, and beliefs are based on genetics and experiences, neither of which you have any choice in, thus it can fairly be explained that life is inherently deterministic from your very own point of view, since nothing you ever do will constitute free will, but rather the product of all your surroundings
your consciousness doesn't decide anything at all, it is proven that the brain decides things full seconds before you are consciously aware of the decision you just made, it is not free will, it is deterministic in nature

>>8642739

>there is will but it isn't free, like some ghostly force acting without being acted upon

So basically meme magic is real, is what you're telling me.

>>8642004
fuck off

>>8642894
i'm saying free will is a ghostly force

I don't know what you mean by meme magic in this context

>>8642013
>>8642077
Why is this such a great post? I am out of the loop.

>>8642913
It's just bants. You'll understand when you're older.

>>8641997
>thinking you can argue against causality

>>8642083
Where does God get your will from?

>>8641997
That whether it is true or not it fundamentally makes no difference to your life and is a waste of time to think about.

>>8642414
Damn pretty solid.

I don't get the "it's atoms and chemicals in your brain so it's not real" line of thinking.

Matter is one of the only things that is real. Free will is as real as anything else you niggers.

File: bored zizek.jpg (19KB, 340x227px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 340x227px

>>8644239
>Matter is one of the only things that is real.

>>8644239
>he thinks anything can be ontologically proven as true

wew lad

>>8642262
>>8644220
It was a legitimate question, I didn't even say I was a theist or whether I believed in free will

>>8642083
Where everything else comes from.

What makes free will more special or different from anything else that exists?

File: 1375609477_h635vaZqQiXUFLeBSQWY_dante_heaven_angels_.jpg (287KB, 811x900px) Image search: [Google]

287KB, 811x900px

>>8641997
Interesting, I've gotten a similar sense as the pic over the years of meditation and interest in mysticism.

Like you become free to do what you must.

It still implies a flavor of determinism though. Definitely not the version that's usually spouted, but choice doesn't seem to be much involved. Or if there is choice the only choice is whether to give yourself up.

>>8644243
what is real?

There is only one path, for you will only ever perceive one path. In that sense it is not wrong. Determinism seems a like a way for people to feel better about their own mistakes to me though.

>>8644272
So what is it? What separates it from the cause-effect process of nature and what makes it free?

>>8641997
Does it make a difference if it's atoms in the brain or a mystical force in your head? The mechanism is the same. The "everything is chemicals so it's all pointless" mindset seems like utter nonsense to me. What else would it be?

>>8642083
electro-chemical reactions in the brain

>>8644310
But that's just cause and effect. What makes it free?

>>8644330
Jesus shrinks down and get's in there, he smacks each electron around as per my will.

>>8644301
There is a difference because the material world is finite and unconscious, as in it doesn't follow a path or purpose, collisions just happen which cause other collisions. If God exists as the creator and sustainer of human beings, then we do have free will since he is infinite and unbound by any causes. Like in the cosmological argument, God is the unmoved mover. He is uncreated (or else he would not be God).
I'm not trying to take sides, I'm just saying that materialism has to have determinism and monotheism has to have free will.

>>8644368
What if God exists, but is also just a mechanism of the material world that acts without purpose?

>>8644375
That's a self-contradicting statement because God by definition is the creator of the material world and cannot be God if he is merely a part of the creation. Such a being wouldn't be omnipotent. The material world would be more powerful than the God, which doesn't make any sense.

>>8644375
What kind of God is subordinated to his own world? by definition he should be above all or even outside the loop completely.
Whatever you're describing is a universal force, but not a God.

>>8644514
But what if God believes that he is an omnipotent and all powerful creator, but is in fact oblivious to the fact that his own actions are determined?

>>8644557
Then people shouldn't be worshiping a being that has arguably less awareness than some humans.

