holy shit /lit/ do we have free will?

We live as if we do... isn't that good enough?

>>9404547
no, actually

You're free to do what you want, but you have no control over what you choose to want.

oh god please kill me

>>9404547
It doesn't matter.

If you have it: You will keep acting like you always did
If you don't have it: You have no choice but to act like you are supposed to act

Might as well ignore it.

No we don't but the illusion is akin to the real thing

>>9404568
then what's the fucking point? why do we live a lie?

>>9404578
>you will keep acting like you always did

I don't know about that. If I was convinced that I have free will, it might give me the motivation to change my life. But if determinism is true, which seems to be the case, then there's no point.

>>9404594
>then what's the fucking point? why do we live a lie?
i think for similar reasons why we watch tv, movies, or read fiction

>>9404547
free will exists in the same sense that love or anger exist, and is meaningful to the same extent that love or anger are meaningful

to be clear, my considered opinion is that all of these things exist and are meaningful (albeit not concrete, objective, absolute, or unchanging), rather than the opposite

>>9404594

That's a very myopic and misunderstood way to look at determinism and free will argument. It has no practical bearing on you since you can never be certain that your life is deterministic so you live assuming it's free will if that's what you believe has the best means of motivating you but if determinism is true you were "destined" to take that line of reasoning.

What I mean is determinism is a lot more do with relativity and time than it is to do with your inability to make choices.

Why relativity and time? Think of it this way, time is relative and occurs at different rates for different "observers", so the universe came into existence and died very quickly and everything has already happened, but from YOUR point of view it's still happening. Your choices are real in the sense that you made them at the time, but not real in the sense that you've already made them (from certain point of view). On the upside, while your current stream of consciousness may end one day from certain points of view you're still alive, so there's a certain immortality to it.

>>9404610
for fun / escapism?

so if, in theory, everything is fine and dandy and we're only living to pass the time and have fun, then why does life make us suffer?

Nah, the universe is deterministic

Doesn't mean doing bad things is not your fault or anything though

>>9404626
what makes you think life has the kind of intentionality to "make" us suffer?

life exists on its own. some of the parts of life induce suffering in us. there's no explanation, and no point in looking for one either.

>>9404547
Read Schopenhauer. We have will, but it isn't free.

>>9404628
Blatantly false. We don't know yet.

>>9404547
I do. Do you?

>>9404578
>it doesn't matter
Yes it does. The only case where it doesn't matter is if we do not have it.

>>9404628
>>9405012
The Universe is not deterministic. It has predetermined limits and boundaries. Double slit experiment is impossible to explain with determinism.

What you need to understand is math. A question can have multiple correct answers, sometimes even opposite ones. Ex.
>square root of 25?

>>9405036
Math is made up bullshit you idiot, it has no impact on the real world

>>9405039
It's the most basic interpretation of the universe we have, therefore more accurate than things like language or science

>>9405036
The double slit experiment proves that we can't predict an outcome
This doesn't show that the universe isn't deterministic, it shows that science has true limits

You can't "prove" that something is truly random because that would imply proving an absence of causes, which science isn't capable of doing

>>9405070
>basic=good

brainlets...

>>9405079
Ok I'll simplify it

System A:
>simple as possible
>minimal difference with reality due to low complexity
>explains basic phenomenon perfectly

System B:
>overly complex
>confuses notions due overlapping in terms and ideas
>can't explain anything accurately without confusion or error

System A is maths and System B is language in case you didn't guess, and it's pretty obvious to tell why one is more universal and useful for understanding the universe than the other

>>9405075
>The double slit experiment proves that we can't predict an outcome
We can know the limits.
>This doesn't show that the universe isn't deterministic, it shows that science has true limits
So you are determined that the universe is deterministic. Give me proof or I'll disregard your position as fantasy.

>>9405085
What's your definition of proof

This thread just changed my mind. We don't have free will.

>>9405087
Give it as a functional answer with explanatory power. As far as I'm concerned, determinism fails to explain physics, math, phenomena, myself, human traits, virtues and many other existing things.

>>9405039
Which board do you come from where this works as efficient bait? r9k? b?

>>9405097
>determinism fails to explain
wut

>>9405101
In a deterministic world, there would not be anything that leads to what can be described as 'different outcome'. Math does it constantly, just not with functions as they are by definition deterministic. Math isn't limited to functions, and neither is reality.

