How does /lit/ reconcile free will with cause and effect? If

I am human being thus my perception is limited so i don't even care

>>9089284
>Inb4 quantum mechanics random quantum random quantum quarks quarks quantum

Free will is the belief that the agent field is produced by the human body. It has nothing to do with determinism.

>>9089284
>if we agree that everything needs a cause

But see OP, thats just where i disagree. I agree that the vast majority of events are mostly predetermined, but there is some chance of pure randomness. even if that chance is .0000000000000000000000001% it still is some chance.

I get it, >>9089306
But if you understand quantum you understand that the future is in no way guaranteed. Hence free will.

Even if it is 99.9999999999(top over 9[how do i make this symbol on my
Phone?]), there still a chance for random events to occur. While free will might be incredibly unlikely, it still has a chance.

>>9089310
Stop redefining freedom, compatabilist.
>>9089336
You can't just use random in place of understanding. Random is just a word used when we don't understand a mechanic.

>>9089284
Not only is you're every action predetermined. But you can't even prove anything outside your consciousness exists, or whether you can accurately perceive reality. You're a flicker of a mind in a dark epistemically unknowable cosmos, which will soon go dim.

:)

I am >>9089336

>implying we know when "random" is used

But we really dont know many mechanics. I argue that we cannot objectively predict all mechanics. For instance, why is it that gravity pushes AND can pull?

Is there an instance where what we consider to be "gravity" (whether you call it the graviton, a combination of other bosons, or something else) completely defies our prediction of what it is supposed to do? Of course not. All we have is the data of the past: and even that cannot predict the future.

Compatibilists: 1
Determinists: 0

>>9089420
Woops, forgot to link you, cant predict that
>>9089350

hah man i know this is just the Big Man trying to pull one over on my again. Every time i stop caring about this i see something to pull me back in. Well, not again. Libertarian till i die lmao.

>>9089420
lActually we can show that one event repeated will yield the same result, Hume. If everything is exactly the same and we repeat an even ad infinity we will always have the same result. We do this everyday with machinery.

Free will exists a priori

& Humanities was a mistake.

>>9089452
Nothing /exists/ a priori.

>>9089458
>Nothing exists outside of what we experience

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

>>9089440
There is no test that can prove that anything works infinitely long.

Even if we test some given scenario for 200 trillion years, that does not imply if will work for infinity. Dont you know what infinity implies?

>>9089473
Define experience. We can potentially observe, or experience, everything within the universe.

>>9089302
this

>>9089489
Infinity is not literal, because it does not exist, it is used to describe a state with no foreseeable end. You're not refuting determinism, by the way, if anything you're helping it by showing that it is falsifiable.

>>9089440
More on>>9089489
These tests that last 200 billion years or longer only prove that any given scenario is only
99.99999999999[top over the last 9] % true.
Nothing can be guaranteed [ironically this is the only guarantee]. I know, huge blow to your world. Fap and youll feel okay, then go about your small life.

>>9089302
If your perception is so limited them how do you know your perception is limited?

>>9089495
I'm not sure what this has to do with your argument that nothing exists a priori.

>>9089507
You're actually not adding anything, you're just repeating yourself.

>>9089513
He only understood your initial a prior comment after responding to you twice.

>>9089513
It means yes if you properly define experience.

>>9089523
No, you're mistaken.

>>9089489
>Dont you know what infinity implies?

MOST people cannot grasp infinity. They were taught limits and boundaries but they never "l-earned" intelligence and open-mindedness. Though lots of people babble "life-long learner" on their resume; but they also put down "multi-tasking," as if they have two brains (when they don't have a working one).

>>9089512
I presume . I can't see through walls etc

>>9089559
Then don't make definite statements.

>>9089562
What are you, the statements police?

>>9089562
my god you are dumb. As if self-perception implied perception it's unlimited.

Can we at least agree that "willpower" is something that exists?

>>9089505
>it does not exist
>it is used to describe some state with no foreseeable end

So it does exist, in some sense?

I get it, infinity as a concept is impossible to fully define.
But nonetheless, we can ignore the solipsist argument that it is not somewhat true because we cannot be fully sure of it.