>>8644330
because randomness cannot be determined, and your actions are a result of that innate unpredictable randomness interacting with larger more predictable events.

basiclly as you break things down, they become more random and therefore more "free"
humans and living things (depends which ones though) have Will because they are aware of their own thoughts and of their own place in the chaos/order.

its why the larger a group is, the easier it is to predict what they will do, meanwhile individuals are often impossible to predict accurately.

basically free will is identifying with the chaos over the orderly aspects of reality. others however feel more comfortable as part of large orders so they relinquish their will.

>>8644514
a Demiurge

>>8642013
Absolutely destroyed.

>>8644557
That wouldn't change the fact that such a being would not be God. In fact, the being would then be even further away from the definition of God due to lack of omniscience.

>>8644567
why worship anything unless it calls for it itself?

>>8642913
He's saying that Sam Harris believing in determinism is in itself an argument against determinism

Your narrative is not the world. You do not sense the world; you make the world recursively from what you sense.
Free will is the desires around which you form your stories, including the story of free will. Determinism is just the story you tell about those stories that are useful to be believed. Just because they are useful to be believed doesn't make them any less of a story, but just because they are stories, doesn't mean they are not useful to be believed. Free will and determinism come from your Platonic and Sophistic confusing of the story with the world.

The world is, but you cannot know it because you are it. The narrative is not. The narrative is the Ouroboros vomiting itself up from the recursion of how we make stories. It is the world that decides whether we have put together a useful picture or not, but that picture is never the world, because that picture depends on the fulfillment of our desire to show us whether the story is useful to be believed.
Without the story, the world would be indistinguishable from a story of randomness, and we would have no sense of self.
So without the story of will, there is no story of determinism. And without a story of determinism, there would be nothing against which to judge our story of will.

>>8644630
That's a stupid argument.

File: 1473054785774.jpg (35KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 400x400px

>>8642013
holy hell thats good

>>8644586
Yes theirs an inherit randomness to the world (varying at certain scales), but aren't all of these subject to governing laws? Laws which determine their behavior and interactions?

>>8644761
these laws are of probabilistic nature. you can fit your free will there if you are keen enough
this thread has nothing to do with literature btw

>>8642642
Got a source on that first statement? Sounds intriguing.

>>8642642
our brains are just computers, our dna is the code, why would it be any different for a computer once we advance further?
when you die you go the same place your computer goes when you cut the power, blackness, nothing else.

>>8645195
t. actual real legit scientist

>>8645195
>our brains are just computers, our dna is the code
you do a pretty bad service to your cause posting stuff like that
it is certainly not how our brain works

>>8645248
>>8645256
everything in nature has a pattern at its core, it follows that humans too are comprised of a pattern, this pattern can be altered and manipulated to genetically mutate the human form, but in essence it is nothing more than editing the functional programming of a machine. it's simply a biological machine.

>>8642534
>Anyway the problem lies in P3. See how people use the word "free" or open up a dictionary.

Then the problem is purely semantic, it's just like 'only white people can be racist'.

>>8645269
harris would be proud

>>8645287
not sure that even he would like to be supported by a guy or girl who thinks that our brains are computers whose programming language is dna

>>8642642

i'm also doing a Pd in machine learning and that is bullshit. Not in the sense that we can simulate conciousness but research atm is at such a low level and so far from an actual GAI that there is no way to tell

ALSO
simulated consciousness = consciousness

>>8645294
>the only word you keep getting caught up in is dna
>introducing gender on a mongolian checkerboxing board
>knowing about youtube(?) people
it is not for you to have free will my dear

File: COVER90.jpg (165KB, 720x400px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 720x400px

>>8645298
>simulated consciousness = consciousness

it's funny
i'm such a naughty robot (c)

even if you cheated some humans into believing they speak with a human it doesn't make the program conscious in any way, i thought it was clear since eliza

>>8645298
>>8645313

P1 ya'll

>>8645313

yes it was a very rudimentary consciousness. when we will pump out AI that will be virtually indistinguishable from humans then we can rest this.

