>he still believes free will doesn't exist

File: made me think.jpg (26KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 400x400px

>>9672576
If free will exists why can't I stop myself from replying to this shitty bait thread?

File: POV_disgruntled_handjob.jpg (213KB, 1072x769px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 1072x769px

>>9672584
if free will existed I wouldn't have wasted 10 years on the chans

>>9672584
>>9672590
>anti free will posters immediately expose themselves as just rationalizing their personal failure

>>9672590
You waste so much time here because you want it. End of story. Don't blame some "universal plan" for your lack of discipline.

>>9672576
If free will exists then why do I have no control over things around me

File: schopen.jpg (46KB, 576x635px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 576x635px

>>9672590
You are free to do what you want but you are not free to want what you want.

>>9672594
>mistaking free will for omnipotence

>>9672597
We may be free to do what we want but we're not free to not do what we want.

Meaning we're not really free at all.

>>9672592
Free will posters are worse, they want to take credit for their luck by claiming it's of their own making.

>>9672614
>negatives exist
wow, you are spooked

>>9672619
>butthurt

>>9672619
THey make me cringe when they talk about "meritocracy"

>>9672614
I really want to fuck my buddy's GF, but I choose to not do it.

>>9672633
Yeah, you are a failure because free will doesn't exist. Keep lying to yourself bro.

>>9672646
you earned everything you have and deserve it

>>9672653
Advantageous or disadvantageous circumstances are irrelevant.
God I hate when you still can't understand that free will doesn't mean you're omnipotent.

>>9672576
Not only free will doesn't exist, its concept is meaningless.
Have you ever stopped to ask yourself what free will even means? Most likely your definition will be something like "the ability for an agent to spontaneously make a choice". But what defines a spontaneous decision?
If you mean that the agent decisions are objectively seen as random, then there is no guarantee that we aren't facing a form of probabilistic determinism.
Our intellect isn't equipped to deal with representing black boxes such as itself.

>>9672666
Nice meaningless word-play.

>>9672666
>no you don't understand
>it is not understandable

It much worse - the future isn't determined, but you have control over it anyway.

>>9672584
Who is this sl00t?

>>9672637
You don't really want to fuck your buddy's GF given the actual realistic consequences, you only want to fuck her in a hypothetical situation without those consequences.

Given the real situation, you do not want to fuck her.

>>9672665
>God I hate when you still can't understand that free will doesn't mean you're omnipotent.
It does. In order for a person to make a free choice he has to be outside of the chain of causation and has to be an unmoved mover.

Only God can have free will.

>>9672737
That's Canadian essayist and Youtube lecturer Ontologicool.

>145. From the narrow, restricted viewpoint of the present, you always have infinite choices (= free will), because choice is a mental process we use to imagine and decide upon possible courses of action, and hence can make as many of them as we want — whereas at the level of the universe you only have a single one: the one you'll end up making (= determinism), because the concept universe includes the concept time. Thus does the Overman solve, in a single sentence, problems that have frustrated mankind's greatest thinkers for millennia.

>159. The relationship between necessity and desire mirrors that between determinism and free will. The best move (and indeedeverymove) is necessary when regarded at the level of the universe, but from the perspective of the individual who'll perform it (and from those of all his allies and adversaries who are going to feel its effects) it's not necessary at all, but merely what he has chosen and wants to do.

>272. HBD advocates say "there is no free will because your brain controls you". But my brain IS me. Like saying "there is no free will because you control you". I.e. there IS free will. Retards confused by wordplay.

>>9672899
Wrong, there is no (You) at all.

>>9672910
If you read the post, then you would understand that it doesn't exist only at the level of the universe.

>>9672923
It doesn't exist at any level, people who believe in it have spend no time in actual introspection.

>>9672928
t. noob who needs to analyze the phenomenology of concepts better

>>9672937
t. scatterbrained faggot who doesn't do plenty shikantaza

>>9672910
>"Does Big Brother exist the same way I do?"
>"You do not exist"

>>9672928
>says opponents don't put in enough introspection
>"it doesn't exist because i say so"

>>9672945
>shikantaza
A slave's activity. Fitting for your apparent slave morality.