Listen i am not refuting determinism competely. I am refuting it wholly. Splitting hairs, i know, a fine line, but a necessary line. I accept that the vast majority of the universe is predetermined.

But there is a small minority that is subject to chaotic and utterly unpredictable forces of chance. My argumentation borders religious (and let me make it clear, i am atheistic [but i am an agnostic before i am an atheist]).

And this small minority of the undetermined destroys complete and total determinism. We cannot know infinity because it is incomplete, impossible to define. Per Wittgenstein, we cannot attempt to communicate our feelings, our very being, because it is not static- it is not a complete and total thing.

It is always somewhat incomplete. Listen anon, keep going down the Sam Harris path, but what you will find that there are some things determinism wishes it could account for, but it cannot.

Godspeed, friend

>>9089562
It is a statement delimited and determined by my own perception that I consider limited. Stop inserting here your point of view

>>9089525
It doesn't matter if a priori is independent of experience.

>>9089284
free will and determinism are human constructs, therefore we dictate their truthfulness.

>>9089579
>So it does exist, in some sense?
As a concept, not physically.

>I get it, infinity as a concept is impossible to fully define.
But nonetheless, we can ignore the solipsist argument that it is not somewhat true because we cannot be fully sure of it.
That isn't an argument for the physical existence of infinity. You're saying we should just live in a state of unsureness despite our evidence showing it to be far more likely that infinity cannot exist within our finite universe?

>Listen i am not refuting determinism competely. I am refuting it wholly. Splitting hairs, i know, a fine line, but a necessary line. I accept that the vast majority of the universe is predetermined.
Good. But you can't refute anything by merely stating a possibility, without evidence, that it may be false.

>But there is a small minority that is subject to chaotic and utterly unpredictable forces of chance. My argumentation borders religious (and let me make it clear, i am atheistic [but i am an agnostic before i am an atheist]).
We don't understand those things, such as quantum theory, enough to know there is no law there.

>And this small minority of the undetermined destroys complete and total determinism. We cannot know infinity because it is incomplete, impossible to define. Per Wittgenstein, we cannot attempt to communicate our feelings, our very being, because it is not static- it is not a complete and total thing.
That doesn't destroy it, see above.

>It is always somewhat incomplete. Listen anon, keep going down the Sam Harris path, but what you will find that there are some things determinism wishes it could account for, but it cannot.
Sam Harris is no determinist.

>>9089284
Even if that were true, the illusion would still be real for us. We would still proceed through our lives indulging in the illusion of choice, and reflecting on the ramifications of the perceived choices we experienced.

>>9089655
It's about what is true, it doesn't matter if it changes anything.

>>9089643
Thank you for responding coherent thoughts


>as a concept, not physically
I agree with you that the idea of infinity is unprovable. Perhaps the idea of infinity is unfalsifiable? Maybe this is already some theory that i am unaware of, if not dont steal my thoughts
Inb4: google it anon lmao pleb

>I get it, infinity as a concept is impossible to fully define.

Correct, i agree with you that infinity as a concept is impossible to fully define


>But you can't refute anything by merely stating a possibility, without evidence, that it may be false.

Ah but i can. The very possibility that the universe is determined or is indeterminate is a belief, is it not? I guess i dont operate under the assumption(see:belief) that rationalism/logicism is the only way to come to a conclusion.

>We don't understand those things, such as quantum theory, enough to know there is no law there.

In a sense i agree with you, we can never be fully sure. However, because quantum teaches us that we cannot be fully sure, this destroys our hopes of being completely sure. For example, research quantum superposition, or Schrodingers Cat.

On the whole i agree with you that determinism is unproved. Really our quibble boils down to which description of the universe we feel is more accurate, which can never be proven, because the universe is not done, it seems to be infinite

(See how quickly i insert my point of view? I am unavoidable)

>Sam Harris is no determinist

He sure acts like it.
>have you ever meditated and perceived the contents of your conscious? If you do you will realize that all of your thoughts are entirely not of your making, and that all of your thoughts are developed before you even have a chance to interact, perceive them

Ok Sam. At what point do we hold bodies resposible for their actions? If a murderer commits a crime, do we say "oh his body reacted so fast he didnt have a chance to intercept it, therefore "he" isnt guilty, his body is"?)

