Why free will probably doesn't exist, and why we should

>>8865027
Been a minute since I've seen you around. Stop posting this shit. It's not insightful or interesting.

>>8865066
Hmm, well you're dismissed. I always write stuff, I wrote another one recently about how I think free speech should be protected regardless of who's speaking. But I just haven't had a substantial urge to sit down and write out my thoughts in depth lately, because I feel that I had exhausted a lot of the ideas that were the basis of my writing for a while now. Sometimes this happens, I write a lot and then I go for periods of months where I don't take the time to sit down and write anything substantial. I am always writing though, because I spend a lot of time on the internet, and it's my primary form of communication, like how I'm typing to you right now. It's very relaxing to me to write.

>>8865095
Cool. I'm glad it relaxes you. But stop making these threads.

>Free will doesn't exist
>Let me change your mind about this topic
I can never take this kind of approach seriously. I really can't.

>>8865108
No thank you, I'd prefer to keep making them.

>>8865027
Cynics are the worst. Shoo!

>>8865115
Yes, as a consequence of my mind thinking about free will, by consequence I've written this post. This post, by consequence of my mind determining a course of action to influence others - by consequence of my mind determining that, not me - by consequence is received by your eyes, and processed by your brain, which by consequence determines by your underlying processes, that being influenced is not compatible with pre-existing consequential determinations made by your mind.

>>8865125
>cynics
Things aren't right or wrong just because you want them to be.

Free will is a red herring.

File: 44356050.cached.jpg (32KB, 600x375px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 600x375px

>>8865027
So I take it you've just read Sammie's "Free Will"

>>8865137
No, I have not.

>>8865135
>Things aren't right or wrong
Incorrect
>just because you want them to be.
Correct, things are right and wrong because of nature

>>8865148
Why would you split a sentence into two parts and address them as if they weren't part of a whole statement?
Also
>things are right and wrong because of nature
this is a vague non-argument, which I'm just going to dismiss on the grounds that it's too vague to mean anything.

>>8865129
You are arguing that things can't change (no free will means people behave like predetermined rocks falling down a cliff) and yet they can change (look at that argument, I know that it can change your predetermined course).

This is a complete contradiction (even bordering on mental illness imo).

Couldn't get past hte first couple sentences. Just explain why you think free will is wrong (it's not btw) without making a shitty blog post about it

>>8865157
Alright. Just read the last 3 paragraphs. I think philosophically if you break down how morality is viewed through a free will perspective it sort of breaks down on it's own because one needs to look at it from a physical perspective, but I also laid out why I think free will doesn't exist using more empirical terms.

>>8865153
Things are either naturally right or they are naturally wrong. Cynicism is wrong and a sign of cowardice retreating to an unhealthy vice.

>>8865140
Well he expands on a lot of the points you mentioned. It's a short read.

I agree with you, but I don't think it makes much difference.

>>8865160
>because one needs
before one needs*

>>8865156
Well, you know matter has properties that enable it to change, right? Frozen water is called ice, and if you heat it up enough it becomes gas. Matter can change it's properties, so I don't know what you're talking about. It's really irrelevant to the argument though, because this argument you're making is once again, vague, and doesn't really mean anything because it's too vague to mean anything.

>>8865164
I have no idea what you're talking about when you say I'm being cynical. Looking at the definition of the word, it doesn't really make any sense and is - why do I have to keep saying this? - very vague.

>>8865182
How convenient that you don't understand the point of view of others.

>>8865191
>very vague.
In the context you used it*

>>8865160
You don't really present an argument. You just say you feel like it doesnt' exist and that determinism is true because there are environmental factors to consider. This isn't going to change the mind of anyone who is quite certain of the existence of free will based on simple observations of their own actions, especially since you strawman them in the last paragraph. I personally don't care if determinism is true or not, but I'm pretty sure it's not.