>>8642013
lol

File: 20161022_125305.jpg (846KB, 2048x1152px) Image search: [Google]

846KB, 2048x1152px

Being on a lonesome vacation to Frankfurt Book Fair, is one of the most depressing and at the same time most exciting thing I've done.
Ask me anything.

>>8645331
i have already said that no indistinguishability itself would prove anything. if they learn perfectly to cheat people into believing that they interact with a sapient person, they would merely create a philosophical zombie, to treat which as a person would be anthropomorphism

Tbqh, even if you accept the notion of free will, you still have to admit that given the nature of cause and effect and give the fact that you are a creature made of matter in a universe that abides by physical laws, some of your actions must necessarily be determined or in some sense simply physical reactions and physical phenomena.

I'd be very interested to hear what the people in this thread who don't adhere to determinism in any way; how do you define "free" and "will" in this context at all?

File: thumbs up.gif (907KB, 150x113px) Image search: [Google]

907KB, 150x113px

>>8642013

>>8644284
It's not about choice, but about the ignorance that comes about with human incompleteness.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avidyā_(Buddhism)

>>8644586
I fail to see how randomness makes free will
You can be both non-free and random. In fact, if the motion of particles is inherently random, no free will can possibly exist.
>humans and living things (depends which ones though) have Will because they are aware of their own thoughts and of their own place in the chaos/order.
Its all wishful thinking. Quantum effects have become Holy grail of all freewillfags, as if somehow that unchains the soul, while reality on a macro level is largely pre-determined still. Your brain is governed by largely understood chemical reactions, if I open up your cranium and poke your pleasure center, you gonna feel good, where's the free will in that?

>>8645274
Every non-practical philosophical problem is a purely semantic problem (see Wittgenstein). But if you call a table "a cat" then you're still wrong.

>>8642414

>In order to make what we call meaningful statements, we must consider our incomplete information about the world as definitive.

What? Incomplete information is 'definitive' of our ability to make 'meaningful statements about the world? How so? This suggests that with complete information we would be INCAPABLE of making 'meaningful' statements about the world, which is ludicrous.

>We have so far many things that point toward the fact that everything is causally chained

Really? Like what? What is a 'casual chain'?

>and nothing points against it

The fact that we can't even get a clear understanding of what it means for one thing to be 'caused' or 'determined' by another definitely points toward, at the very least, a problem with the very notion of 'causation'.

>Hume is """solved""" with P1

What? I assume you're referring to 'Hume's Fork'. What about assuming information will never be complete 'solves' the disjunction between matters of fact and relations of ideas? If anything, assuming information will always be incomplete reinforces the fork, as it is now assumed we can't decide the matter.

>Being free means not being causally chained.

Even given the fuzziness around the concept of causation this is merely a tautology, which began the question fit the compatibilist.

>C (P1-P3) - There is no free will.

How did you arrive at this conclusion? By what operation? Let's assume it's by some iteration of 2 and 3, so ' 2) We have every reason to believe that our actions are casually chained, and nothing pubes against it. 3) Being free means not being casually chained.' You're missing at least one premise for your conclusion, namely 'all human thought and action is casually chained.' 1) is completely irrelevant to the conclusion, I have no idea why you included it, and your conclusion is rating on the faulty premises of 2) and the implicit premise that human thought and action is casually chained, which is again being the question.

Shoddy work, all around.

>>8646987
You're wrong about the first point. He was saying that you need to work from uncontested assumptions to make claims "meaningful" claims about reality. So we must make the assumption that what we know about reality right now, however incomplete, is true, ie uncontested. If we were working from perfect knowledge of reality, our knowledge would still be true and uncontested.

It sounds like an ideology used by shiftless people to avoid being held to any objective standards. Boring.

>>8645195
How do you know where computers go when they are shut off?

>>8647002

But 'Science' often proceeds on very contestable assumptions without suffering any injury to the 'meaningfulness' of its activity.

The quantum world is probabilistic, not deterministic.