File: 1497912010396.png (29KB, 741x568px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 741x568px

Can someone give me a good book about free will

ITT: anons trapped inside the conceptual prison they built with language abstraction processes.

>>9672877
L

>>9672584
our thinkress

>>9673084
Elbow Room and Freedom Evolves by Dan Dennett
Four views on free will
Paul Russell has some overview stuff, i think
Stay away from Sam Harriss.
There's honestly loads of books, expecially new ones by neuroscientists, most of them have the same arguments, so you can pick anywich one at pretty much random - Who's in charge, Against moral responcibility, books by Susan Blackmore, Bruce Hood and the likes.

>>9673008
Actually spend some time trying to observe your Self. It's not there.

>>9673253
It exists as a concept, and you need to believe in it in order to function daily and not be a useless pothead.

>>9673274
>It exists as a concept,
Everything you can blather about does.

> and you need to believe in it in order to function daily and not be a useless pothead.
Wrong.

>>9673274
God exists as a concept, and you need to believe in Him to function morally and not be a useless criminal.

>>9672637
even if you chose not to do it, how is that free will? Weren't you going to make that choice anyway? Everything that lead up to you making that choice allows you to make that choice, not your conscious decision, regardless of how much contemplation you put into it.

>>9673299
>Wrong.
People who aren't useless potheads disagree.

By the way, freedom is relative.

obviously, no one makes themselves, so if you define a free action as one that is done without influence from any preceding causes (a logical impossibility), then yes, I guess no one is "free", but in so far as someone is who they are, they're free to do as they like.

if i drop a coin, did i drop the coin? or did my hand drop the coin? or maybe something caused my hand to slip, and then did that thing make me drop the coin? none of these things are false. it's ultimately a matter of perspective.

i'm not an expert, but a lot of philosophy (not all of it, but a lot of it) seems like word games to me, or disagreements over what a particular word or concept should mean, and this isn't something that can be objectively proven.

>>9673274
>and you need to believe in it

I'd say being completely detached from your ego would make any human being rather dysfunctional navigating through daily life.

>>9673123
thanks wittgenstein you can go back being dead now

>>9672576
Doesn't matter if free will does or doesn't exist, nothing changes. This is the most useless debate ever addressed.

>>9672602
WTF why am i not GOD ALMIGHTY? LAME

>>9673550
the whole western philosophy is fairly pointless

Free will is a concept that is simply too complex and sophisticated for humans to understand the origin of, at this point in time.

I'm not sure if we have it, but I really hope that we do.

The most satisfying explanation for me so far is that an omniscient- and potent being gave it to us and I'm not religious.

I would imagine free will defies our concepts of causality and to explain it we need a radically different system of understanding the universe.

>>9673550
>Knowing the truth about something will not directly change things, so it is pointless to pursue.

It's like you think debating God's existence is useless.

>>9672597
>schopenpleb
read Freud

How would you describe Big N's take?

>The causa sui is the best self-contradiction that has been conceived so far, it is a sort of rape and perversion of logic; but the extravagant pride of man has managed to entangle itself profoundly and frightfully with just this nonsense. The desire for "freedom of the will" in the superlative metaphysical sense, which still holds sway, unfortunately, in the minds of the half-educated; the desire to bear the entire and ultimate responsibility for one's actions oneself, and to absolve God, the world, ancestors, chance, and society involves nothing less than to be precisely this causa sui and, with more than Munchhausen's audacity, to pull oneself up into existence by the hair, out of the swamps of nothingness. Suppose someone were thus to see through the boorish simplicity of this celebrated concept of "free will" and put it out of his head altogether, I beg of him to carry his "enlightenment" a step further, and also put out of his head the contrary of this monstrous conception of "free will": I mean "unfree will," which amounts to a misuse of cause and effect. One should not wrongly reify "cause" and "effect," as the natural scientists do (and whoever, like them, now "naturalizes" in his thinking), according to the prevailing mechanical doltishness which makes the cause press and push until it "effects" its end; one should use "cause" and "effect" only as pure concepts, that is to say, as conventional fictions for the purpose of designation and communication — not for explanation. In the "in-itself" there is nothing of "causal connections," of "necessity," or of "psychological non-freedom"; there the effect does not follow the cause, there is no rule of "law." It is we alone who have devised cause, sequence, for-each-other, relativity, constraint, number, law, freedom, motive, and purpose; and when we project and mix this symbol world into things as if it existed "in itself," we act once more as we have always acted - mythologically. The "unfree will" is mythology; in real life it is only a matter of strong and weak wills.