One must accept responsibility for ones body, even the hairs that instictively and uncontrollably grow on ones body, despite one having very little control over them. (After all, one has control: one could commit suicide).

>>9089755
>Perhaps the idea of infinity is unfalsifiable?
I think it is at least falsifiable within our universe as we once we finish our expansion, followed by our contraction, and the death of the universe. Infinity outside of the universe? Not subject to our physical laws, so impossible to say anything about it.
>The very possibility that the universe is determined or is indeterminate is a belief
More of a theory when speaking of determinism. It's not like either of them are backed by no evidence, however.
>In a sense i agree with you, we can never be fully sure.
It's not exactly about being fully sure or not. We can never be without any doubt, that is impossible as long as our perception of the world around us remains fallible. But we can be more sure of things than others, and currently our understanding of quantum mechanics does not give a better indication of what to assume.
>it seems to be infinite
No, it is almost definitely finite.
>At what point do we hold bodies resposible for their actions? If a murderer commits a crime, do we say "oh his body reacted so fast he didnt have a chance to intercept it, therefore "he" isnt guilty, his body is"
How do you separate him from his body? What is him?
>After all, one has control: one could commit suicide).
Being able to commit suicide no more proves one to have free will than the ability to clap or jump.

>>9089284
Stop thinking of the mind "self" as a singular 1 dimensional pointalistic particle, and you may discover the secret to the answer.

>>9089284
read kant fucktard

>>9090349
It's really more of a contemporary issue. Kant has nothing to say on neuroscience and quantum mechanics, which are essential to the debate.

>>9089284
That's just like saying free trade isn't a thing because corporations'/agents' actions will always be aimed at getting profits. Economic agents are responsible for judging where the worthiests profits are.

>>9090367
neuroscience and quantum mechanics philosophically are equivalent to mechanism
you can't disregard philosophy in favour of a scientific absolutism, science and philosophy are seperate and mutually complementary disciplines! also kant was a cosmologist

>>9090404
That is not at all apt. Not even close. The problem of free will is that cause and effect, in the laws of physics, render it theoretically false.
>>9090410
The thing is, without quantum mechanics we can observe that free will is false. But when we consider quantum mechanics we see that order in the universe is much hazier.

>>9090466
So whay would you say makes human decisions not free?

>>9090466
*what

File: 1473090522176.jpg (134KB, 1072x553px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 1072x553px

>free will is an illusion
Free will can't be an illusion. At best/worst it's a bad metaphysical concept. Illusion is when something is different from what it seems. It's an illusion to hear or see what's not there and this is relevant when we are talking about the sanity of a person's senses but is not relevant and even a category mistake in regards to the content of the seen or heard. The imagined duck quacked and offered it's sage advice to me. When I see the duck in relation to its advice it is impossible for the duck to be an illusion, that would be a category mistake. It's only an illusion in relation to my very illusory sensory perception of it. The duck in all its wisdom doesn't exist in the empirical realm, that's the illusion. Analogically something can be according to my will or against my will even when there is no man inside the machine. After all it's not the man("me" in casual speech) who chooses, it's my free will.

The rest is a matter of convention in labeling but I get the feeling people are very caught up in their habitual use of words such as freedom and selfhood and aren't very considerate of alternatives. That sucks.

Cause and effect implies infinite regress.
So, as far as I am concerned, cause and effectis not a valid.

>>9090478
No it doesn't, infinity does not exist either.
>>9090470
That they are bound to cause and effect, meaning that they are not independent, or free.
>>9090477
People will commonly say, in defence of free will, that free will seems to be true to them, it is an illusion.

>>9090484
>people will commonly say
are you making arguments in behalf of others?

>>9090504
This thread was also posted on /pol/, look at the responses in the archive.