>>8865164
But that doesn't mean anything. What is naturally right or wrong? Who is the arbiter of such a distinction?

>>8865201
If someone is really "certain" of the existence of free will, then they're a fucking idiot. Even I said that based on what I can observe, it's pretty unlikely that free will exists, but I said it "probably" doesn't exist. I don't choose my wording carelessly, so you should really pay closer attention to the specific wording I used. Although, especially considering that every action has a consequence, and that would bar anything from acting outside of being a consequence of other consequential actions, it's almost completely obvious that free will can't exist.

>>8865213
how do you define free will?

>>8865225
Not possible.

>>8865156
Everything is dictated by cause and effect. This is the basis of science. The universe behaves this way so why should we assume that we're any different? It's far more likely that we are not. I can't trace back the reasons behind many of my actions and desires. And those that I can, I inevitably find that those reasons are outside my control.

I am not in the driver's seat

>>8865213
>If someone is really "certain" of the existence of free will, then they're a fucking idiot.
Well, I appreciate being called a fucking idiot, but I don't think your arrogance is warranted.

>every action has a consequence, and that would bar anything from acting outside of being a consequence of other consequential actions
The second part doesn't follow from the first. You can have both caused and uncaused actions. Also, I should point out that environment doesn't necessarily determine actions, but that it limits the range of possible actions.

>>8865027
>Maybe it's futile, but I
Stopped reading there

>>8865229
Don't talk about it then.

>>8865240
Because science can't explain consciousness (yet). There is a huge difference between human and the universe. That's why you are talking to strangers on the internet and not monkeys on the Savanna, star in the sky, rocks, mountains or a pet dog.

>I am not in the driver's seat
How convenient. Self-fulfilling prophecies are great, aren't they?

>>8865244
The second part doesn't follow from the first. You can have both caused and uncaused actions. Also, I should point out that environment doesn't necessarily determine actions, but that it limits the range of possible actions.
You're saying all this vague stuff and giving no reason why you actually think this, which is why I get so annoyed with people like you. And
>Well, I appreciate being called a fucking idiot, but I don't think your arrogance is warranted.
It's not arrogance, I'm not being arrogant. You're being arrogant if you think that something like free will exists if you can't prove that it exists.

>>8865258
>Don't talk about it then.
I mean it's not possible to define free will because it doesn't exist. That's like saying "define god", it's just a vague concept that idiots believe in because they're too stupid to think rationally.

>>8865260
>You're saying all this vague stuff and giving no reason why you actually think this
I don't think I'm being particularly vague, and I have given reasons why I believe this (IE observation of my own actions).

>You're being arrogant if you think that something like free will exists if you can't prove that it exists.
It's something you can only prove to yourself, not something that can be verified inter-subjectively.

>>8865240
Universe is random on the most fundamental level, though

>>8865027
OP I get that you're probably emotionally invested into your writing/thoughts. Everyone is to some degree. But you're literally spooked by moral relativism.

>>8865272
>I don't think I'm being particularly vague, and I have given reasons why I believe this (IE observation of my own actions).
You observe your own actions and that is the mystery of consciousness, but consciousness is likely an illusion, all things considered.
>It's something you can only prove to yourself, not something that can be verified inter-subjectively.
I don't know what inter subjectively is supposed to mean. And if you can only prove it to yourself then it's not evidence, it's just your own vague reasoning.

>>8865258
You could be right, I have neither the expertise nor any substantial evidence to support my claim. However, it seems to me that two things influence behavior: environment and heredity, both of which I cannot control. I didn't choose my parents and I didn't choose where I grew up.

>>8865269
Calling your opponents stupid idiots will win you no points. Also, I disagree. You can absolutely define abstract concepts. Everyone may not agree on the specifics of the definition, but most people get the idea.

>>8865313
>OP I get that you're probably emotionally invested into your writing/thoughts. Everyone is to some degree. But you're literally spooked by moral relativism.
Moral objectivity is a spook.