Continued below.

>>9673612
Cont.

>It is almost always a symptom of what is lacking in himself when a thinker senses in every "causal connection" and "psychological necessity" something of constraint, need, compulsion to obey, pressure, and unfreedom; it is suspicious to have such feelings — the person betrays himself. And in general, if I have observed correctly, the "unfreedom of the will" is regarded as a problem from two entirely opposite standpoints, but always in a profoundly personal manner: some will not give up their "responsibility," their belief in themselves, the personal right to their merits at any price (the vain races belong to this class). Others, on the contrary, do not wish to be answerable for anything, or blamed for anything, and owing to an inward self-contempt, seek to lay the blame for themselves somewhere else. The latter, when they write books, are in the habit today of taking the side of criminals; a sort of socialist pity is their most attractive disguise. And as a matter of fact, the fatalism of the weak-willed embellishes itself surprisingly when it can pose as "la religion de la souffrance humaine"; that is its "good taste,"

>>9673562
The reality and everything that encompasses(even ourselves and our actions) surely transcendents such dichotomies that are only apparent for us by the prism of our senses.
Something like the Teotl of the aztecs metaphysics and the Parmenides block universe.
An anomaly of time.

>>9673612
>>9673620

He seems really sure of himself and I think that's to his point's detriment. He positions himself as having a superior understanding, while he (in this paragraph) does not come up with any substantial evidence. I think his point about the many concepts we attribute to reality as being mythological, it's an interesting view. However, no matter if he's wrong or right, it seems like from his point of view the nature of free will is inexplicable. He's mostly trying to explain why other people have been wrong, instead of trying to elaborate why he is right.

... that's my initial reaction...lmk what you think

File: freewill.png (401KB, 684x1601px) Image search: [Google]

401KB, 684x1601px

>>9672676
Not him but that is basically the gist of the Free Will debate. After a long back and forth you'll realise there is no meaningful definition of Free Will and thus the only way for Free Will to exist is through ridiculous word play that barely supports its own argument.

>>9673544
But I still live in the hearts and minds of men.

Free will required supernaturalism.

If you are free from the laws of biology and physics, then there is a part of you (making the decision) that is NOT biology and physics. So you have a non-physical soul.

Accept free will and you accept spiritualism, you new age hippie.

>>9672676
Brainlet detected.

>>9672576

>thinking we ever had a choice

Don't you get it? You can't do this. This is wrong. The whole fucking thing, you can't do this to people. Determinism is standing on principle, someone always has to. If no one does the principle is lost. If someone has a true and righteous claim to say that they must do what they do, then they are an autonomous force. Of course, you have to be willing to forfeit your life, in the hopes that someday you will reclaim it.

>>9673720
>Of course, you have to be willing to forfeit your life, in the hopes that someday you will reclaim it.

I don't understand, for what do you have to be willing to forfeit your life

I like the way you are thinking, but the real challenge is to find a way to explain how free will is possible.

>>9673720
Couldn't you quite easily refute that with the argument that determinism is reliant upon your biology and environment, which determines the principle?

I personally disagree with complete determinism, however I think your biology and environment increases the probability that you will carry out certain choices over less probable ones.

>>9673730

In a deterministic universe, some are assigned to more arduous tasks than others. Many can construe this as "forfeiting your life". That's all I meant by it.

>>9672619
Damn, you're pathetic.

>>9673720
At least you're pulling the wool over your own eyes, I guess.

