Stop believing in free will.

>>9104712
Can't

>>9104712
>Stop believing in free will.
I do not have the free will to be able to do so

>>9104718
I was determined to make this joke.

>find out I don't have free will

And now what? What am I supposed to do with that information?

It's like that reality is a computer simulation thing. I can't really do anything with this information but continue living like I would have lived anyway.

>>9104727
It's not that reality is like a simulation, it's just that nothing is truly independent and everything except the sub-atomic is subject to the laws of physics.

File: ahyes (2).webm (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

>>9104712
>free will

explain this

strong Ashkenazi genes

>>9104836
That illustrates the falsity of free will perfectly. Nothing can move without being acted upon. Without that belly attack the man would never have fallen down. Likewise the brain can not activate without movement from, first, external stimuli and, secondly, the resulting electrical impulses.

>>9104712
apologise for zoolander 2

File: Screenshot 2017-02-14 at 10.16.32 AM.png (250KB, 386x414px) Image search: [Google]

250KB, 386x414px

>>9104712

You'd better define your axioms a little more clearly before making such a bold demand, my boy

>>9104870
Not. A. Scientist.

>>9104892
>science
>relevant

>>9104892
He actually is a psychologist. But I can't take a psychologist serious who uses discredited or outdated theories and just so evolutionary psychobabble.
On the other hand I have a little sympathy for the guy. He seems to genuinely want some meaning in life and created that with his unique kind of ideology that he created

>>9104712
stop being the most jewish looking and sounding person existence. also stop being a manlet.

>>9104836
>cueball rolls into the pool table

pottery

>>9104712
Make me.

I used to have some respect for Sam but anyone with half a brain will conclude he is lost in his rationalistic determinism

Of course if you already agree with him that there is no such thing as free will and that we are all just robots and we cant possibly have any inkling of control in our experience then yeah he is a god

But after you grow out of your atheistic rationalist phase, commonly known as the Fedora Tipping of Youth, (quite common in the West), you dont know what to think. If God doesnt assign us our morality, who or what does? Insert Sam Harris: we do!!! But heres the catch: we have absolutely no control over our decisions. But we still must be punished for being out of control.

Lmao. He reminds me of Einstein, convinced that God doesnt play dice. Sam doesnt understand quantum much in the same way Einstein didnt, or didnt want to, because it disrupts their deterministic universe so completely

After all, who would want to accept that the Universe and thus our lives are completely out of our control? (Protip: it aint a genius). Quantum proves that the Universe is undetermined. Sure, some details are determined. But the key is that the universe as a whole is undetermined.

Much like Einstein, Sam will die for his silly beliefs (ironic considering his avid hate for religion). He so badly wants the universe to be deterministic, that he cant possibly see how it isnt.

Also JP isnt much better but at least he fights the SJW's

File: Hey kid.jpg (593KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

593KB, 900x900px

>>9104712

Stop believing in 'will' - free or not.

>>9105069
At best quantum mechanics makes our will probabilistic. That still means that thought does not exist independently of physical process determined by external stimuli. This does not make us robots, but rather just like every other animal on earth.

This is the third appearance of Joseph on Sam's podcast. This time, they go much further in their discussion of the nature of awakening.
In this episode of the Waking Up podcast, Sam Harris and Joseph Goldstein answer questions about the practice of mindfulness. They discuss negative emotions, the importance of ethics, the concept of enlightenment, and other topics.
https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/why-meditate

Previous exchange between Sam and Joseph:
https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/the-path-and-the-goal
https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/questions-along-the-way-further-reflections-on-the-practice-of-meditation-w

>>9105072

This.

>hurrr causality means no free will
This is your brain on STEM

Reminder that hard determinism violates Bell's theorem

I think Harris' examples of the 'movie choice' and the murderer with the tumor are decently convincing. The endless regressive stream of causes seems to make sense to me. Could someone lay out a concise argument for free will existing? Genuinely interested as many of the arguments I've seen for its existence tend to be more opaque and wishy-washy than the ones against it.

>>9105120
The only way thought would be exempt from determinism would be if it weren't physical. But we know that it is physical.

>>9105132
There's the argument from quantum mechanics, which states that due to the apparent, as of this time, non-deterministic nature of sub-atomic particles the nature of reality is similarly non-deterministic. However, as I already stated, quantum mechanics is, if anything, probabilistic, which still means that will is not free, as it is still subject to external causes, rather than having the propensity to act independently.

>>9105129
What about the pilot wave theory?

>>9104727
Not believing in free will allows you to stop viewing incarceration as a form of punishment rather than a form of containment.

>>9105153
Ok, sure. Would this line of thinking then argue that only the sub-atomic particles were the things that were free? And thus, their effects (essentially everything) were also 'free' but only insofar as they were dependent on a base level of freedom?

>>9105139
Physical causality does not remove free will because causality has no agency.
Consider an example:
You have three fishes. Fish A lives in an infinite ocean, and can swim in any direction at point. Lets assume this fish is free. Fish B lives in an aquarium, and can swim in any direction, however it's movement is limited by artificial barrier of a tank. Fish C lives in a tube, and can only move in one direction.
Point is, claiming that both fish B and C are equaly unfree is obviously absurd, and within the framework of the argument it's impossible to determine whether our universe is best represented by a tank (set-up) or a tube (design)

File: IMG_7508.jpg (87KB, 385x600px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 385x600px

In this world, is the destiny of mankind controlled by some transcendental entity or law? Is it like the hand of god hovering above? At least it is true, that man has no control, even over his own will.

>>9105153
I'm not sure having a probability to be somewhere (or multiple positions) at a given moment means that it's determined. Similarly, being acted upon by external forces does not necessitate determinism. You can have a probability to do something and be acted on externally while not being determined to be in a certain position. Hence, probability.

Not sure you can cite probability as evidence for physical determinism

>>9105156
That satisfies bell theorem but it's also hard for me to get behind pilot wave theory; isn't it just an advocation for super determinism without any real evidence?