In this world, you can not repeat a single thing, ever. Even the most vacuumed experiments will result in a wide (but functionally restricted) outcomes.

Reality isn't accurate enough to be deterministic, albeit it gives us enough determined information to grasp several core principles of the world, such as morality and logic.

>>9405114
You have a weird understanding of hat determinism is. Maybe read up on that.

Also 'math does it constantly' is nonsense.

>>9405084
>can't explain anything accurately without confusion or error
Isn't it funny ?

>>9405118
>You have a weird understanding of what determinism is.
Every event has an outcome that is determined before the event occurs.

Quantum mechanics indicate that we can even interact with past. This infringes in the territory that I kept in the box of determined events.

>>9405118
>Also 'math does it constantly' is nonsense.
Square root of 25 is 5 or -5. It's not determined.

Of course, you could say that it is determined by the axioms it resides under, but that is so meta that I can say that those axioms do not define the questions we will ask, hence freedom.

>>9405090
congratulations on taking your first red pill.

>>9405137
Without free will, there is no difference between voluntary and involuntary action. Any congratulations are empty and void. The irony of them falls flat, unless it is meta-irony. Say, you are wrong, but God is making you do that stupid stuff, so it wasn't voluntary.

>>9404547
free from what? time?

>>9405126
>Quantum mechanics indicate that we can even interact with past
source?

>>9405160
http://io9.gizmodo.com/an-experiment-that-might-let-us-control-events-millions-1525760859
http://www.space.com/667-quantum-astronomy-cosmic-scale-double-slit-experiment.html
Top two Google searches. You might also be interested in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler%27s_delayed_choice_experiment

>>9405128
>Square root of 25 is 5 or -5. It's not determined.
Are you retarded? You literally wrote it down and then said it's not determined.

The problem with determinism is that it claims to know enough about the world to come to an ultimate conclusion of the principles at play.

>>9405178
I already replied to that post. Determinists are the only predictable humans, as I know what their goal is and their modus operandi; their limits and their narrow minds.

>>9405168
>thinks delayed choice is time travel
>doesn't even read his own sources which state most physicist agree it's not
Shouldn't you fedora tipping on /r/futurology?

Free will isn't even a coherent idea. Either you are subject to cause and effect, in which case you get will without freedom, or you aren't, in which case you get freedom without will. There is no compromise position.

>>9405184
What? I don't care about your determinism debate, just stop using your babby-understanding of mathematics in examples to support any view. It physically hurts to read this drivel.

>>9405180
I don't think it does
It just claims that if you knew these conditions you could come to a conclusion

>>9405191
>>thinks delayed choice is time travel
I said, "interact with the past". Not time travel.

We choose that an event occurs; an event that had been waiting for millions of years to occur in the source. We render the past when it is needed.

>>9405196
>It just claims that if you knew these conditions you could come to a conclusion
Give me an accurate model of reality, and we will test it out. No error margin allowed.

All these fags ignoring the fact subatomic particles behave randomly and there is thus a chance for us humans to make our own choice.

>>9405206
We don't will the behavior of the subatomic particles, so no. Free will is nonsense with or without determinism.

>>9405206
>lack of understanding means it's random
you fucking idiot

are dice rolls random too because you can't predict them?

>>9405206
It's not limited to subatomic particles. Atoms and particles behave the same way, and there is no reason to assume that it doesn't do so in this world as well.

They sent a fullerene ("buckey ball") through the experiment.

>>9405206
They don't though, we just can't perfectly observe them so we have to model them with probability distributions

>>9405210
>it's totally a lack of understanding
So is determinism.

>>9405209
>We don't will the behavior of the subatomic particles
Yes, we will the behavior of meta-particles; our bodies, minds and those of others. Tell me about placebo; how does it work?

>it's another thread where absolute brainlets try to argue metaphysical positions using materialist evidence
>it's another thread where absolute brainlets think their nigger-tier interpretation of physical concepts mixed with popsci and wikipedia summaries have anything to do with modern scientific models

>>9405216
http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v16/n7/abs/nrn3976.html

Anticipation of improvement activates the release of helpful neurochemicals. We can't will the results of random events and we can't alter the course of causal ones. You've fooled yourself into believing that a universe with both forms some kind of emergent free will, but for that to work we would need to be able to predict the results of random events, which is by definition impossible. If we can predict them, they aren't random.