>>9673735
I would argue that to be able to make the decision to forfeit your life you need free will ;)

>>9673735
In a deterministic universe there is no life that is "yours". You are an aggregate of physical and biological events.

>>9673741

If someone is wronged and they spend the rest of their lives trying to set it right, have they pulled the wool over their own eyes? If they are a person suited to it, would anyone not strive to survive and not only that but fight a wrong, isn't it always the case that they would do so? I use personal injury as an example, as it is suited as an excellent motivator for most people. There may always be exceptions to the rule, and I call this determinism as well, but for the most part someone will at least try to avenge themselves.

>>9673550
>nothing changes
In your small world.

>>9673750

That's why I say many can construe this incorrectly. That's right, your life would just be the natural procession of events. You were always going to do what you do.

>>9673752
>>9673758
These two attitudes seem to be from the same poster but are contradictory. Am I wrong?

>>9673769

>Am I wrong?

Yes. They're not contradictory.

>would anyone not strive to survive and not only that but fight a wrong, isn't it always the case that they would do so?

is tantamount to

>You were always going to do what you do.

>>9673550
I don't need to justify why a thing that feels significant to me is worthwhile by relating it to something that YOU feel is significant. If it's not significant to you then just fuck off.

File: truth.png (26KB, 200x226px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 200x226px

>>9673735
Suppose one rationalized their will as being the will of the universe. Are they not experiencing free will then? For they are no longer being guided by anything, because they are both the guide and the one being guided.

>>9673775
I see. It's just that the first one seems to imply a sense of internal logic that is necessary to drive the behaviour. But with determinism that's not even necessary. The behaviour is determined physically regardless of how much it "makes sense".

>>9673785
>>9673787

This seems to be a cyclical argument. If a person believes they must do a thing then they do a thing which means that they were always going to do a thing which in turn means that they must have thought that doing a thing would be right which means that they would believe that they must do a thing, invariably leading to them doing that thing.

What is the point of this conversation? To determine if the person or the universe decided? I say, what's the difference?

>>9673795
Well this might seem strange to you, but for thousands of years it's felt quite important to many people to understand whether they or the universe is in control of their actions.

For one thing, it impacts a felt sense of responsibility that has lots to do with motivation and reward sensitivity.

>>9673795
>What is the point of this conversation?
Good question, the answer being there is none. The subject leads to a circlejerk always and the only possible reconciliation of the sides is to separate free will and determinism as "modes" that are not constant and depend on your perception.

>>9673798

That was a bit of satire. The whole problem is that the question is a loaded one, is going to be debated until new information comes to light. Where is metaphysical information in ample supply these days, anyway?

>>9673803
You don't think that the dissemination of that modal thinking is a worthwhile point?

Anyway, you talk as if people had the option of deciding whether it was important to them or not.

>>9673777
I see previous anon's point, but I have to agree with you. No need to be rude to him I'd say tho. Nihilism is a whole doctrine in itself that ironically occupies many people.

If you think the debate is the most useless ever anything and everything might as well be considered completely insignificant, arbitrarily.

Only thing I need to find significance in the debate is that I enjoy thinking about it.

Then there are countless other ways in how you might deem it as useful. (like how it can give your life purpose.. just a small example)

>>9673805
It's supply is available in discourse.

Which, to address >>9673808, is why I would knock back hard against those who try to shut the discourse down. If you're truly nihilistic, then it doesn't matter than other people are talking. Obviously, he has a value system about what we SHOULD be talking about.

>>9673806
>Anyway, you talk as if people had the option of deciding whether it was important to them or not.
Some people do, some don't. It's a matter of power.

>>9673817
Power obtained how?

>>9673810
I don't think he's trying to shut the discourse down. If so I would solidify my efforts to keep the conversation going, I do too find great meaning in it and think it is important for humanity to never stop contemplating these fundamental issues, as long as the conversation stays fresh and keeps evolving.

I think anon, like most people, simply hasn't given it much thought and doesn't feel the need to. In typical 4chan fashion he then proclaims his point of view as the superior one. It's standard fare.