>>9105069
> If God doesnt assign us our morality, who or what does? Insert Sam Harris: we do!!! But heres the catch: we have absolutely no control over our decisions. But we still must be punished for being out of control.

Not a good representation of his positions.

Morality: We should care about the well-being of living creatures and center our morality on maximizing that. "We do" might as well be science does, if we can scientifically measure it in the future. Our whims don't decide, which "we do" implies.

>But heres the catch: we have absolutely no control over our decisions. But we still must be punished for being out of control.
Yeah, and the problem is what? We shouldn't have to suffer due to letting people who want others to suffer roam free, there's no problem or contradiction here. He isn't for punishment either, rather containing them/limiting their potential for harm. If there was a pill that'd turn them "good", then we'd give them that and not just make them suffer for the fuck of it.

>>9105180
In the Judeo-Christian context, no. We have free-will, God simply knows what we will choose. No, this does not mean that it's determined. It simply means that God can see the entire timeline.

>>9105169
Sub-atomic particles are the basis of everything, so it would mean everything is deterministic from them.
>>9105177
The argument is about the freedom of our thoughts and actions. If our thoughts and actions are effects of external stimuli then they are not independent and, therefore, not free. The three goldfish, subject to the same physiology, are equally unfree as their experience is entirely shaped by external stimuli outside of their control.
>>9105183
Only the sub-atomic is probabilistic.

>>9105207
Yes, so if the foundation for physical causation is probabilistic, how is the whole immune to probability concerns?

>>9105217
I said from, as in after and nont including.

Reminder that all musing on free will is pointless until we agree on a definition of the Self, something Materialism is deathly afraid of.

Sam Harris eats doody.

>>9105226
That's not how capital letters work!

>>9105226
If by self you mean the individual, then you're simply referring to the biological structure of homo sapiens. The brain controls everything you know of someone, their personality and the like, and the brain is entirely physical.

>>9105234

Sorry.

sam harris eats Doody.

Better?

File: wrong.gif (1MB, 480x287px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 480x287px

>>9105240

>>9105247
Define "the self", then.

>>9105255
The non-physical manifestation of the Will.

>>9105268
So you're defining a nonsense term in such a way that it proves your point? This is continental philosophy, I suppose.

>>9105223
Erm perhaps I'm misunderstanding but didn't you assert that, because the sub-atomic is probabilistic, it doesn't have the potential to act independently? If the sub-atomic isn't determined, how can physical reactions that are rooted in the sub-atomic be determined?

>>9105255

A vantage point on the chain of Platonic refraction of the Eschaton.

>>9105279
>but didn't you assert that, because the sub-atomic is probabilistic, it doesn't have the potential to act independently?
No, that was about human will, not the sub-atomic. Though probabilistic and freely are totally different. The sub-atomic is probabilistic in that we can determine its actions and reactions within a number of possibilities. But this is not deterministic in the sense of the laws of physics that apply to us.
To everything outside of the sub-atomic we have no issue with determinism, as the laws of physics which we have observed apply to us.

>>9105289
I'd ask you to simplify this, as we do in the sciences, but we both know it is total rubbish.

File: FORMS.gif (3KB, 379x234px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 379x234px

>>9105319

Form of Good = Eschaton

>science
>>>/x/

>>9105325
How do you know anything exists beyond the material?

>>9105332

Exactly!

>>9105340
That's not an appropriate statement for the situation. You're claiming its existence and you have no reason to actually believe it exists.

>>9105207
>The argument is about the freedom of our thoughts and actions. If our thoughts and actions are effects of external stimuli then they are not independent and, therefore, not free. The three goldfish, subject to the same physiology, are equally unfree as their experience is entirely shaped by external stimuli outside of their control.
You're not supposed to take metaphors literally, baka
The problem with your (and, well, Harris's) defition of free will is that you have a very strange, edgy idea of freedom which only exists if you can essentially ignore the universe around you, step outside of it, and make your decision. In other words, by your defition only God can be free. That's retarded. Freedom is the abilily to execute the will according to your own agency, you become unfree the moment some other, external agency takes precedence over your own. My example with fishes was meant to indicate that closed systems can be both designed with agency, like a tube, or without, like an aquarium. You and Harris both claim that the fish is only free if it can jump out of the water and play a guitar at will, which is stupid because fishes don't work like that.

>>9105299
Okay so my question from that may be a basic one (I'm no physicist):

What effect does the probabilistic nature of the sub-atomic have on perceivable, physical reality? For instance, if there are two possibilities for something happening at the sub-atomic level (E.g. A or B) and A happens instead of B, how does that change reality, however minute the effect may be?

I realize reality is a vague term. By that, I suppose I mean what we traditionally conceive as being observable, physical causation. What would happen if B happened instead of A? Would it matter?

File: tfw to smart to exist among plebeians.jpg (120KB, 960x804px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 960x804px

>>9105348

>tfw watching Anglo-Saxon STEMtards attempt philosophy

>>9105350
Free will doesn't mean freedom to execute the will, it refers to freedom to determine the will. If your thoughts and, therefore will, are the product of the execution of the effect due to an external cause on the brain, how is your will free at all?
There is no need for any god or gods to explain anything within the universe, by the way.

>>9105350
Hmm, this seems like a step in the right direction for me as far as an argument for free will.

What would you say to someone who agreed with you but said that the 'will' was simply caused by all the preceding causes and their effects? Would it simply be that we need to not expect such perfection out of a notion of free will (as Harris does, like you said, God and all)?

What about his argument about if you could freeze the universe at this exact moment we would realize that the next action or thought (etc) was dependant upon the state of the universe at this moment?

I hope I'm not coming off rude or antagonistic...I'm just trying to feel my way through this whole line of thinking.

>>9105352
It doesn't change reality, it means that from B causality will determine what comes forth as all things outside of the sub-atomic they will form the chain of causality acting and reacting in accordance with the observable laws of physics. Now remember, these are occurring constantly at speeds faster than you can imagine in an unquantifiable number of ways throughout the expanding universe.