>>9405268
>We can't will the results of random events
That's only true because {We} includes (you).
>and we can't alter the course of causal ones.
With faith, we can.

>>9405070
it's still a shitty man-made understanding of the universe that we're constantly correcting

Its like using 4 pieces to guess the image of a 250 piece jig-saw puzzle.

>>9405277
(((not an argument)))

>>9405249
>>it's another thread where absolute brainlets think their nigger-tier interpretation of physical concepts mixed with popsci and wikipedia summaries have anything to do with modern scientific models
>implying it is not a leap of faith to show courage to demolished men advertising their doom

>>9405284
As if arguments would work against your faith in determinism. Our models and explanations do not define world as is, but the world to us. You get out of it something you call determinism because you desire determinism.

>>9405290
I have no faith whatsoever in determinism. It's very clear that the universe is not deterministic. It's just that free will is incoherent irrespective of that. I would be happy to accept any argument you have that will and freedom can be reconciled, but I'm fairly confident that one can't be made.

File: Face 000002.png (2MB, 2400x2400px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2400x2400px

>>9404547
No matter how kush your life may be,
if there are others, then there are politics.

I say there is no free will, unless you're secluded.

I'm not going to bite the hand that feeds me, unless I have to.

I question these existential crisis-type questions often during or after meditation.

However, I find it more bizarre to question our existence, itself. In terms of biologically with our brain and its extremities, sociologically in terms of culture and mass media manipulation, and in gratitude to live at such exciting, exponentially changing times.

I'm 30, atm, and I believe I have the potential to live forever in this realm of reality before my life is over. I believe in A..I. merging with minds. I believe language, itself, will become antiques yet still treasured.

>>9405317
Ah. I got you mixed up.
I think that free will is the ability to see and understand limits; consciousness is by definition 'free'. It's not in a vacuum.

As for why such a thing exists, or how. It is an idea, and it possesses the husks of men and begins to act out will.

Of course, free will implies freedom from something. Generally I perceive it to be will free of determinism. It is obvious that we are limited beings. However, I will not be surprised if that is a lie, and only true because we believe it.

>>9405323
>I'm not going to bite the hand that feeds me, unless I have to.
Why not? Do you not hate eating?

File: celibacy.jpg (195KB, 640x2400px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 640x2400px

>>9404547
I choose with my free will to believe we do.

File: Ayn Rand.png (305KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

305KB, 512x512px

Not in the sense you would perceive it, no.
But we do have volition, which is enough.

File: Face 000003.png (2MB, 2210x2112px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2210x2112px

>>9405335
I love eating. I'd rather not shit if I could because everyone's shit smells bad, and I prefer a clean crack than crusted. Ooo-wee

What good is your free will if you're baited this easily?

>>9405028
If you have it, nothing changes.
If you don't have it, nothing changes.
Inadvertently it doesn't matter outside of philosophically ubiquitous conversations such as these... at best.

Riddle me this: could God have freely chosen not to have free will before he existed?

File: tips moustache.jpg (11KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 225x225px

>>9404547

We don't even have will, free or not.

>>9405420
That's a whole lot of assumptions.

>>9405425
wasn't nietzsche a huge believer of the will

>>9404547
Determinism is a massive misinterpretation of observations that are incredibly likely to be inaccurate. The only way you have no free will is if you believe in some kind of spiritual system or religion that has an authority system or entity which denies you your own will.

Only man would be so arrogant as to at once recognize that he can only perceive the universe as he is capable of doing so, note that the limitations of his perception make it highly likely to be impossible for him to "know" the universe, and then also convince himself that his perception of reality is truth and that the universe must bend to his will in perceiving it.

>>9404570
>you have no control over what you want
This is literally provably false. Go back to school.

>>9404592
Again, misinterpretation of possibly inaccurate observation. Also, baseless assumption based on what other people have said.

>>9404594
>if determinism is true
You're obsessed with fatalism. You want their to be meaning and are facing the reality that there may not be meaning. This can only be a problem if you want their to be meaning, so stop expecting the entire universe to make sense to the perception of a singular life-form with an intrinsically limited capability to perceive its own reality.