>>9673820
With more power.

File: unnamed (1).gif (539KB, 238x155px) Image search: [Google]

539KB, 238x155px

>>9673880

"Free" is a word that we have defined exclusively from the situations where we are free to do that which we wish to do. When talking about free will in an argument about a deterministic universe, we extrapolate our original meaning of free and assume it is compatible in discussing freedom from physical causality. Just because an action you made was determined, does not mean it was coerced, because you as a system still made the choice. Saying it was determined by the universe for you only makes sense if you consider the universe to be independent of you. But this is not the case; you are the universe, you're not independent of it. When you make a decision, you as a system factor in all the nuances, and make the choice most in line with what you want the most. This is as free as it gets.

To define free will as freedom from the causality of the physical systems that make us up, is to superimpose a sort of extraordinary freedom that the word originally never entailed. So saying that you had no free will over an action will, because of the history of the word, imply some level of coercion, which is ultimately misleading.

Solution from a purely epistemological perspective? Split the words: deny the extraordinary free will, and accept the practical free will. Let's call it non-greedy Compatibalism, where you argue that because of the history of the word free, the practical freedom that we do have should be called free will, as long as you are very clear about denying the kind of freedom that allows for morality concepts like blame and justice to have intrinsic meaning.

Compatabalists argue from a morality perspective, where if you give up the idea of free will, blame and justice become problematic concepts. I don't like this line of thinking. It should not be the place of philosophy to hold back the truth for the sake of keeping metaphysics consistent with their interpretation of morality.

>>9672865
this

>>9673972
Ask a half assed question, get a half assed answer.

>mind is seated in the brain
>brain is made of matter
>matter is subject to physics
Ergo free will does not exist.

>>9674045
>physics is seated in the human mind
Ergo free will can exist.

>>9673984
>Just because an action you made was determined, does not mean it was coerced, because you as a system still made the choice.

How did you make the choice though? If you did so by simply following physical laws of a deterministic universe, it is arguable that the making of that exact choice was necessary. The very definition of choice is being able to choose between two or more possibilities.
Simply said: If there's only one course of action in the universe, choices do not exist.

If you could theoretically predict any action in advance, it is necessary that it's impossible to change that predicted action, otherwise the prediction would be incorrect. This prediction can only be made accurately by taking every single variable in consideration, including the method of prediction. This is practically impossible I'd say as you'd have to take into consideration the effect of you taking in consideration the effect of you taking in consideration... ad infinitum.

If hypothetical knowledge of the exact prediction would allow you to change the course of the future, I'd say free will exists as something immaterial and outside of the physical universe.

>When you make a decision, you as a system factor in all the nuances, and make the choice most in line with what you want the most. This is as free as it gets.

I think if you as a system are factoring in all the nuances it must be subconsciously. People pursue what they want the most generally by making a conscious decision.

Thus there will always be subconscious elements that influence your choices. This maybe partly free, but far from as free as it gets.

... just my opinion. Excuse me if I'm rambling.

>>9674050
>implying that subjectivism actually matters
In all likelihood, physics are a real construct of the universe that consistently controls the behavior of matter. I can't prove that, but I think it's overwhelmingly likely, i.e. it's overwhelmingly likely that free will does not exist.

>>9674057
You don't get it. This "universe" you're talking about, it can't be talked about without someone doing the talking. It can't be known without someone to know it. In other words, you and the universe are inseparable. In other words, you and the universe define and create each other. Knowledge is the greatest illusion mankind has ever convinced itself of.

Physics is real to the mind that "knows" it. To the mind that doesn't, physics is not real, and there is no possibility of it existing being out there. In the reality of a dog, there is no Einstein's theory of relativity, it simply does not exist. But you are also looking at your own reality just like the dog is. Yours might be greater than the dog's, but it is just as dependent on you as the dog's is, and it is ultimately just as true. Where it differs is not in truth but in endurance.