File: images(24).jpg (98KB, 716x428px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 716x428px

>>9105367
You have a strange sense of worship for a certain kind of philosophy that can be described as mental masturbation. You achieve nothing and have no better an understanding of the world around you by playing word games.

>>9105371
It seems we operate under entirely different notions of free wil pham, I'm starting to feel like Peterson.
>>9105376
>What would you say to someone who agreed with you but said that the 'will' was simply caused by all the preceding causes and their effects? Would it simply be that we need to not expect such perfection out of a notion of free will (as Harris does, like you said, God and all)?
Sounds reasonable, though I'm not sure why should it even matter what caused the will

>What about his argument about if you could freeze the universe at this exact moment we would realize that the next action or thought (etc) was dependant upon the state of the universe at this moment?
And what if we couldn't? Would that prove/disprove free will? Why? Honestly, Harris keeps bringing this shit up all the time and I'm still not sure what he's getting at.

File: Gnostic-Feature-Featured-Image.jpg (277KB, 644x408px) Image search: [Google]

277KB, 644x408px

>>9105367

Guy, this question is its own answer. You've poked a hole in the net.

>>9105332

>>9105069
>But after you grow out of your atheistic rationalist phase, commonly known as the Fedora Tipping of Youth

Sounds like you just grew into the phase of being embarrassed by your former self and tried to distance yourself from it by any means, be they intellectually honest or not

(quite common in the West)

>>9105424

Sorry, meant to reply to:

>>9105398

>>9105411
>And what if we couldn't? Would that prove/disprove free will? Why? Honestly, Harris keeps bringing this shit up all the time and I'm still not sure what he's getting at.


I think the line of reasoning is that if we had control of all the variables it would be possible to determine the outcome. If we could see all of the causes in a certain frozen state we would be able to accurately predict the next action. This would then follow in looking at every variable in the frozen state and realize they are in their current state because of an endless stream of causes. If everything could essentially be 'traced-back' in this way then where is the will or freedom of any sort?

>>9105072

Thread should have ended here tbqh

>>9104712
>Stop believing in free will.
no wonder this guy thinks AI can exist

>>9105411
You're thinking of free action, not free will. The term is predicated upon the will itself being free, not the execution of it being free.

>>9105234
Yes it does, nouns were capitalized in English up until a few hundred years ago. It's still done in German.
>>9105240
False, there is no brain.
>>9105319
Science is pure simplicity, yes. So simple a child could do it and mindlessly accept it.
>>9105348
>needing a reason to believe
Back to leddo, first-year spergo.
>>9105398
>world around you
Doesn't exist. Le science rulez is a defining form of mental masturbation.

>>9105436
Freedom is in the concept of freedom. Decisions a human intellect does aren't made on the observations of all particles and their states.
But even I were to humor such definition of freedom, infinite regression argument is self-defeating, if we start tracing causes all the way back, eventually we'll arrive at the microsecond before Big Bang, where laws of physics did not apply. What stops me from claiming that in this cosmic soup of possibilities bore my special snowflake soul?

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

36KB, 459x581px

>>9105456
>me everything around me is a me lie! Or should I say Lie, as the Germans do! I am the supreme intellectual because I reject everything that a materialist might say!

>>9105475
>>9105467
>laws of physics.
Don't exist. You're seeing order where there is none.
>>9105475
t. reddit

I don't use nonsense capitalization because I'm not a hellenophile obsessed with a romanticized image of a past civilization.

>>9105467
See, the argument for free will breaks down here. If freedom exists in the concept of "Freedom" then what would stop you from just placing "God" in there as well, or instead? If we're giving importance to the ineffable then why not God, or anything? I'm not sure, maybe I'm being thick here.

I think there's a decent number of responses to your infinite regression response, one of them being that many would simply agree with it; that yes, your soul or self or the grass outside my window was determined back then...or at least once the laws of physics were in place. I'd like to think through your argument a bit more though and will have a more detailed response in a bit.

>>9105475

Data is the most Subjective mode of Information there is. Gathering, organizing, presenting, interpreting, all at the mercy of the Human. There's more consensus on a random Pollock.

>>9105489
>laws of physics exist
Stop making presumptions.

File: images(22).jpg (34KB, 666x408px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 666x408px

The pseuds have arrived.

>>9105504
I think you mean 'assumption' but yeah, i sort of agree with you...we're just pretending they exist for the ease of argument.

>>9105475
>>9105492

I mean even STEMlords are waking up to the idea that Scientism is a tool of Politics.

>>9105511
And for ease of use, because it obviously works.

>>9105505
Yes, you are absolutely a pseud.
>>9105511
A presumption is a more earnestly-held assumption. Or an assumption with some sort of justification.

E.g.,
I assume you are a male of about 21 since that is the approximate average last time I checked /lit/ board stats.

I presume you are a mechanicalist, because everything you post is from that perspective. Then again, I'm not actually reading.
>>9105526
No it doesn't, you just presume it works because you also assume a second weak epistemology (pragmatism).

>>9105529
You're on the internet, you do realise? A product of that epistemology.

>>9105536
So? Why does that matter? How does something's seeming existence mean it exists?

>>9105549
This is potentially an interesting discussion but let's please not continue it, it'll derail the whole thread.

>>9105529
>A presumption is a more earnestly-held assumption. Or an assumption with some sort of justification.
>E.g.,
>I assume you are a male of about 21 since that is the approximate average last time I checked /lit/ board stats.
>I presume you are a mechanicalist, because everything you post is from that perspective. Then again, I'm not actually reading.

I don't think this is correct usage, and I hate to pull this, really, but I have a Ph. D. in Theoretical Linguistics.

>>9105549
You claimed the epistemology doesn't work, but you are still enjoying the products of it all around you. Clearly it works.
I'd like to see you explain exactly why the scientific method is wrong and doesn't work.

>>9105562
Different poster but one of the more common arguments is time-scale. Scientific observation leading to predictions tends to be one of the main arguments for its validity. However, a similar ideology would have been just as valid back when gods were used to explain aspects of nature/cosmos/whatever. Much of science, particularly more theoretical stuff does a shit load of begging the question that isn't too far away from the common Bible is True circular reasoning example seen in every philosophy textbook.