>>9090507
so what? you are still making arguments in behalf of others and not discussing your own idea

>>9090478
It's a closed loop, anon, no beginning and no end. All the pieces inside impact each other, but there was never no pieces.

The big bang theory has led you astray.

>>9090515
I'm discussing the idea that free will can be called an illusion. It is something false that people believe to experience, therefore an illusion.

>>9090484
>That they are bound to cause and effect, meaning that they are not independent, or free.
Why do you equate independence and freedom? Something independent has no causes. Causes lead to what it is and which cannot be another way. Every human action participes in what it is and cannot be changed as much as its consequences do. Will, or ability to make decisions, are straightened into what it is. When we talk about indetermination in human actions, we ain't talking about the same kind of indetermination that could be said to exist in what it is.
A decision will lead to an unchangeable state of things; once there, it will be absurd to talk about any other possible or hypothetical way of confronting the decision, and a revisited tale of the decision and the action will have to close the door to any other possibilities, since they are no longer possible. The only possible state of things is the current one, the one that was caused by the action, the action is ineluctable now and we can give causes for it.
But even tho, the action was free because it was born from a decision. How can a decision not be free? It certainly isn't independent, but since it is a decision it can be confronted in different ways.

>>9090484
>People will commonly say, in defence of free will, that free will seems to be true to them, it is an illusion.
If they say free will "seems" that way as to imply it's compatible with and they subscribe to a empiristic worldview, I agree. Our sensory perception of free will is illusory. However cause and effect doesn't apply to the inner system of what you put on paper, only you putting it on paper. People are justified in knowing they have free will as this system, e.g. a conceptualized will that is acted against, has obvious effect on the empirical world including their own neural networks and so forth. People are not acting from illusion when they do this as that would mean the system hinges on being there in the empirical world. It doesn't, only the ink, paper, a more or less narrow interpretation based on individual education, culture. There is much more to be discovered on that paper than what you are adapted to see in your current form, much more.

>>9090522
>Why do you equate independence and freedom?
Because an individual's will must be able to exist independent of external factors to be considered free by definition.
>But even tho[sic], the action was free because it was born from a decision.
That simply does not follow. You are, for one, presuming the decision to be free, when it is determined by external factors affecting the neural activity of the individual decision maker.
>How can a decision not be free?
If it is the product of a set of circumstances within the brain and cannot be independently formulated. It means that, when there is no free will there is also no free thought.

>>9090529
>However cause and effect doesn't apply to the inner system of what you put on paper
Do you mean the neurology behind motor skills or the expression of thought? Both are deterministic.

>>9090540
>Because an individual's will must be able to exist independent of external factors to be considered free by definition.
That's absurd. Human will is the faculty of reasoning and judging the external, the present and unchangeable state of things. Nothing that can be called will, or freedom, falls out of there. You're, once again, failing to recognize how independence and free decision apply to different ambits.
Also, you're stablishing a distinction between cerebral processes and will/decision that doesn't really mean shit. They're the same. They both areb what makes a balance of the situation and makes a way of acting seem more appealing than others.

>>9090565
>Human will is the faculty of reasoning
I suppose you could say that.
>and judging the external
No, that's not the will we're referring to. We mean the will to reason and act on said reason.
>You're, once again, failing to recognize how independence and free decision apply to different ambits.
Neither of them exist, so it is moot.
>Also, you're stablishing a distinction between cerebral processes and will/decision that doesn't really mean shit. They're the same.
I'm not, what made you think it that? I said that will and decision stem from processes in the brain.

>>9090581
>No, that's not the will we're referring to. We mean the will to reason and act on said reason.
That's just what I said. Judging the external and adopting an attitude towards it basing on that judgement.
>Neither of them exist, so it is moot.
They exist at less as different concepts , which you're mixing up.
>I'm not, what made you think it that? I said that will and decision stem from processes in the brain.
You're affirming that as a way of expressing that human will and actions are pushed by X (in this case, neural shit) and therefore not free. Neural shit is just the same as decision. It's evaluating the state of things and the ways it can be confronted, ranking them by their preferability. They keep the same place in the great scheme of things, determination and human actions. They're an undefined value and we can only talk about their consequences and offspring once they are effective and ineluctable.