>>8865269
Alright, give this one a try.
Free will is the ability to adapt one's behavior to an universal and objective standard.


Let's try an example: health.
If it is healthier to not X, having free will means to be able to stop doing X.
For instance X can be smoking, taking drugs, alcohol, fast food.

If you believe free will doesn't exist, you must also believe that change happens only through pleasure seeking/pain avoidance. This true.
However, if you assume that people are able to see past that (for instance by reading something), you are in fact able to change.


That's what I would argue as free will (yes, I'm aware that people are imprinted by past experiences. Past conditioning doesn't invalidate change, otherwise we would never be able to use new tools such as computers).

>>8865320
Moral objectivity is ordained by God.

>>8865317
There is evidence that you can provide to yourself, but not to others, and that is the evidence for things like free will and consciousness. If you disagree with that on a basic epistemological level, then we're at an impasse, and all I can say is that I think that's an irrational view to take.

>>8865289
You're speaking of quantum uncertainty, and you're right. Everything exists as a wave function of probability (if the Copenhagen interpretation is to be believed). However, this still doesn't grant me any control, since I can't control randomness.

>>8865289
I addressed this in my OP. Even with randomness, that would mean that our actions are random and baseless, which would mean our actions determined by randomness, not by free will. In either case, in a clockwork universe where every action is consequential, or in a chaotic universe where every action is random, there's no room for free will.

>>8865318
>Calling your opponents stupid idiots will win you no points. Also, I disagree. You can absolutely define abstract concepts. Everyone may not agree on the specifics of the definition, but most people get the idea.
>>8865327
>Moral objectivity is ordained by God.
Well, I'd just say to both of you that if you can only prove something to yourself, then it's not actually proof, if you can't prove it to others as well, it's just vague meaningless ideas.

Also
>Calling your opponents stupid idiots will win you no points.
fallacy fallacy

>>8865332
>>8865334
>Actions are randoms or already determined
>Let me articulate precisely how you are wrong if I understood you properly talking about a common shared experience we read about quantum physics
Top kek

>>8865336
It will be proven in the future, I'm just trying to give you a head-start son. Irrefutable proof now would take away your free will to choose.

>>8865336
>fallacy fallacy

I wasn't saying it takes away from the point or makes you wrong, I was saying it makes people not want to discuss with you

>>8865342
Your wording couldn't be any more convoluted. Yes, I'm saying if the universe is random, then our actions would be ////determined//// by randomness. It's still determinism. There's no room for free will.

>>8865330
>There is evidence that you can provide to yourself, but not to others, and that is the evidence for things like free will and consciousness. If you disagree with that on a basic epistemological level, then we're at an impasse, and all I can say is that I think that's an irrational view to take.
If you can only prove something to yourself and not to others then it's not proof, it's just vague meaningless ideas.

>>8865116
i'd prefer you didn't

>>8865356
If your actions are determined, how do you explain the extreme local accuracy of your answers?

>>8865378
The extreme local accuracy? Explain to me what that means.

>>8865384
You are answering back and forth with precision to some very complex ideas who require a certain background (for instance the Copenhagen experience). That's extreme accuracy.
It's local because you wouldn't say the same things in another context.

>>8865400
You're mystifying the processes of the mind. The only way to think that the mind is in control of it's own actions, and not a determined by consequences just as a rock is rolling down a hill, is if you mystify the processes of the inside of the mind in vague ways, like you always see people doing. If everyone just accepted that the mind works in mysterious ways, we would never discover how the mind works. Because we can, by virtue of reason, discover how the mind works eventually if we try hard enough, that means there will be a reason that it works the way it does. If there's a reason for the way it works, just like there's a reason for everything else in the universe, then we can already assume the mind works "because" of a consequence. If something happens because of something else, that means the action is determined.