It's easy to make prediction that fit certain criteria in the short term, however, there is no way to say that there isn't a sort of meta-truth beyond our current standards (once there were gods that were simply representations of scientific phenomenon, now we have scientific observations and preditions which could just as easily be obfuscating a meta-layer that has nothing to do with it).

>>9105596
Could you give some examples?

>>9105603
There are issues with this, but it should illustrate the point clearer.

Let's not discuss whether people actually believed Helios drove the sun chariot across the sky for just a minute....Not that long ago there were people who thought that a god rode a flaming chariot across the sky...and he did this every day for some reason (presented in the mythology/source texts/whatever). Now based off the mythological source, there would be very good reason why he had to do this every day, and you could make predictions that could come true based off of this mythology. But of course, we know now, that this was simply obfuscating cosmological facts. Just because something fits within a belief does not mean that it confirms the belief. There is no real reason to think that this would not apply to the scientific system. The ability to make predictions does not confirm anything. If you want you can think of it in more Lovecraftian terms...we can accurately predict certain things regarding the cosmos, like the paths of planets...but who is to say that this is not dependent upon a system higher than science, say a system that is some sort of soccer game amongst beings beyond our realms, etc.

>>9105622
Oh, I thought you had something more specific than that. It is true that in physics we build systems to account for what we observe, but this is to help learn about things. When a system doesn't work anymore it is discarded, which is part of the scientific method. If one day everything we've observed and everything we've tested changes, we will adjust what we're doing. But there's no evidence for anything beyond gravitational forces dictating the path of the planets.

>>9104727
>What am I supposed to do with that information?

If you're asking this question you're still believing in free will. You can't do nothing with that information, since you can't do anything in general. Your body will react in some way, it will normalize those reactions thruogh thoughts and ''you'' will experience them.

>>9105635
I don't think we would change if we discovered some sort of meta-system beyond our current scientific one. If we still exist to the point where we hypothetically discovered one than it would be likely that we would be so technologically advanced that it would be beneficial to either ignore or disregard such a discovery. That certainly is an understandable course of action. At a certain point the search for truth or understanding could become actively retroactive, even if we managed to keep it within an understandable framework.

>>9105622
> There is no real reason to think that this would not apply to the scientific system. The ability to make predictions does not confirm anything.

What's your point? If we figure out flies can carry malaria and spread them, figure out which ones do etc, that still provides us with useful knowledge that can help improve our lives. That's nothing like making up shit like a flying horse and whatnot.

If we figure out that apples rot at a rate of 3 days on average, then we can use that knowledge to avoid having rotten apple or just having it for the fuck of it. It still tells us something about reality, that on average, apples will start rotting in 3 days.

>>9105562
It works for some things, specifically technology and purely physical phenomena. Once you try to apply it to the human mind and ideas like will or morality, it fails pretty miserable, hence the condition of most social """sciences"".

Claiming that because science worked for some things, we should discard everything else is a logical fallacy.

>>9104892

https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2015/01/07/neuroscientist-sam-harris/

tl;dr Sam Harris only got his degrees to support his book/speaking career

>>9105736
Oh, no, i think you sort of miss something here. Your argument would apply to the flying horse as well. If we say the flaming horse goes across the sky and we have a mythology as to why that allows us to make predictions about the future (ie the flying horse will go across the sky tomorrow) than that also improves our life in a useable way.

The same could be said for any religious mythology, or any other system of thought. For example some religions believe in the power of prayer so going by your logic (just applying it to a non-scientific system) we could say that prayers are sometimes realized by the divine and that also gives us useful knowledge about our lives. Or religious doctrine/scriptures can give us 'useful knowledge' that can help improve our lives. The only difference is the framework.

Using 'useful knowledge' as a meter for truthiness is not a good idea.

File: 1478553791487.jpg (58KB, 602x731px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 602x731px

>>9104712
Boo bah humbug. Samuel is just a fartbrain. We've all already heard everything he has to say in the 18th century. La Mettrie for a lousy American audience. It's all talk.

File: peterson.jpg (62KB, 620x465px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 620x465px

Define free will

>>9105505
That picture is hilarious given that analytic philosophers are mathematicians who only publish autistically short and narrow articles in obscure journals that nobody reads (aping scientific journals for surface scientificity); and that so called continental philosophy is just a cultural artefact of how structuralism has been received in the west (through the John Hopkins colloqium where Derrida made his name); plus the total ignorance of an entire tradition of epistemology and philosophy of science a la Bachelard, Koyré, Cavailles, scientific anthropology of Dumezil, Levi-Strauss, phenomenology, the pioneering structural linguistics of Benveniste and Jakobson...

You have to be really pseud to ape sciences like this and to still come up with nothing of note.

>>9105191
>We should care about the well-being of living creatures
It is literally impossible to justify this in a deterministic worldview

>>9105998
Why?

>>9105456
>>9105487
Are you actually insane anon?

Also contrary to >>9105475 this is in no way related to Lacan. Lacan's explicitly aligns his movement with the modern science of the Enlightenment, he even borrows from bioenergetics to conceptualize drives!

Back to this guy >>9105456, refusing a language and denying things doesn't make you smart. Really. If you want to defend some notion of freedom you don't have to flee into the psychosis of denying reality.

Metaphysical libertarianism probably isn't true.

But that doesn't mean you don't make meaningful choices.

It makes sense to judge someone guilty of a crime for example, even though at the end of a extremely reductionistic causal chain they aren't responsible.

If you are a serial killer, that sucks from a deterministic point of view, since you had no choice but to be born that way, but we need to punish you for your crimes anyway.

>>9106040
'metaphysical libertarianism'

You call this philosophy? Just outlining logically possible positions on a question? Analytics really are simpletons at times. I guess you have to be as simple as possible to allow people in the absolutely isolated analytic philosophy publishing world to publish so many of those worthless papers.

>>9106050
Jesus Christ you're an autist.