>>9090608
Should have mentioned action, you basically just repeated yourself.
I'm not mixing them up, unless you think originating from the same place is mixing it up.
Not so much evaluating as it is a reaction. More like a reflex than anything.
The point is that as a reaction they wholly depend on a cause. They cannot be expressed independently of their cause so they are not free, if we define free as the state of not being bound or under control.

>>9090615
>I'm not mixing them up, unless you think originating from the same place is mixing it up.
>originating from the same place
What are tou talking about there?
>The point is that as a reaction they wholly depend on a cause. They cannot be expressed independently of their cause so they are not free, if we define free as the state of not being bound or under control.
Consummated actions cannot be free or unfree because they're ineluctable. The decision between doing them or abstaining from it is free.

>>9090641
The brain.
No human decision can be free unless you've got a contrary definition of free to what I posited.

>>9090646
Your definition of human freedom is mixed with your definition of causal independence.
I define human freedom as, just like I said before, the capacity of judging the current state of things and recognizing different ways of approaching it. Every action made in those circunstances is a free iniciative. Its results, or the consummated action, isn't free or non free as it isn't be blue or red. It's causal and necessary.

File: 1484350654837.jpg (134KB, 653x1024px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 653x1024px

>>9089284
its called existentialism

>>9090646
>implying the mind exists because of the brain

laughing at you

>>9090661
No, I'm talking about the freedom of the development of an idea, be it human or otherwise. The brain cannot act independently, meaning it acts at the behest, so to speak, of external forces. That is not free by the definition I posited that you did not rebuke.
>I define human freedom as, just like I said before, the capacity of judging the current state of things and recognizing different ways of approaching it.
But that is not human. You should rather say it is the freedom of electrical impulses in the brain acting in a chain of cause and effect with external stimuli.
>Its results, or the consummated action, isn't free or non free as it isn't be blue or red. It's causal and necessary.
The effect of the cause is irrelevant. We're talking about how free the impulses in the brain that determine will are.

>>9090668
where to start with the motherfucking knight of faith?

>>9090677

With a thorough understanding of Kant's transcendental subject.

>>9090671
Define both, please. The mind, consciousness and all that entails, is generally understood to be a product of neural activity.

File: Screen-Shot-2014-10-27-at-9.17.07-PM - kopia.png (2MB, 1148x806px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1148x806px

>>9089284
Revolution.

>>9090696
>generally understood

yeah by fucking retards who think empiricism is valid

>>9090676
>The brain cannot act independently, meaning it acts at the behest, so to speak, of external forces. That is not free by the definition I posited that you did not rebuke.
The concept of freedom doesn't apply in this case to the lack of causes, but to the recognition of possibilities.
>You should rather say it is the freedom of electrical impulses in the brain acting in a chain of cause and effect with external stimuli.
Well that's what I said. You're the one that insists on contemplating neural shit as a node for the subsequently consummated action instead of the source for freedom of decision.

Mira, me estáis tocando la polla ya.

>>9090728
So how is the mind, consciousness, independent of the brain? What is your issue with empirical data?
>>9090729
>The concept of freedom doesn't apply in this case to the lack of causes, but to the recognition of possibilities.
Why is that? The recognition of possibilities does not necessarily confirm a choice, either.
>Well that's what I said. You're the one that insists on contemplating neural shit as a node for the subsequently consummated action instead of the source for freedom of decision.
I've mentioned action in the definition of will, you seem confused. There is no freedom of decision if it is controlled by external stimuli.

>>9090739
Níl uacht saor in aisce ann

>>9090742
you are a little baby

the essence of the mind need not to be existence to exist

>>9089284

She looks exactly like some Korean girl I didn't sleep with once.

(http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/Dome/index.html#Note 6)

''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. (Relativity)''


''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. (Newtonian Mechanics)
''

Also please source on the OP.

>>9090771
>The ball may also start into motion
So it is an unmoved mover?

>>9090752
I'm not some drunk chick you need to impress.

>>9090779

I think you should check out the link my man.