>>8641997
What about nihilistic ideas? Like, can you understand exactly when I say, a "reflective" world? The way you think will reflect itself on to the world, so nothing really exists because it's all you, it's all based on you, you get outcomes based and depending on what person you are and the way you think.

It's nihilistic because with that logic, everyone should be perfect and the utmost best that they can to get the best results out of the world. This is basically karma, pretty much.

File: WHOAAAAA.gif (3MB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 500x500px

>2016
>Not utilizing the dialectic to realize that our will is both free and unfree

>>8646987
>What? Incomplete information is 'definitive' of our ability to make 'meaningful statements about the world? How so? This suggests that with complete information we would be INCAPABLE of making 'meaningful' statements about the world, which is ludicrous.
all it implies is that we cannot make meaningful statements if we consider ONLY complete information as definitive because we don't know when it's complete.

>Really? Like what? What is a 'casual chain'?
Like induction. A causal chain is a chain of causes.


>The fact that we can't even get a clear understanding of what it means for one thing to be 'caused' or 'determined' by another definitely points toward, at the very least, a problem with the very notion of 'causation'.

Yes, hence why P1 is necessary. Otherwise Hume and Kant BTFO it.

>
What? I assume you're referring to 'Hume's Fork'. What about assuming information will never be complete 'solves' the disjunction between matters of fact and relations of ideas? If anything, assuming information will always be incomplete reinforces the fork, as it is now assumed we can't decide the matter.
When Hume says "we cannot call something causation since deduction doesn't point to it and induction would need it to be aplicable" P1 says: "Okay, we still do though." There are quotation marks around the solved for a reason.

>Even given the fuzziness around the concept of causation this is merely a tautology, which began the question fit the compatibilist.
How is this a tautology, two different concepts are on each side of the equation?

>You're missing at least one premise for your conclusion, namely 'all human thought and action is casually chained.

Like "everything is causally chained"?


>Shoddy work, all around.
It seems very strongly like you didn't understand any of it. Including the fact that it's just a showcase of the central argument of natural determinism, not an endorsement of it.

>>8647376
yes, and as soon as its contested sufficiently, a.i. falsified, it is no longer considered true. But until, for example, causality is falsified, we still think that if B always comes after A, and appears to have a necessary relation, then there is such a relation and it's called causation.

>>8648969

This.

The idea of 'free will' implies that will is persistent to begin with, which isn't true.
Think of your self at
>5 years old
>10 years old
>15 years old
>right now
These 4 individuals are all different people, with different ideas, personalities, aspirations, knowledge, memories, perception of the world etc. Basically, your 15 years old self had died long time ago, and was replaced with hopefully better version? How can you believe in free will of self, when even 'self' is such a flimsy concept?

>>8647761
This doesn't really change anything though does it? The probabilities themselves are determined by exact laws.

>>8648987
Its not necessarily true that the non existence of the continuous will means the same as the non existence of the free will. They're slightly different questions.

>>8641997

Who cares?

>>8642013
ouffff

Control F, no mention of emergence, complex systems (science) or systems science.
What a trashy board.

Compatibilism is bullshit, it's literally the opposite of the truth. Determinism is disproved by quantum mechanics but we still don't have free will because all of our actions are ultimately responses to stimuli in our environment and the result of evolutionary impulses to stay alive and procreate.

>>8649056

But we did have 3 retards mention quantum mechanics like that has any bearing on the topic

>>8649192
>events on a quantum level can't be predicted by any laws of physics
>therefore they are indeterministic
>thread about determinism
How is it not relevant?

inb4 "hurr durr it's only on a quantum level so it doesn't matter"

>>8649230
>Events on a quantum level cannot be predicted with any KNOWN laws of physics

Fixed.

>>8649230

If I roll a die does the die choose what face it lands on?

>>8649237
It's no more logical to assume quantum events can be predicted by unknown laws of physics than it is to assume they are indeterministic.

>>8649237
you violate occam's razor rule

>>8649230
They can be predicted, retard, but only as precisely as Heisenberg's principle dictates. I swear most you you dumbshits read 'quantum mechanics' and assume the world is magical

>>8649250
>Assuming that true randomness exists in the universe for no explainable reason.