The reason I said metaphysical libertarianism is because "free will" is a term that everyone has their own fucking definition of you mongoloid.

>>9104914
>He actually is a psychologist
that's what he said, not a scientist

>>9106040
dan dannett pls go

>>9106003
It appeals to concepts that are impossible in a strictly deterministic framework:
>We should care about the well-being of living creatures
>should
A moral imperative to act or not act necessitates agency
>well-being
Assuming this is some generic utilitarian bullshittery, it still begs the question: what makes this utility equation good? Are you implying that a happy person is better than a sad person is better than a mass-equivalent lump of iron is better than nothing? How can you justify this valuation?
>care
Again, this word implies agency. To morally rank one thing above another requires critical thinking, in fact any reasoning of any sort does. Logic is based off of reason: if you shake a pine tree and needles fall to the ground spelling out "2 + 2 = 4" that doesn't make the tree a mathematician, it makes it an accident. Even if you do it a million times and the needles always spell out a logically valid equation, the tree gets no closer to being able to reason. Similarly, a deterministic mind cannot actually make arguments such as "x is better than y." Even if the deterministic mind spits out the correct answer it's still unjustified.
TL;DR to justify this statement you need to admit that your mind is non-deterministic, which is obviously self-defeating.
Determinism is much stronger when you don't try to inject morality into it afterwards.

hi /lit/ just fyi since u guys clearly dont know: u r wasting yr time and talent if you discuss any "philosopher" that was born after 1950 further beyond a withering dismissal.or meming foucaults jew bdsm post-struct degeneracy into an awkward offcolor lecherous aside that everyone will pretend not to hear you are WASTING YOUR TIME

>>9106073
lol Dennett is an idiot. I'm not a compatibilist.

File: laughing-einstein.jpg (17KB, 400x240px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 400x240px

>>9105069
>quantum indeterminacy
>relevant to the scale of the human brain

this place is charming exactly for its candid affection for metaphysics and exactly because it is the opposite of r/atheism and r/philosophy dont stray any farther from the light my children

>>9106056
I'd like to see your very definite and determinate concept of 'metaphysical libertarianism' and how it differs from other concepts of the volonte subjective.

Let me see, you might even be able to find an 'object language' of Russell if you define your terms enough. Bring out your metalanguage and abolish all indeterminacy already! Tell me anon, what is Freedom?

>>9106085
>he puts his own voice in the mouth of Einstein

This is really childish anon, lol. LE LAUGHING EINTEIN!

>>>/reddit/

And I don't even care about this crap about freedom

>>9105561
>I don't think this is correct usage, and I hate to pull this, really, but I have a Ph. D. in Theoretical Linguistics.
You don't. Regardless, nobody cares. This is how the word works and is used in every instance I have seen it. Furthermore, it is the way I use it.
>>9105562
No, that isn't a valid argument.
>I'd like to see you explain exactly why the scientific method is wrong and doesn't work.
Presuppositions of objectivity and the like. It's an irrelevant ideology based upon bad philosophy.

>>9106085
>his entire philosophy is built on being able to trace all interactions back through causal chains
>i-it doesn't matter that on the most fundamental level physical interactions are non-deterministic!

>>9105072
But muh will to power

>>9106104
>You don't. Regardless, nobody cares. This is how the word works and is used in every instance I have seen it. Furthermore, it is the way I use it.

https://www.grammarly.com/blog/presume-assume/

Literally the 1st link on google...you use it in the exact wrong way.

>>9105562
cont, since I accidentally hit enter.:
It's garbage for those looking for a simple and practical ideology. That is anther point: it presupposes the value of pragmatism -- the bad kind of pragmatism.

It presupposes that logic is an actual working mode of thought, that there is a metaphysical brainy-smartie-atheist force known as 'reason' or 'rationality'. It's cannibalizing, in that none of the crap it supposes is 'logical'. I've seen smut with less ass-pulls.
>>9105736
Why is 'use' good or true?
>>9106020
anybody that disagrees with me... must be mad! *flips fedora in the air while pouring myself a glass of gin and taking a sip when the fedora falls on my head*

There is no reality, reality is what ideologues call existence, because they constrain it with their ideology and make it the sole 'real' existence. To you, it is a mechanical scientific reality.
>>9106127
I don't care what le google meme site for undergrads says, idiot.

>>9106133
>I don't care what le google meme site for undergrads says, idiot.

What a moron...just search 'assume vs presume' in whatever search engine you like. You will find results that show that you are using the word incorrectly, and, more interestingly, exactly wrong.

File: Lacan1.jpg (86KB, 642x720px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 642x720px

>>9106133
>he's this scared of scientific knowledge

Please have a seat. Let's see what we can do.

>>9106097
No. I don't think so.

I'm not going to talk to someone who is that autistic, and also apparently didn't read my original comment in this thread.

>>9106076
>if you shake a pine tree and needles fall to the ground spelling out "2 + 2 = 4" that doesn't make the tree a mathematician, it makes it an accident. Even if you do it a million times and the needles always spell out a logically valid equation, the tree gets no closer to being able to reason.

If it happened million times in a row, I would definitely accept the tree as a mathematician.

>>9106085
Prove that you cuck. If chemistry is sub atomic, why would it stop there?

>>9105561
Theoretical linguistics, you say.

What do you think about a certain French man who just so happened to be one of the greatest thinkers of the XXieme siecle.

>>9106148
Then you don't understand probability very well

>>9106151
Are you talking about Saussure?

Why did you write 20th century like that?

>>9104712
I AM A ROBOT BEEP BOOP

>>9106174
C'est-ca

>>9106169
I like to think that I do. Let's say that you roll a dice million times and every time you get a 6. To go

>"Oh well, must just have been luck"

is not a position a person who understands probability would take. It is much more likely that there either was something wrong with the dice or the way you threw it.

File: 5895503._UY475_SS475_.jpg (70KB, 475x475px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 475x475px

>>9105226
>something Materialism is deathly afraid of.
Not really.

>>9104727
I don't understand the "computer simulation" meme. Why did it catch on in the past 3 years or so?