>>8865413
Look, there is a fundamental assumption of "we can model something that is constantly shifting" that is a complete leap of faith.
You may end up being right but people are not even able to model how to win a horse race consistently and we want to model the human brain?
Be my guest to have your opinion, but that doesn't seem like a reasonable conclusion as of today.

>>8865436
It's a complete leap of faith to say we can't model something even in principle. Even if we couldn't model something with our tools if understanding, the only way at this point to say that there's no free will, would be to say that even in principle we can't model the mind. Funny enough, AI is just around the corner, machines will likely become sentient. This will prove once and for all that there is no free will, if we can set in motion our own version of consciousness, and reverse engineer it like a math equation.

>>8865240
It's not in looking at the reasons for your desires that you find free will, it's actually in your conscious ability to reject desire through contemplation alone without rational basis.

The claim, 'consciousness is an illusion' or is 'a meaningless byproduct of complex processes is unfalsifiable'. I do not believe there is any experimental setup that could find support for that kind of thinking.

It's en vogue now to be a materialist who believes in the uselessness of consciousness but (and I grant you some respect because you haven't memed this far yet) who still holds that the universe isn't deterministic because of some popsci understanding of 'quantum' randomness. This is a byproduct of a culture where opinions from the science community is taken as gospel in fields outside of their reach, physicists arguing about God, neuroscientists making claims about determinism, biologists coming up with a silly system of morality, etc.

>>8865443
We can't reverse-engineer horse races but will be able to reverse-engineer the human mind?
Grandiosity and resentment are smothering you.

>>8865269
>You can't define things that don't exist
While I agree that free will doesn't exist, I have to completely disagree with you on this point.

We can for example define what it is to be a unicorn without any unicorns in fact existing. This is basically that basis for the theory of definite descriptions. On the other hand, you obviously can't demonstratively define a word whose referent doesn't exist. Just don't confuse demonstratives and descriptions.

You accepted earlier that there may be random and chaotic elements in the universe. So you would agree that it is possible that the structure of the mind might have random, unpredictable, chaotic elements. How can you be sure that this apparent "chaos" within the mind is not simply the physical manifestation of free will?

>>8865467
Free will existing would mean that some force outside of the laws of nature control the molecules inside of your brain and the current that passes through your head, which would imply a duality of mind and body, basically saying humans have souls. There's no such thing as souls, this is what the entire argument comes down to.

>>8865443
>he doesn't know about the Chinese room
>he doesn't know about quaila
>he thinks being able to model something is going to provide answers
>he doesn't realize AI will provide no more help with determinism than a new baby would

>>8865482
How can you possibly argue against the existence of a soul

>>8865479
The physical manifestation? Because chaos, by definition, is not controllable. The only way to believe in free will is if there's a duality of mind and body, where forces outside of the laws of nature determined the pre-determined (or completely chaotic) actions of matter in our universe. It works either way, if you're trying to determine the actions of something chaotic, then you need to implement outside forces. If you want to determine the actions outside of predetermined actions, you need to have some sort of force outside of nature. The only explanation for free will could be a non-answer, mystification of the problem. Since there's no inherent way to prove mystification, and mystification inherently drags us further away from empirical truth, it needs to be abandoned entirely. In fact, I see this divide, between mysticism and empiricism all the time, and I think it may actually be because there's something wrong with the brain of people mystify on a fundamental level.

>>8865482
I just said that I agree free will doesn't exist. I'm not one of the people arguing against you.

I just said it's incorrect to say that we can't define things that don't exist.

>>8865503
read the post right below yours

>>8865521
Well, I've come around to thinking that the only way to define free will is through mystification of the mind, by saying that there's some mysterious force outside of nature that determines the outcome of the mind against chaos and against pre-determined events. Mysticism needs to be abandoned always, because if we accept mysticism then we will never understand the reason that things actually happen. Mysticism is inherently an adversary of knowledge.