You're entire problem would be solved if you'd get the fuck over yourself and realize that your ego is trying to defend you from something that you don't need to be defended from.

>>9405070
Math isn't an interpretation. "Math" isn't anything but a system of logic and language to help us think in a particular manner about something, and then communicate those thoughts and observations in a meaningful way. Math is literally no different than "the Scientific method", or "English". Only people who can't properly identify characteristics or haven't bothered to think about it at all still get confused by this.

>>9405528
Maths is very different to english and science
It relies on a limited amount of well defined axioms

Ultimately nearly the entirety of maths can be done with just additions
As opposed to languages such as english which rely on the objects or concepts being known for the word to have any sense

In fact an easy way to tell the difference is that in science and languages, there is a limited amount of terms that can be used, however in maths there are an infinite numbers, functions, equations etc...

Maths is very different to english and science because it's an entirely different construction, but you were probably too lost in your own smugness to realise this was already admitted in the post you were responding to

>>9404547 if there isnt a definitive answer it is most likely on another dimension, if its not yes or its not know, there is most likely an alternative theory that is not yet discovered. consider the theory of God before Spinozas philosophy, there either was a God or there was not one, a new theory came about and now there is not a God, there is one, and there is the theory of both existing but merging the existent and non existent into each other.

File: 1488634071865.gif (193KB, 200x102px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 200x102px

>>9405209
I was baiting, randomness (it was not proven there is no randomness) in matter ≠ freewill.

>>9405210
I am sure you are aware Einstein spent a great deal of his life trying to prove this but did not succeed. We can predict the out come of dices because we have the required variables. We lack the variables to find a pattern in subatomic particles. You cannot say there is a patern because nothing proves there is. I will contradict myself and say that I do believe there is a patern but there is nothing to prove it.

>>9405211
I am not sure what you're saying.

>>9405214
Maybe, but so far it was not proven they have a pattern. It is speculation not fact.

Pic is very related to what my whole post was about and yes I do believe there is a pattern to subatomic particles but we have yet to find and no there is no such thing as freewill.

>>9404547
nope, everything is deterministic. you're just a domino. a sad, suicidal domino.

>>9405012
We know nothing and will never not.
>>9405036
>math is correct cuz i sed so
>>9405070
False, all interpretations are wrong.
>>9405084
>math is correct becuz i sed so
>it explains everything perfectly becuz muh systems are based around it

>>9405547
And all those axioms are incorrect

Reductionist determinism is false because awareness of being conscious affects your thought processes and actions.

>>9405747
Yes, but determinism anticipates this and says we were meant to become aware of our conscious and the concept of determinism, it's just another method of restraining one's choices by guiding towards a certain path.

>>9404547
Obviously we do? People who say we don't are just trying to provoke, they themselves believe they do.

>>9405249
this

Also:
>It's another thread of people who haven't read Kant

This is philosophy 101 minus 1

>>9405747
>>9405760
Are we beginning to wake up a bit?

Are we beginning to realise freedom has nothing to do with quantum particles or physical theories?

Are we ready to begin reading Kant?

Or is /lit/ still oscillating like a mindless pendulum between yea and nea?

Probably the latter.

>DUDE DO WE HAVE FREAUDUMS, WOAH HOLY SHIT !!!
>He asks without knowing what freedom means
>/lit/ is this teenage

>>9404547
It doesn't matter.

>>9405835
the false sense of superiority of a cuckold, gentlemen.

>>9404594
>i won't change my life unless someone tells me I actually can

This is the height of being a lazy cry baby.

Trying to make an account of free will which is both physical and compatible with materialism seems really obvious misguided and pointless. It's not even clear to me in what meaningful sense the quantum action account of brains actually defends free will - it's still a basically physical account of brains. Arguing that the universe is non-deterministic does not mean that it's not physical and I'm really not sure what the actual contentful way is in which quantum action merits being called free will even if it is nondeterministic. What is the actual sense of free will that is being defended here?

It seems to me that there are three basically plausible alternatives here.

1) Accept determinism
2) Give an account of free will which is non-physical and compatible with materialism
3) Give an account of the universe which is non-materialist

Personally, it seems to me that the most palatable option here is the second one, as it seems to overlap massively with the broader problem of giving an account of consciousness and being in a physical materialist universe. but that's just me.