And I also think you people making these threads need to choose different pictures for the OP.

>>9090789
Archive it.

>>9090789
You don't like gooks?

File: Wojak.jpg (44KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 800x800px

>>9090800

No, precisely the opposite.

>>9089284
Because you have a spirit that is immortal and separate from the events you experience. When confronting the world it allows you to make decisions among the available choice to you.

>>9090817
>Because you have a spirit that is immortal and separate from the events you experience
Bold claim. How were you made aware of that?

>>9090829
You start by assuming we have a meaningful existence and then find the necessary component to that.

>>9090835
What happens if you assume a meaningless existence?

>>9090839
I'm not interested in knowing.

>>9090848
top kek

>>9089661
It absolutely matters. At that point, truth becomes relative - the "truth" which you are attempting to unveil would be a truth which would never be true in man's experience, and therefore, only relevant to beings outside of the human delusion.

>>9089284
Free will IS the cause.

When an outside cause affects you, the effect is 'making a decision'. This decision is made by your free will, which is shaped by your personality and informed by your past, and your decisions becomes the cause of an effect on the world.

It's pretty simple really.

>>9092553
>does not understand that those decisions correspond to activated neurological structures, which operate under the laws of physics and biology.

>>9092574
>Doesn't realize that which neurological structures are activated are your own choice
You have my pity, letting your Id make your decisions for you.

>>9092635
So your "choice" exists in a non-physical realm outside the structures of neurobiology? So you are a spiritualist?

>>9089284
Either way, I know that I must take responsibility for myself.

>>9092755
good Shinji

>>9092553
No cause can exist without a prior cause.
>>9092635
False. Unless you identify as a chain of external stimuli acting upon one another.

Cause and effect doesn't happen you stupid reductionist.
>>9089495
t. fedoralord

>>9090367
>le science
>relevant to a debate
Take your children's shit back to lebbit
>>9090410
Science is a children's philosophy.
>>9090466
hurr if one le science is wrong, then another is le right!

>>9093068
Wow, great argument. You are also a wearer of unfashionable hats. Take that.
Denying scientific evidence doesn't make you seem more intelligent by the way.

File: 4.jpg (99KB, 788x784px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 788x784px

>>9089284
here my friend, I have fixed your awfully adjusted photograph for you

>>9093079
>evidence
Doesn't exist. Science has piss-poor epistemological grounds.
>Arguments are good
More Reddit ideals based on poor epistemology.

File: images(23).jpg (36KB, 459x581px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 459x581px

>>9093086
This is why nobody takes you continentals seriously.

>>9089284
Have you even read Kant? You don't even have to read any of the Critiques, just the end of the Groundwork.

>>9093101
t. redditor in first year 'philosophy'

Empirical data is not valid unless one believes it to be.

>>9093080
that doesn't look better

>>9090466
Nothing in the world of appearances, including quantum physics, can have any bearing on the question of free will, because that is a question of things in themselves (subjects) for which free will is not only possible, but necessary!

>>9093079
There's no scientific evidence for cause and effect. Science presupposes cause and effect. Have you even read Hume?

>>9093131
Ah, yes, this old one. However, you don't know what scientific evidence means and you don't realise that you do not refute the scientific method by positing a way in which it is falsifiable.
>>9093120
It can, actually, due to the movement subatomic particles in the scope of quantum mechanics.
>>9093116
t. anti-science hipster

>>9093190
t. first-year 'philosophy' major

Fuck off back to bebddit, and take your shite philosophy with you.

>>9089284
Cogito ergo sum. That is all I know.

>>9093203
I'm not a philosophy student, I study physics. You need to take your bad philosophy back to France.

>>9093221
>physics
It's just bad philosophy for redditors.

File: philosophy.jpg (75KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 850x400px

>>9093335

>>9093348
femen is also bad philosophy.

>>9093354
You can't know that, you can't know nothing.

>>9093367
Simply epin

Don't you have some first year calculus homework to do?

>>9093375
I don't know, my knowledge of that is subject to my fallible sense.

>>9093390
t. redditor that doesn't understand post-modernism

>>9093407
How can you truly understand anything?