Vs.

>Assuming we don't know everything about the situation, which we already knew.

File: 1459265508480.gif (3MB, 240x234px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 240x234px

>>8642013

>>8649255
you assume that there is a hidden law which we don't know which governs the quantum uncertainty making it deterministic, because you don't believe in randomness, therefore you add an entity which we can explain the stuff without i.e. you multiply entities without necessity

>>8649271
You still fail to demonstrate how randomness would contribute anything to free will

So, instead of being governed by "if X do Y" laws, you are governed by "if X, roll 6 and do Y,Y2,Y3,Y4,or Y5" laws. You are still governed.

>>8642083
It's a feeling, like anger and fear. I sometimes feel like I have no choice, other times I feel responsible.

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

Atoms don't exist, for one.
>>8642414
Logic is irrelevant, it does nothing but reflect an ego. Your logic is awful, regardless.
>>8642739
>illogical
Logic is irrelevant.
>>8645195
This is all false.
>>8645269
You only think there are patterns because you have been told there are.
>>8645378
There is no cause and effect.

>>8648974
>>8648977

Everything I wrote flew right over your head. Congratulations on being a worthless moron.

>>8649457
Laplas's demon was long dismissed as rubbish simply because his existence would be impossible in the universe of ever increasing entropy, so this video has no grounds to stand on

>>8648974

>a causal chain is s chain of causes

I know tautologies have this ring of profundity, but they're really just empty statements.

>Like induction

Induction is generalizing from particular instances, or extrapolating a series from known examples. It is not itself a 'causal chain. You fucking loon.

>cannot make meaningful statements if we consider ONLY complete information as definitive because we don't know when it's complete.

Meaningful statements have nothing to do with the assumption of compete information or not. Full stop. This is a meaningless statement.

>Otherwise Hume and Kant BTFO it.

'No'.

>Like "everything is causally chained"

No, like you need your conclusion to include the middle term of your premises, and you failed to include that term. Sophomore.

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

>>8648974
>How is this a tautology, two different concepts are on each side of the equation

All bachelors are married men. Oh look, two 'different concepts' on both sides of the 'equation'!

To be unfree is just another way to say to be determined, i.e. 'causally chained'.

>>8645378
>how do you define "free" and "will" in this context at all?
The way they're used in language. This is a pseudo debate.

We are free because we feel free. I don't know with absolute certainty what I should do next, and it makes me free. I need not concern myself with deterministic or random nature of the universe because it doesn't interfere with my decisions.
Consider a prison, makes it absolutely inescapable just to fit the metaphor. The inmate #001 isn't free because he's aware of his limitations. #001 cannot leave the cell, althrough he knows with certainty that places outside prison exist and he wants to visit them. He also knows that his destiny (life in prison) is predetermined by the prison guards, and that additionally makes him miserable. The inmate #002 was born in his cell. For all #002 knows, his cell consists the entire universe, and he's fully free to explore it however much he wants. From time to time #002 might get a funny idea that things might exist beyond his cell, but he has no claim to prove such and why would he bother in the first place, he's fully free and happy in his cell-sized universe.
According to Plato, #002 could eventually THINK his way out of cell and enjoy the grassy lands outside the prison, but, you know, Plato was an old greek pederast and fuck his retarded opinion

>>8641997
In his book "A Contemporary Introduction to Free Will" Robert Kane posits his own defense of libertarianism. It isn't very convincing.

>>8641997
We have free will which is proven by contradiction; behaving as if you had no free will makes you act less freely.

>>8649587

That isn't proof by contradiction. Proof by takes the negation of a proposition and shows that contradictory statements follow from it. That people behave as if they lack free will because they 'believe' they lack free will is not contradictory.

Where were you goofs educated?

>>8641997
I would argue that free will and determinism are not mutually exclusive. In face I think they dovetail rather nicely. But the fact that i think that probably makes me a determinist.