>>8865518
>chaos, by definition, is not controllable
No, a chaotic system is one where the outcome is *unpredictable* and this is a fundamental difference. This unpredictability in chaos leaves plenty of room for the possibility of free will

>>8865565
>This unpredictability in chaos leaves plenty of room for the possibility of free will
No it doesn't. That's just saying that because we don't understand what's going on that leaves room for an explanation that goes defies every conceivable explanation. People who think like you are a problem in the world, and I we could fix the part of their brain that makes them think mystically. This would wipe out all religious people and mystical thinkers, and only leave scientists concerned with truth by gathering evidence and analyzing data, instead of sitting around making up answers for things. Here's what it comes down to bud, at the end of the day all that free will is is a bunch of people hoping that it is true, whereas any effort to disprove it, if successful, would inevitably prove that there is no free will just by figuring out how it operates. Free will does not exist, religious people and mystics aren't rational, the world would be a better place without you, that's not even an insult or meant to be rude, it's just a hard fact.

>>8865540
Given that currently science does not fully understand how the mind works, nor does it provide answers into the nature of consciousness or where it comes from, I think a certain degree of "mysticism" in this area is appropriate. We only have partial information, and to assume that we can rule out the existence of anything which clashes with our current understanding is fairly arrogant.

File: 1463767544902.jpg (48KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 480x360px

>it's a daily 'free will' thread

>>8865604
How does it not? The human mind is a chaotic system. The outcome of chaos is unpredictable and non-deterministic - free will is unpredictable and non-deterministic. In what way are these these concepts so impossible to connect?

>>8865614
There's a process that causes consciousness, and once we find out how it works, that will show that it's determined by something. What you're basically saying if you say that there's no determinism, is that there's nothing that determines your mind to be a certain way. The only way to believe there's free will is if you believe that there's nothing that determines the outcome of consciousness, when we have already shown that a large number of factors go into influencing how a person behaves. We have already shown that genes and environment have a consequential effect on a person's behavior, this already at least partially disproves free will, the argument is already weak and starting to be shown that it's complete bullshit. It will only take a complete map of the brain and an explanation of consciousness to prove how we don't have free will, because the only alternative answer is "muh god". I'll give you a spoiler alert, santa, free will, nor god exist. We're not responsible for our actions and there's no inherent morality. Have a nice day.

>>8865604
Do you really think you are able to think clearly when you express it with such rage?
I can tell you that it is impossible from a neurophysiology.

Before fixing the others, try fixing yourself. Like fix the part of your brain that makes you write such hate-filled sentences.

>>8865638
>. It will only take a complete map of the brain and an explanation of consciousness to prove how we don't have free will
what does that have to do with anything
not the same anon, but im not following this particular piece of your argument

>>8865635
Just because something in practice can't be predicted, doesn't mean that in principle it doesn't run in predictable ways. Once again, it that's mysticism vs empiricism thing. I think I see the problem with you, you have a problem with reason, you have a problem with logic. You think that just because there's questions in the universe that can't be solved, that we'll never be able to solve them no matter how hard we try. Nothing good has ever come from not wanting to look at things logically, wondering how things work in spite of the fact that we don't understand is what a truly curious and intelligent mind seeks. Just look at people like Carl Sagan, who look up at the galaxy and get filled with wonder for how things work. He doesn't just look up at the galaxy and think "hurr durr mysterious ways". Everything else so far has been determined to be deterministic, that's how we've made all the progress we've made in the world up to this point in 12016.

File: 45634563456.gif (2MB, 312x250px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 312x250px

>>8865604
>the world would be a better place without you, that's not even an insult or meant to be rude, it's just a hard fact.
0/10 bait at least you tried

>>8865638
Don't leave. Stay and defend your ideas.

>once we find out how it works, that will show that it's determined by something
This is conjecture.