>>9093408
Fuck off, Redditor.

>>9093410
How do you know I'm even posting? If you say scientific endeavor can't determine anything then how can philosophy?

>>9093411
Science is philosophy, a bad philosophy. Go read a fucking book you teenage twat.

>>9093426
What's the point of reading if knowing is impossible?

>>9093426
I kinda agree with you, but you need to chill. You are way too triggered right now

>>9093426
>le "it's not perfect so it's bad even though there is no conceivable alternative" meme

>>9093430
Are you fucking autistic?
>>9093433
>alternatives
Why is one needed you stupid fuck? It's not that it's not perfect, it's that it doesn't even take itself seriously. It's epistemology rejects itself.

>>9093445
I wouldn't be able to know if I was autistic because knowing is impossible.

>>9093445
>It's epistemology rejects itself.

How so? I sincerely want to know.

>>9093454
You can't know.

>>9089284
A few things:

-None of this is provable. Causality isnt provable and randomness isnt provable
-Complete determination and complete randomness need not be the only way the universe operates. The same with varying degrees of randomness/causation
-The mind and how/why it operates is still the biggest enigma of science/philosophy/humanity. Stop saying its all neurons. No one knows. Literally no one has a good explanation of any of this yet, and i dont think we will within any of our lifetimes
-This is all reductionism. Brains may or may not be at the mercy or atoms juat as atoms may or may not be the mercy of brains--or whatever controls a brain to control the atoms.
-An eye-roller, but relevant: science is NOT reliable enough to know anything beyond safe certainty, which is nowhere near true knowledge, or even quasi-true knowledge. Its less blind than religion or assumption, but its still an aimless blade. In my opinion personal truth is nearly as reliable as "objective" truth.
-Lastly, and most importantly: it doesnt fuckin matter bro.

Source: was a spinozist for about a year until i actually branched out and realized theres debate for a genuine reason, not just "muh freedom". Anyone who has an answer and lives with the answer is fooling themselves. Freedom of the will is absolutely not impossible like so many of you like to say, and its not a priori either. It just is. We just are. Calm down, read some celine, call your mother, smoke something green. Dont wreck your life with these things, for God's sake please.

>>9093456
Why? I was being completely honest. I want to know, can you recommend a book or anything?

>>9093445
Anybody who tries to communicate anything has already accepted the axioms of science. Therefore, anybody who tries to make an argument against it is a hypocrite and may as well be rolling their face on a keyboard.

>>9093460
>Literally no one has a good explanation of any of this yet
There are plenty of explanations, the problem is that we currently lack the tools to test them. We probably have the answer already, but don't have any of the technology to take advantage of it. All our knowledge on quantum mechanics would be useless to a civilization that is incapable of creating a basic laser.

>>9093452
Knowing isn't impossible, it doesn't exist. You believe and truth follows.
>>9093456
I've forgotten my argument and I have actual crap to do, so I'll take the easy path:
Something about unfalsifiable axioms, silly presuppositions based in 12th century thought, and the reliance on pragmatism but the inability to ever defend it.

It werks so its right, it's right because I said it is fuck you it werks.
>>9093460
Science is only assumption you fucking child.
>>9093465
Wrong, stop trying to discuss things you don't understand.

>>9093462
Knowing is impossible.

>>9093474
Science, the scientific method, is falsifiable.

We have as much free will as trees or microwaves

/sci/ had far more intelligent answers to the question of free will.

>>9093475
Am I getting trolled? :(

>>9093489
You can never know for sure.

>>9093474
>I don't know shit about science but I'll tell you why it's wrong.

>>9089533
Underrated post

>>9093479
Its axioms are not. Learn to read.

It's garbage for garbage people stuck in mechanizing Apollonian nonsense.
>>9093480
t. reddit
>>9093499
I know far far more about it than you. Get your head out of your ass and accept that your ideology is terrible.

>>9093732
>Its axioms are not. Learn to read.
Yes they are.
>It's garbage for garbage people stuck in mechanizing Apollonian nonsense.
Yet here you are on the internet. Shouldn't you go live as a hermit or something, overman?