In the end, the matter of free will is a matter of master vs. slave morality. The slave is often more intelligent than the master, and grasping the universal scale of determinism is definitely an indication of intelligence; hence why harping on determinism being the "ultimate truth" is always a symptom of slave morality. You can be intelligent and a master as well. To be so, you need to have wisdom, not just knowledge, wisdom being a voluntary limitation of knowledge. Forgo the truth for power. That is the mark of an intelligent master. Otherwise you are an intelligent slave, no more right than the intelligent master, just weaker.

>>9674054
>How did you make the choice though? If you did so by simply following physical laws of a deterministic universe, it is arguable that the making of that exact choice was necessary. The very definition of choice is being able to choose between two or more possibilities. Simply said: If there's only one course of action in the universe, choices do not exist.

It comes down to how we define "you", and how we define "choice". It is true that you will always make the same choice because the physical state of your brain had been determined all along. But there there is still a decision in the purely functional sense being made here. The brain worked out the best possible decision, and made it. It was always fixed; making the "choice" here doesn't mean freedom from causality, simply freedom from coercion. You will never be forced to do something that goes against your will because, because whatever decisions are "fixed", are also decisions you generally want want to do. So here I am making a purely semantic argument that it is confusing to call this a lack of free will, because "free" carries implication of coercion. Metaphysically I of course agree, every choice is fixed, and the intuition that freedom from causality exists, is simply an illusion.

>Thus there will always be subconscious elements that influence your choices. This maybe partly free, but far from as free as it gets.
This is not me saying this is the ultimate form of freedom, but that this is the extent of freedom that that we have.

>>9674078
What's so inherently desirable about power then?

>>9674078
>You don't get it. This "universe" you're talking about, it can't be talked about without someone doing the talking. It can't be known without someone to know it. In other words, you and the universe are inseparable. In other words, you and the universe define and create each other. Knowledge is the greatest illusion mankind has ever convinced itself of.

>Physics is real to the mind that "knows" it. To the mind that doesn't, physics is not real, and there is no possibility of it existing being out there

based AF

>>9674078
>in the reality of a dog, there is no Einstein's theory of relativity
Put that dog's puppy on a near-lightspeed spaceship, let it fly around for a little while, and that dog will observe its puppy to have grown a lot older.
Your argument isn't bad. I *do* get what you're saying. The problem is that you're caught up in the question of whether or not we can *absolutely* say whether free will exists. We can't, I agree. But in all likelihood, it doesn't. In all likelihood, Einstein was correct. In all likelihood, all the physics out there we haven't discovered really do exist without our needing to be aware of them.

>>9674078
I dislike you're last paragraph. There are hints that you believe in free will at least partially out of an emotional desire to be your own master.

File: 1496702468089.jpg (16KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 480x360px

>>9673798
What if the universe doesn't want us to find out the truth?

File: Morpheus2.jpg (39KB, 600x543px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 600x543px

>>9674094
I'm personally on the fence. For me the only option is to stay open to any possibility, I can't allow myself to be convinced of one or the other as it is generally known to be conjecture.

>It was always fixed; making the "choice" here doesn't mean freedom from causality, simply freedom from coercion.

Ehm.. did you ever see The Matrix?

Just because most people in The Matrix were convinced that it was the real world and thought of themselves as free, that didn't mean they weren't coerced.

>>9674116
There's emotional desire behind everything written and all analysis is a striving towards shaping the world around you in your own vision.

>>9672576
Of course it doesn't exist. How could it? There's no room for it. You'd have to believe in magic in order to believe that free will exists.

>>9674078
>grasping the universal scale of determinism is definitely an indication of intelligence
t. animated star dust

>>9674140
There's a difference between believing in free will because you have a negative emotional reaction to the idea of being a slave and disbelieving in free will because you think physics seem likely to be correct.

>>9674145
Wisdom is not a negative reaction to truth. It's a tactical maneuver.

>>9674155
>Wisdom is not a negative reaction to truth. It's a tactical maneuver.
explain plz

>>9674155
So you're suggesting that disbelieving in free will out of a desire to escape slavehood is "wisdom"? I don't buy that at all.

>>9673720

It's true and you know it, and there are people who agree. You can't be allowed to get away with this.