>what you're basically saying... is that there's nothing that determines your mind to be a certain way
>we have already shown that a large number of factors go into influencing how a person behaves
"Influencing" is fundamentally different from "dictates." If you're in a kayak in a rapid, the flow of water influences the direction you travel in, but it does not dictate the exact path you take

>it will only take a complete map of the brain and an explanation of consciousness to prove how we don't have free will
Again, conjecture

>the only alternative answer is god
god has nothing to do with free will

>>8865651
Everything else in the universe that has been questioned, has given us the progress in humanity that we have today. Look at the way that we determine how things work, how that has given us so much understanding. It's the same thing every time, we question how things work and realize that just because we don't understand something that that doesn't mean that we can't try to figure out how it works, and what do you know, every single time we try to figure something out and we figure out how it works it gives us some new advancement in our modern day lives. This is because when you try to figure out how things work, you're taking the non- lazy approach, as opposed to just saying that things work in mysterious ways. Things work, that's just a known fact of the universe, we as human beings are successful because we harness this ability to reason. You know what has pushed us into the dark ages for a very, very long time, and hindered progress? This is because the universe works by deterministic ways, and it's be discovering what things determine what that we have been able to have so much progress, the proof is in the pudding.

>>8865638

''and once we find out how it works''

We won't.

How can you prove determinism is true if we are unable to completely predict everything? The burden of proof is on you.

Determinism doesn't even fully work under classical mechanics, and we are far past that, so what makes you think it can fully work with quantum mechanics?

Imagine a ball sitting at the apex of a frictionless dome whose equation is specified as a function of radial distance from the apex point. This rest-state is our initial condition for the system; what should its future behavior be? Clearly one solution is for the ball to remain at rest at the apex indefinitely.

However, this is not the only solution under standard Newtonian laws. The ball may also start into motion sliding down the dome—at any moment in time, and in any radial direction. This example displays “uncaused motion” without any violation of Newton's laws, including the First Law. And it does not, unlike some supertask examples, require an infinity of particles.

>>8865095
get a blog,
nerd

>>8865095
those are highschool level problems and highschool level writing. Please do not think it's philosophical. Read some philosophy and see how silly your "writings" are

>>8865663
>>8865670
Leave him alone. He replaced God with Science then takes leap of faiths/conjecture everywhere and doesn't see the fundamental contradiction because his ego is filled with resentment.

At least read Kierkegaard OP.

>>8865670
>we won't
said no one who made a discovery that gave us scientific advancement ever. the fact that we can discover things, and all of the scientific advancements we make are determined on discovering parts of determinism, shows that the more you understand determinism, the more you unveil not only the greater your understanding of the universe, but the greater the outcome. Thinking that there's no determinism is basically a pass to just give up on trying to understand, which has been proven time and time again to be the secret to controlling the universe (in the sense of a computer gathering data and then using what it learned to have greater influence on the world around it).

>>8865665
>This is because the universe works by deterministic ways
i dont think that's necessarily empirically always true even in modern science.

you didn't answer my question either really. I don't think your argument that consciousness is determined, negates the idea of free will, not that I ever really believed in free will before you get all triggered

>>8865027
>thousands of years later
>still not a single definition of this supposed concept
How can you believe in something that you don't even understand, that you can't even formulate into a coherent notion

>>8865638

Here's another argument for indeterminism under the framework of the general theory of relativity.

Define a function d as the identity function over all elements over the manifold M, excepting a small neighbourhood (topology) H belonging to M. Over H, d comes to differ from identity by a smooth function.

With use of this function d we can construct two mathematical models, where the second is generated by applying d to proper elements of the first, such that the two models are identical prior to the time t=0, where t is a time function created by a foliation of spacetime, but differ after t=0.

These considerations show that, since substantialism allows the construction of holes, that the universe must, on that view, be indeterministic.

>>8865681

Answer the question as to how what I described doesn't violate determinism, trashcan.

I won't bother with examples under the framework of Quantum Mechanics, because the theory itself strongly suggest an undeterministic universe. You can probably think of one yourself, maybe.