>>9405528
>This is literally provably false. Go back to school.

you want to prove me wrong
you want to look smart
you don't have any control over that

explain anon

>>9405818
>kant is kurrekt becus i sed so
>>9405929
That's not what free will is.

>>9405932
>ad homming to mask your ignorance that Kant invented the entire language of free will

We have these threads all the time and the discussion never goes beyond the teenage "holy shit I just read about free will on wikipedia!!!"

>>9405948
>ad homming to mask your ignorance that Kant invented the entire language of free will
Delusion, he is a corrupter of language.

>>9405964
yer mom's a corrupter of language, at least from what she was yelling last night

>>9405932
but anon

i never said it was free will :(

explain how people have control over what they want plz

>>9405932
>thats not what free will is because I sed so

>>9405988
Explain how they don't. Do you want some things? Do you not want other things? Why?

>>9405988
>>9405993
Free will isn't le superpowers you fucking redditor

File: 1490252119428.jpg (10KB, 253x299px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 253x299px

>>9404623
are you trying to tell me that something moving close to the speed of light has already observed the heat death of the universe? lol
>how fast are we moving rn?
>what kind of frame of reference do you use when deciding if something is moving close to the speed of light?
I mean we're hauling through space as it is going some unreasonable speed im sure?
>now what about something moving close to 0 speed will the universe ever end?

don't bother to explain this to me but if you have any resources for laymen that addresses some of the shit...

File: whatdidhemeanbythis.png (6KB, 431x101px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 431x101px

>>9406010
What I want isn't up to me. I want to have things, and I can't do anything to change that.

I can do whatever I want to OBTAIN those things, but I can't force myself to want something else. I'd just be lying to myself if I did.

What makes you think people have control over what they want?

File: 1488961900020.jpg (113KB, 786x751px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 786x751px

>>9405114
>>9405126
ur touched in the head, try not posting

>>9405128
pardon? math is made up the laws of nature are not concerned with math.
anyways square root like you've described is not a function

>>9406041
Then who is it up to?

>>9405206
if the particles that make our brains up is random then how are our actions not random?

>>9406059
physics

File: images (1).jpg (3KB, 136x136px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 136x136px

>>9406059
STOP WITH THESE VAGUE RHEOTIRCAL QUESTIONS AND BACK UP YOUR ARGUMENT REEEEEEEEE

File: red_herring.png (86KB, 451x186px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 451x186px

>yet another thread about free will with no question about the quality and boundaries of the self

>>9404547
i do but you dont.

>>9406236
think it's time we go our separate waaaa-aaaays

>>9405528
The only way you could have free will is if you carry out actions for literally no reason. All the arguments you can make against free will are so banal because it is all shit a fifth grader should be able to comprehend. It is like arguing with a little kid.

>>9405216
>yes, we will the behavior of metaparticles
Oh, now that you put it that way...

>>9405399
>If you have it, nothing changes.
Now that's up to me to decide.

>>9406868
Nah it's up to your neurons. They will conveniently give you the illusion that there is some "you" and that this "you" is responsible for making the decisions they were predetermined to make.

>>9405528
Go back to school.

>>9406906
>Nah it's up to your neurons.
Am I my body or am I not? Am I my neurons or am I not? Neurons do what I decide to do. You want to be a goytoy, go ahead. I'm not an automaton.

>>9405737
>math is correct cuz i sed so
Indeed, I choose how reality is. Perhaps I was a coward, so I made all the other people fools so they couldn't challenge me.

>>9407028
Each neuron firing is caused by a previous neuron firing. You can follow the chain all the way back till you were in your mom's uterus.

>>9407057
You do know that your brain matures at 24, right? Your way of thinking is too simplified. All of existence is all of existence. No less.
I exist. I found out about neurons. In your model, the neurons can never be aware of themselves, or you could explain the process. Yet here I am.

Stop being a reductionist, and expand on the world instead.

>>9405137
what's next?

What's some good material to read on free will? from a scientific point of view? Already read some philosophy (Spinoza, Kant, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, etc)

>>9408727
Science is at a standstill and has to rely on philosophy and memes for now. Contact again when consciousness and matter are more known.

File: solipsism.jpg (34KB, 376x401px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 376x401px

>>9404547
I have free will but i don't think others do.