>>9674094
>>9674134

I want to add something anon. Think you have an interesting point.

It is a very interesting difference between freedom from causality and freedom from coercion.

I think coercion is a kind of force that, more than limiting your *potential* to be free, limits your *actuality* to be free.

Coercion is, in my eyes, something that is defined from within a consciousness, not by the objective laws of nature.

No matter how free you say we are from coercion, people are being forced to do things they do not want all the time all over the world.

>>9674167
According to yourself, you have literally nothing to say about the matter anon. Other anon has.

>>9674161
Truth and power are the same thing in the end. Our subconscious goal is to shape the world in our vision, and subconsciously we construct the truth i.e. a universe that is the most advantageous to obtaining that goal. The higher your intelligence, the more complex your vision of the world becomes, and along the way you might stumble upon superfluous truths that certainly endure scrutiny nonetheless, but do not benefit your goal any more. Take a step back and let go of a truth in favor of your goal, and only leave with a fragment of the knowledge you gained from the journey reaching it that benefits your goal, and then you have what's called a piece of wisdom.

>>9674134
True, were we in the matrix we would not be free from either causality nor coercion. Though most free will debates take for granted that the external world is what it appears insofar as we're not enslaved by aliens and fed false experiences.

>No matter how free you say we are from coercion, people are being forced to do things they do not want all the time all over the world.
No one said everyone is free from coercion. Someone who is kidnapped and locked into a basement; this is a person who do not have (or have less) free will, according to the compatibilist definition.

The differences between freedom from coercion and freedom from causality is a core argument used by compatibilism. If you're interested in reading more about it:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/

They also argue that this is the "sort of freedom" that matters for morality to not go out the window because of determinism; that concepts such as blame and punishment are compatible with determinism. This is where I don't agree with it. I think in order for that to still be valid, we also need freedom from causality.

>>9674178
IMO, you can't assume of yourself to be always right about your desires and you also should especially not let yourself be led by your desires without taking into consideration the world around you apart from yourself. It's incredibly selfish and possibly harmful for you and your environment to disregard and discard your search for truth in favor of your personal desires. Desires have great potential to make you suffer. You seem inspired by Nietsche.

>>9674178
>Truth and power are the same thing in the end. Our subconscious goal is to shape the world in our vision, and subconsciously we construct the truth i.e. a universe that is the most advantageous to obtaining that goal. The higher your intelligence, the more complex your vision of the world becomes, and along the way you might stumble upon superfluous truths that certainly endure scrutiny nonetheless, but do not benefit your goal any more. Take a step back and let go of a truth in favor of your goal, and only leave with a fragment of the knowledge you gained from the journey reaching it that benefits your goal, and then you have what's called a piece of wisdom.

fucking hell m8 10/10

cheers

>>9672576
On a minor level, sure, but from a cosmic perspective...

>>9674193
>https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/

Thanks. I'm deffo interested.

>They also argue that this is the "sort of freedom" that matters for morality to not go out the window because of determinism; that concepts such as blame and punishment are compatible with determinism.

If it were compatible, I would think of it simply as fate.

I think I agree with you on the last part.

Say, a person would kill someone in a deterministic universe. If he had no choice but to do so, it is only natural that some judge similarly has no choice but to lock him up.

>>9674031
What a shit excuse.

>>9674122
I think it's more likely that it is literally impossible for a subject within a system to know the axioms that govern that system. Theories about reality are always going to end up circular because we are viewing something we are not separate from.

>>9674167

This alone is worth fighting for.

File: 24c1930b2fd7f6c0e6367ce926fc8f99.jpg (377KB, 750x1057px) Image search: [Google]

377KB, 750x1057px

>>9672593
>>9672593
>Don't blame some "universal plan" for your lack of discipline.
How can 'discipline' exist at all if free will is real? Discipline literally means conditioning that controls you and that you cannot overcome.

>>9673475
Nope. What I do is not necessary what I WANT to do.
I honestly feel baffled sometimes that people apperently can't grasp such a simple concept.
There is nothing preventing a simple answer from being correct, despite what /lit/ pseudointellectuals want you to believe.