>>9093758
>Yet here you are on the internet. Shouldn't you go live as a hermit or something, overman?
Why should I do what you say?

>Yes they are.
Then how are they axioms? Axioms have to be self-evident and dogmatic to be valid as axioms.

>>9093770
>Why should I do what you say?
How do you know I said it?
>Then how are they axioms? Axioms have to be self-evident and dogmatic to be valid as axioms.
No they don't, don't be silly. An axiom is merely a starting point for reasoning. I think you're using an outdated definition.

>>9093784
>No they don't, don't be silly. An axiom is merely a starting point for reasoning.
Why is reasoning good?

Why should I accept your reddit faiths instead of mine?
>I think you're using an outdated definition.
Said the teenager, likely one who claims to be progressive, that is stuck in 12th century thought.

>>9093793
>Why is reasoning good?
Not a value judgement.
>Why should I accept your reddit faiths instead of mine?
What faith?
>Said the teenager, likely one who claims to be progressive, that is stuck in 12th century thought.
Scientific thought evolves over time, unlike your dogma.

>>9093807
I am not sure evolving implies superiority tho. (not the guy you are discussing btw)

>>9093819
>I am not sure evolving implies superiority tho[sic].
Not the point.

>>9089284
You assume that everything needs a cause on false grounds. Don't be lazy read Hume.

>>9093851
As far as we can tell everything needs a cause. Falsifiable ground is not the same as false ground.

>>9093851
Everyone makes that assumption when they take any conscious action.

>>9093865
>>9093869
Go back to reddirt and take your scientism with you.

I don't get how anyone can possibly believe in free will, there are literally innumerable examples of how it is patently impossible.

For instance, this one time I had a headache and so I closed my eyes and thought "this is my will, this is your will speaking, freely, blood vessels, neurons, I demand you to stop functioning in such a manner that is causing me pain, in 5 seconds", and my headache went on for some minutes after.

If my will was truly free, it would have freely been able to will my headache away. Thus, my will is not free. I do not have freewill. Freewill is impossible.

>>9094024
You had the free will to jump down from a high building which would have cured your headache.

>>9089284
Who is this semen demon?

>>9094185
Generic chinawoman #39470184

>>9093807
>Scientific thought evolves over time
No it doesn't, since it hasn't changed since Aristotle became popular in the West (again.)
The changes are insignificant.
>What faith?
In your axioms, you illiterate.
>unlike your dogma
You're the only dogmatist here.
>>9094024
>I don't understand what free will is
>le neuron meme

>>9095390
>>I don't understand what free will is
Exactly my point. Maybe if everyone agreed on the definition before the arguments there would be no or different argumenting.

>>9094082
>You had the free will to jump down from a high building which would have cured your headache.

Yeah but I didnt think of that. If you told me to try that, then it still wouldnt be my free will, I then would have been determined by you...

I had my will. I tried to freely use it. It did not work. I do not have free will.

>>9095472
Yes there would, because you people are autistic.
>>9095482
t. redditor that doesn't know what 'free will' is

File: tmp_31646-14864651683632015132520.jpg (165KB, 439x550px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 439x550px

>ctrl-f kant
>0 results

>>9095510
Cunt's views are obsolete.

>>9095500
>>t. redditor that doesn't know what 'free will' is

I have already written a proof (of multiple proofs) (maybe going on a few years now) of free will, if everyone read it there would be no arguments anymore.

But please, define it, for us, and maybe agreeing on a definition will alter some arguments.

>>9095510
>>ctrl-f kant
>>0 results
>*6 results
>1 assumption
>priceless
>for everything else, theres masterass

File: PowerfulKantianStare.jpg (47KB, 992x558px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 992x558px

>>9095528

You're obsolete faggot

>>9093190
You said that free will is demonstrably false unless you introduce quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics has interesting implications within the world of appearances, but that's the totally besides the point, because free will is already necessary outside of the world of appearances. You're presenting a potentially insufficient argument for free will when a perfectly sufficient one already exists! Sit down and read the first two Critiques before posting again.