>>9106312
>I don't understand the "computer simulation" meme.

There is nothing in this universe that prevents us from simulating a ''inferior'' universe. Given this assumption it follows that we may be living in a simulated universe, and this is usually argued using basic notions such as the existence of actual physical rules, or the existence of arbitrary costants on wich the entire system lays upon.
That said, it's like solipsism. You really can't disprove this assumption, but it doesn't led to any interesting philosophical concept anyway.

It's a DUDE WEED thing.

>Why did it catch on in the past 3 years or so?
It's not a new thing.

>>9106312

It's popular because it's one of the few explanations to the teleological argument that doesn't involve god.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Yt7hvgFuNg

File: Raja_Ravi_Varma_-_Sankaracharya.jpg (480KB, 705x958px) Image search: [Google]

480KB, 705x958px

>yfw the notion of 'the will' being 'free' or not depends on the faulty assumption of a distinction between the self and the world

Just stop being dualist.

>>9106458
What a revolutionary idea.

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

134KB, 653x1024px

>>9104712
i cannot, it is indubitable how much radical free will overflows within me

mad?

File: 1462788368489.png (102KB, 230x214px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 230x214px

>>9106458
But what if a person decides to destroy the world?
Check m8

>>9106217
>"Oh well, must just have been luck"
Assuming a fair die, this is exactly what you should say. Since we're speaking about hypotheticals, it's safe to assume the die is fair unless you specify otherwise.
So it would appear that, regardless of what you think, you actually don't understand probability very well.

sam harris is a soft spoken faggot.

>>9104914
>who uses discredited or outdated theories
Except he doesn't. I challenge you to name one outdated theory Peterson sells.

Thinking an idea has merit worth exploring != believing it emphatically.

>>9105200
This is a contradiction. If the future is predictable, it is not free.

>>9106651

you try reasoning with the Omnipotent Creator

>>9106458
>muh we are all one tripe
You're fucking retarded if you think your actions meaningfully impact some starving Ethiopian on the other side of the globe. Some loose affiliation of electrons is all we share, if even that.

Alan Watts > Sam Harris by far.

>>9106662
>comparing two hacks

>>9106386
>>9106432
My first guess was that Joe Rogan made a podcast about it or something.

>>9106669
One hack has a few good points and a pretty good understanding of what he's trying to talk about.

>>9105937
>Using 'useful knowledge' as a meter for truthiness is not a good idea.
Then again, who needs truth when you have power?

>>9104712
>Free will is literally self evident
>stop belebing in it bc it btfos my deterministic horseshit

Harris is a hack. Worse, he's a Jew. We should shoot his kids in front of him and then hang him for the damage his retarded justifications have done in the Middle East.

>>9106713
Nah, Alan Watts never pretended to be a real intellectual, and Sam Harris is too immaure to be considered as suck.

I'll fix that:

>comparing an hack who pretends to be both a philosopher and a ''scientist'' with a mediocre pseudophilosopher

>>9104712
Too lazy, sorry.

>>9106568
Why would you assume a fair die? When we're discussing probabilities in non-analytic, real world situations, you have to include uncertainties in your models. You can have a high confidence that your dice is fair, but you should never assume it 100%.

File: 1485687003013.png (435KB, 368x471px) Image search: [Google]

435KB, 368x471px

>>9104712
>Stop believing in free will.
I'm a Calvinist, so I already know there is no free will. It's all predestined.

>>9106651
Is it predicted if it is seen in action? What if 'knowing all' is lined with the multiverse or many worlds interpretation? Basically all that can happen, will happen, and He has limited the world in where it can end up, but not strictly the paths we choose - our consciousness moves along a single tread, after all.
But the thread divides infinitely..

>>9106772
>Why would you assume a fair die?
The reading comprehension of STEMtards.

>>9106386
You can disprove solipsism though. Just have someone hit you in the head real hard.

>>9105937
My argument wasn't useful knowledge desu, I inserted that for no reason. Rather predictions about reality that can be observed, such as an apple beginning to rot in 3 days time. It's an observation about reality we can actually verify (and use to our benefit, which is an added bonus).

>>9106805
>Is it predicted if it is seen in action?
Obviously

>>9104712
Who cares it's a meaningless question. What is "free" will? Do you mean that if i decide to go to the grocery store after work, it was pre-determined by muh science and i played no role in the decision?

>>9106076
>A moral imperative to act or not act necessitates agency
No it doesn't, we can be influenced to think and care about something whether we have "ultimate" agency or not. To be clear, he's arguing against the type of free will where if you go back in time 10 years, you could've lived your life differently, and so am I.

>Are you implying that a happy person is better than a sad person is better than a mass-equivalent lump of iron is better than nothing? How can you justify this valuation?
I can only justify it as far as we know the difference between feeling good and feeling shit, and appreciate, in general, one state over the other. I'd rather be where I am right now than in a North Korean prison camp, and I'm sure you and the majority would too. Sadists need not apply, but then again that's also in favor of their well-being, just a different approach to it.

>Again, this word implies agency.
Refer to my response above.
>To morally rank one thing above another requires critical thinking, in fact any reasoning of any sort does.
We can "critically think" without any "ultimate" agency. I'm not arguing that we don't feel free or that we can't work under the assumption that we do have it, whether we ultimately do or not.

>>9106138
>you can search, so that's the way it is
You wouldn't happen to be from ribbit, would you?
>>9106139
Why would I be scared of something that doesn't exist? Don't you have to pray to go your new god?
>>9106217
IF YOU DONT TAKE MY SPECIFIC POSITION, YOU MUST BE A DUMB-DUMB STUPID DUMBHEAD
>>9106651
It's predictable by God, there are infinite possibilities that are all known to God.

Why is this so hard to understand? Fucking children, the lot of you.

>>9106872
No. I mean, God exists in present throughout time.

>>9104712
>/lit/ - Literature

>>9107109
Isn't Trump proof enough that God exists?

>>9107157
Proof of Kek, at least.

>>9107159
What's your dad like?

>>9107171
I never knew him.