>>8865689
So then it would go back to what I said before, that indeterminism would determine the outcome, that there can't be free will if nothing can be controlled. The idea of free will comes down to there being a way to control freely either chaos, or a pre-determined universe. If it's pre-determined then it can't be meddled with, if it's random, then it can't be meddled with. There's no room for free will in this equation.

>>8865706
see the post right below yours.

>>8865160
>how morality is viewed

Morality is not viewed. You do not see Morality, it sees you.

>>8865735
See
>>8865565
>>8865635

The meddling is what creates apparent randomness and unpredictability. Free will produces results which no model can accurately measure in a deterministic way. At the level of individual particles, this is seen as chaos; at the level of the mind as a system, this chaos manifests itself as choice.

>>8865735

No, you idiot.

''Indeterminism would determine the outcome''

Are you stupid?

My examples are not meant to demonstrate indeterminism is fully true, but that we do not in fact know if the Universe is deterministic or not. As you know, even with these examples, we can still accurately predict a lot of things, but it also seems some things cannot be predicted. This grey area between things that can predicted and things that can't is precisely where Free Will resides, and it's exactly why you can't brush off its existence with your naive posts.

Also

1) If indeterminism is true, then a soul may exist.

2) Assuming no soul, Free can still exist if it's considered as an emergent property.

What this anon said >>8865763

>>8865735
>indeterminism would determine

>>8865839
It's not a contradiction. It just means that the quantum level is an unappropriated level of resolution.

For instance, atoms don't talk yet human talk. Thus indeterminism may lead to emergent macro-properties.

>>8865027
Yes and we should kill ourselves too.

>>8865847
*inappropriate level of resolution.

>>8865847

Wrong.

>>8865156
changing your mind requires external input or further rumination. it doesn't happen spontaneously

>>8865027
so define free, point to will and justify causality.

If you come along arguing with pragmatism, then I can only say: Don't make probabilistic statements about metaphysical concepts you fucking idiot.

>>8865289
not entirely random.. there are probability distributions, though we don't actually know if this is the correct interpretation of QM, and the shape of these probability distributions can be altered by potentials.

Furthermore, randomness does not at all support free will. If anything, it negates it even more than determinism. If a hypothetical metaphysical soul influences the brain, it must be able to choose the physical actions (at a molecular/atomic level) that will for sure produce a particular outcome, else there is no choice or will in the matter. And if this metaphysical being influences things in an accidental way, well, that is indistinguishable from wave-function collapse as it stands. So in a way, free will requires determinism - a contradiction. So free will is a paradoxical concept.

>>8866510
I really feel like you would make much more sense if you were a positivist.

Couldn't talk about free will then though.

>>8865464
so complexity is proof of irrationality? sorry, no.

>>8866535
elaborate

We live with our concepts of right and wrong and choose to do whatever we want to do, it doesn't go beyond that.

>>8865027
does this mean i'm destined to call you a halfwit?
you halfwit.

>>8865027
>All these random assumptions about ethics
>Good and bad are arbitrary
Stopped reading there. This was definitely written by a pseud or 18 year old. How can any philosopher (even armchair ones) say this?

probably THE most pseud thread on lit atm

Really outed the sci posters

>>8865116
holy crap you are going out of your way to be one colossal shitcunt

>>8865619

ikr

>>8867284
Can you point to a mind-independent truthmaker for a moral fact of your choice?

This OP is fully retarded and has been told to fuck off many times before.
http://saddude69.tumblr.com/

>>8868546
jfc https://warosu.org/lit/?task=search&ghost=yes&search_text=saddude69

>>8867717
Proud to be considered a "sci" poster.

I think it's funny to think that the frontal cortex is what's responsible for a human being's higher intelligence and sense of self, and if it wasn't for more brain matter, then you people wouldn't even be able to say that it's free will that gives you your autonomy.