Why do you want to argue against it?

>>8649711
At this stage, free will can only be saved by arguing that it is useful to believe in it.

>>8649706
Proposition: Free will -- negated

Contradictory: Lack of idea of free will shapes action.

If you need clarification ask nicely.

>>8649719
And that's exactly why we have it.

>>8649751

>Lack of idea of free will shapes action.

'Shapes' i.e. determines action, i.e. is in keeping with the notion of determination over free will, i.e. is CONSISTENT with the statement 'we do not have free will'.

If you're got to insist on embarrassing yourself please make a better effort of it. This is boring for me.

>>8649751
>>8649776

If your actions are determined by a thought they are still determined, tautologically. To make this intuitive: someone else says to you 'you do not have free will' and this statement impacts your future actions such that, when observed, it appears you do not have free will. Is that contradictory? No. No, it is not.

>>8649776
>CONSISTENT
You can write in capital letters

>This is boring for me.
You can play big boy intellectual

>>8649783
>tautologically
You can use the jargon


You still don't have an argument.

>>8649783
>If your actions are determined by a thought they are still determined, tautologically
That's just a play on words desu,

>>8649806

You're still nipping at me, but I see your tail tucked firmly between your legs. Skitter along, now.

>>8649812

Indeed!

>>8641997
Bell's theorem says that any phenomena that is both deterministic and local must satisfy the Bell inequality. Quantum mechanics violates the Bell inequality (and there have been many experiments to confirm this violation), which means that you must give up at least one: locality or determinism. Since without locality it becomes impossible to talk about causality, most people prefer not to give it up, and instead give up determinism.

A notable exception is David Bohm who preferred to give up locality in order to keep determinism. However interesting, most practicing physicists don't share his views.

Couple questions to free will fags:
a calculator can compute numbers, but I think we can agree that it doesn't not have free will
a smartphones can do many more sophisticated things, yet we again can agree that it doesn't not have free will
a computer you use to shitpost right now can perform even more amazingly complex functions. But, I hope we agree agree that it still does not have free will
eventually, there will be built a machine complex enough to imitate any human behavior and patterns of thinking. It will be also programmed to answer 'yes' to the inquiry 'are you self-aware'
Question 1:
Will the machine have free will?
Question 2:
If no, what makes you and the machine different?
Question 3:
If yes, where's the boundary between unthinking computer and the one with free will and why exactly there?

>>8641997
Determinism is pointless
Since we perceive, there is no real point in arguing over free will.
It's a literal waste of tim

>>8649883
*time

File: vector_field_implosion.png (14KB, 327x324px)

14KB, 327x324px

>Both Religion and science require a belief in God. For believers, God is in the beginning, and for physicists He is at the end of all considerations… To the former He is the foundation, to the latter, the crown of the edifice of every generalized world view. - Max Planck

>I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End. - God

Materialists relinquish agency to Determinism in the same way Spiritual people relinquish themselves to God. Really now, Transhumanism, Singularity, Spooky Effects, etc. What do you think these are all pointing towards?

>>8649514
the amount of willful misunderstanding here is adjective.

>>8649521
You say that as if that's the only definition for free will. Which it isn't. So that definition is necessary.

Like fuck, it's a definition, if you accept it of course it becomes a tautology. The point is that free will here is not defined as "being able to make decisions and follow them without hindrance" but "being able to make decisions APART FROM CAUSALITY regardless of if you are able to follow them"

>>8650040
>"being able to make decisions APART FROM CAUSALITY regardless of if you are able to follow them

And again, this begs the question for the compatibilist, who will insist that there is no inconsistency between accepting causality and accepting free will simultaneously.

>>8650021

Make me a point by point list of all supposed misunderstandings.

What is "free will"?

>>8641997

Yo word on the street is that determinism is necessarily false due to the uncertainty principle

>>8649756
ha

>>8650590
Chance does not yield "freedom"

>>8642013
Nice