>>9107159
Then Kek is proof the concept of God is a real force.

>>9107182
What did you do to make him not want you?

>>9107185
>Shadiley
Meme magic is real

>>9107202
Exist.

>>9107185
As KEK himself, I agree with this concept. And this idea, although it takes a bit of swallowing of pride, is important, because life is going to get better for all.

>>9107215
Liar. Kek speaks through digits.

>>9107215
>>9107228
I just spoke to Kek and he says don't post gets outside of /b/

>>9107236
Don't stifle meme magic, moloch.

>>9107228
>>9107236
But who could you be referring to but me? I know you know who I am, don't fuck with me.

File: 1478566571333.jpg (55KB, 673x522px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 673x522px

>>9104721
>Computers can identify things as true or false, therefore computers have free will

Really makes you think

>>9105072
Isn't will just desire? How does that not exist?

>>9104721
You fucking mong that doesn't even resemble how it works. You can be persuaded of something without needing "free will" to choose it. When the facts are presented, something happens in your brain that leads you to believe that it is correct.

>>9105139

We don't.

>>9105165
Punishment causes people to avoid performing an action because they don't want to be in jail. Their knowledge of the potential future can still influence their decision making without free will.

>>9107339
Yes we do. What makes you think we don't?

>>9107347

You're the one who made the claim first. It's your duty to prove what you posit.

>>9107351
We can easily observe neural activity in the brain. It's pretty widely known stuff. Where else would thought occur, in another dimension?

>>9107361

That is not a demonstration. Do you know what a proof is?

Also

Observing neural activity doesn't necessarily lead to determinism, and it doesn't lead to free will not existing either.

''Where else would thought occur, in another dimension?''

Stop trying to escape from the burden of proof when you make claims, or don't make any.

>>9107365
Read "Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity" by Gregory Bateson. It will clear up your scientific ignorance.

>>9106919
>"we can be influenced to think and care about something [...]"
>can

again, begging questions. a demonstrated capacity to become influenced in some manner =/= the universal capacity to be influenced in a particular manner requisite for acting morally. the capacity, considered generally, does not entail the capacity for a specific particular action. you're right, we *can* be influenced; but not all of us *will*. and therein lies the problem. not the same anon, but harris holds two mutually exclusive positions. if you're a determinist, you cannot believe in an objectively right thing to do. Kant said it first, 'ought' implies 'can', hence to deny the 'can' is to deny a necessary precondition of the 'ought'. harris is pop philosophy, at best

>>9104722
>determined
lol?

>>9107361

''. At present, it
remains unclear if and how physicalism can accommodate such neuroimaging results''

Study using neuroimaging that contradicts physicalist views, using physicalist means. Not a refutation of the position, but certainly an attack against it.

'' The idea that these
correlations could be rather trivially accounted for on the basis of disruptions to inhibitory neural processes
is reviewed and shown to be implausible. Instead, this paper suggests that an as-of-yet unrecognized causal
principle underlying the entire pattern might be at work''

Similar paper but with a different subject. Same deal, an attack against physicalism with physicalist methods.

''The Physicalist Worldview as Neurotic Ego-Defense Mechanism
''

Self-explanatory.

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2158244016674515

https://fr.scribd.com/doc/305856953/On-why-idealism-is-superior-to-physicalism-and-micropsychism

Also self-explanatory.
''https://fr.scribd.com/doc/305856953/On-why-idealism-is-superior-to-physicalism-and-micropsychism''

Mathematical proof of indeterminism in newtonian mechanics.

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

>>9107387

That is still not a demonstration you dumb faggot.

>hur dur it's scientific consensus, didn't you know?!?!
>Gives no proof

Also you're asking me to read a book and I'm giving you articles.

>>9107365
if by physical, you mean something existing independently of the mind, then of course we can't know that. if you mean physical, however, as appearing extended in space and time, then of course we know that.

>>9107394

http://jcn.cognethic.org/jcnv4i2_Kastrup.pdf

http://jcn.cognethic.org/jcnv4i2_Kastrup.pdf

http://jcn.cognethic.org/jcnv4i3_Kastrup.pdf

Sources.

>>9107395

>Of we course we know
>Gives no proof

Pretty sure you guys have no neural activity in there

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)


Wouldn't paste for some reason

>>9104712
Free will is about accepting responsibility and accountability; to see all the bad things that happen to us are learning lessons, or karma for past life transgressions.

>>9107402
not the original anon who started w the neural activity bs, so i dont see what that has to do with anything. you want proof?
axioms:
1. we perceive existence as extended; we perceive things as existing *in space*.
2. we perceive existence as temporal; we perceive things as existing *in time*

definition: that which is physical is that which is extended in space and time

by axioms 1 and 2, according to our definition, we perceive reality as physical, i.e. as extended in space and time

get the fuck out of my house

>>9104865
Why? Zoolander 2 was fucking awesome.

>>9104712
Done.

What would you have me believe next, O grand and beautiful Master? I would do anything for you! I would defend your ideologies unto the ends of the Earth, for without a Position on things we are most surely Fucked!

File: 02c0618c550173f599730860546d7c74.jpg (666KB, 684x1000px) Image search: [Google]

666KB, 684x1000px

>>9107088
>It's predictable by God, there are infinite possibilities that are all known to God.
>Why is this so hard to understand? Fucking children, the lot of you.
If god doesn't know which of these infinite possibilities will be then he isn't omnipotent.

Theist-cucks - 0
sane people - 1, 612, 432, 887 + 1

>>9107088
>>you can search, so that's the way it is
>You wouldn't happen to be from ribbit, would you?

So you used a word incorrectly. I pointed this out. You denied it. I directed you toward a specific piece of evidence. You deflected. I suggested you search the mass of human knowledge and find that every source available says that you are wrong and your response is to ask if I'm from ribbit???/

>>9107088
>infinite possibilities
>knows which ones *will be*

so there's x possibilities, where x are the ones which will be

"Determinism" is neo-Calvinism, "Free Will" is neo-Idealism.

>>9107582
>If god doesn't know which of these infinite possibilities will be then he isn't omnipotent.
You're now trying to rationalize something you can't conceive of.
>anybody i dont like is insane
>>9107594
I'm not using it incorrectly. Human knowledge is wrong, I am right.
>>9107599
The idea of the limitless is not conceivable. You're also trying to rationalize an irrational God.

I suppose you could think of it as x possibilities and one possibility occurring simultaneously, and that one possibility being any one from x.

>>9107335
His persuasion sucks and reeks of manipulation for ideological purposes.

>>9107764
>The idea of the limitless is not conceivable
Between one and another. 1 and 2.

If you never take another step.. Or if you never stop taking the next step.

>>9107782
That's still limited between 1 and 2, or between a step.

>>9107790
So it is endless in one way, boundless, but in relation to its meta, it is not? Hmm.

>>9107797
>it's inconceivable
>"please conceive of it to answer my question"
Actual navel-gazing in philosophy, right here. I could waste time and try to describe it, but that certainly will not explain it.

>>9107804
I'm not the original Anon. I made only two posts. I think that the limit is dependent on our approach - see it as something separate, a new paradigm, and it'll make sense. No point counting to the endless, when you can just go there.

File: 185px-Wittgenstein1920.jpg (10KB, 185x173px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 185x173px

Not having or having free will doesn't change anything. This topic is a nonsensical language-game.

>>9107832
Agreed, mods delete this idiocy please

>>9107764
if i can understand what you mean when you say 'limitless', then obviously it's conceivable. it's not visualizable, sure, but i understand the concept. and im not trying to rationalize god, i'm trying to deny the coexistence of divine foresight and free will

>>9107832
>Not having or having free will doesn't change anything
It does. People become cancer when they don't believe in their ability to choose.

>>9107850
>foresight
Ah, but it is not foresight. It is seen by God in the present. But God exists the same in the past; 'Before Abraham was, I am' - present tense. I think it is safe to say that this is the case for the future as well.

>>9107852
again, placing blame as though actions were controllable lmao

>still not getting it

>>9107857
alright settle down there Boethius. If you wish to say he exists in the present, then he cannot exist in the future. the present is the negation of the future, just as much as it is the negation of the past. even more, if god is to see what i am to do in that future, then by virtue of his infallibility, what he sees ought to happen. assuming his consistency, which we ought to assume, his present self, being one and the same god, would also know this. how this answer gets around determinism is illusory m8.

>>9106722
I don't think he has kids.

I choose not to. lmau

>>9107930
Good. It is always a good thing when a disgusting atheist does not breed. Though it would be of some small satisfaction for me to watch their children be tortured to death with blowtorches and knives by Muslims in the coming days, it is better not to risk that their inferior genes might pass along through rape or slavery to future generations.

>>9107861
Then assume that you are wrong.

>>9107868
>then he cannot exist in the future.
Time is a direction.

>>9105180
The intro with that qoute is literally the only good part of that god forsaken anime. It makes you think that the rest of the anime won't be as shallow as a dried out lake.

>>9107832
>nonsensical
t. reddit
>>9107850
Divine foresight and free-will are coexistent. You are denying the possibility because it is not conceivable.

>>9108948
I mean nonsensical in Wittgenstein's term nonsensical you pleb, it's not the same as the dictionary definition. Just read about Wittgenstein and language-games, he totally destroyed free will---that is, there is no point saying we do or don't have free will and philosophy and human discussion alone will NEVER be able to prove or disprove it.

>>9108948
............if you admit it can't be conceived, why the fuck do you feel like you have the right to argue it? to argue is to believe something can be demonstrated. you blatantly deny the possibility of being shown your position incoherent; you admit its incoherence when you say its inconceivable, as though that's somehow divorced from 'sensible', 'well-founded'. If you want to believe it, go ahead, but don't act as though you've any leg up in an argument, when truly what you're doing is denying the possibility of arguing in the first place.

>>9104712
Stop believing in sam harris

>>9104727

the only peace that comes from it is the realization itself

just think about it more.

your free will was different before you realized that you didn't have it

>>9106312

its not really a meme

very smart people have recognized that there is not an insignificant chance that we are really living in a simulation

its just too convenient of an explanation to discount it just because it seems like something out of a sci-fi movie

Stop believing in scientism

>>9111569
Stop ignoring scientific evidence.

>>9109518
dude he BTFO IT HAHA PWNED
>>9109975
>arguments are good because memes said so
>>9111864
Scientific evidence doesn't exist.

>>9106312
This made my eyes pop from my head desu

prepare you shit your pants
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_RwcGzGurc&t=4363s

>>9107534

This doesn't refute any of what I've posted.

>>9111960
ironic the computer you Use Was engineered using sciences laws

>>9112004
How? Are you redditarded?

>>9111569
The philosophical word you're looking for is called naturalism, not scientism.

>>9107764
>Human knowledge is wrong, I am right.

lmao guy in this convo is A+

please keep egging him on /lit/

>>9112408
Why do you keep responding to bait? It's not even that funny.

>>9106480
Destruction is merely an imcomplete view of transformation.

>>9106657
>You're fucking retarded if you think your actions meaningfully impact some starving Ethiopian on the other side of the globe.
I don't see why you connect non-dualism and philanthropy necessarily.

>Some loose affiliation of electrons is all we share, if even that.
Your notion of the individual is simplistic. What is generally considered 'your body' is composed of more bacterial cells than human cells, for example. A human individual is a community of life, not an self-sustained particle. Drawing a hard distinction on the personal level is no less arbitrary than doing so on the level of the nation or the species.

>>9105948
define define

>>9112415
hungry

>>9106312
gravity is bleeding in from the 9th dimension, look it up

>>9108635
a dried out lake isn't shallow at all

>>9107322
Computers can't even provide true randomness. Their true/false evaluations are programmed responses

>>9107327
Will is what attempts to fulfill desires.

>>9107565
>Zoolander 2 was fucking awesome.
and /lit/ calls /tv/ plebs

>>9105129
Reminder that randomness has nothing to do with 'freedom'