>>9672576

>if i drop a coin, did i drop the coin? or did my hand drop the coin? or maybe something caused my hand to slip, and then did that thing make me drop the coin? none of these things are false. it's ultimately a matter of perspective.

A valid doubt, but this is stretching the definition of "what can make decisions?".

>i'm not an expert, but a lot of philosophy (not all of it, but a lot of it) seems like word games to me, or disagreements over what a particular word or concept should mean, and this isn't something that can be objectively proven.

I concur most wholeheartedly!

Either everything is predetermined, or we do have free choice. But it doesn't matter which one. I don't care.

Where does this put me on the philosophical scale for this incredibly thought-provoking, terribly important mystery that every 15 year old ponders about?

>>9674310
Somewhere between jester and arrogant serf.

>>9673558
Most of the late western philosophy certainly is.
The ancient Greek and medieval ones are far more interesting.
The problem is that, in my opinion, almost every recent philosopher has fallen in the trap of believing that a certain theory must be insanely complex to be worth of consideration, to the point that people call others "stupid" when they can see through the word-play.
This is because, in a nutshell, western philosophy has moved from asking "what is this thing"? to "what does this term in a certain language mean?"

>>9674310
>But it doesn't matter which one.

Of course it matters.

If we keep striving to find the answer we might find it. There's no way to know of it is improvable or not. Having a definite answer might inspire people, which I'd say matters.

Its both you dumbasses
Free will both exists and doesnt
Since the minute the universe was created every cog started rotating in a direction and you are but a tiny dent on the smallest piece. However when it comes to your personal feeling you feel as if you are the one making your decision which you are but always according to the grand universal plan.
Gosh.

>>9674329
D'uh. Whatever.

>>9673680
Scene 1 is completely irrelevant.

Scene 2 assumes with no particular reason that the universe must be deterministic.

Try harder, one day maybe you will able to talk without recurring to illustrations.

>>9674329

Really cleared the air there, guy.

>>9673699
>"oh no, he saw the nothingness right through the shield of fancy words, let's call him stupid"

>>9673720
Again another argument that boils down to

>it doesn't exist because i say so

This board is so boring.

>>9674326
Can an artist's drawing understand its borders, its limits, set by the artist? It cannot. It cannot even think. It is a picture.

>>9672576
>Physics is real to the mind that "knows" it. To the mind that doesn't, physics is not real, and there is no possibility of it existing being out there. In the reality of a dog, there is no Einstein's theory of relativity, it simply does not exist. But you are also looking at your own reality just like the dog is. Yours might be greater than the dog's, but it is just as dependent on you as the dog's is, and it is ultimately just as true. Where it differs is not in truth but in endurance.

O'Brien, is that you?

>>9674287
Wrong. It's simply a matter of strengthening your will.
But again, when you stretch a word's meaning you can prove anything.

>>9672637
>Implying she wants to fuck you

>>9674415
There's always rape.

>huuur but I chose not to take the Mars bar even though I'm hungry
All these people conflating the free will problem with ethical dilemmas and such... It's triggering me so bad. Yes, you can have conflicting drives and motivations, but they are ALL reducible to the body and brain localised in an environment.

So it's not about whether you're free to choose, it's about whether you're free to choose your choices. This is about whether ANY part of the universe can be separate from the causal chain of physical events and natural laws. If so, if you believe in free will, you believe in a non-physical (i.e., spiritual) aspect of reality.

>>9674440

>causal chain

>>9674448
Is something about that term problematic for you?

>>9674406
And what is a lack of discipline, which was equated with a lack of agency. Is it not as you say will that has been strengthened to be insurmountable, just whose effects are outwardly disagreeable?

The only one stretching the meaning of words is you, the only way to defend free will is to be logically inconsistent. This is that, but that isn't this. Yeah, ok.

>>9672666
This guy is right. The problem of free will as it has been traditionally put is obsolete. It's not a matter of whether everything you do is planned out in ahead or you are in control of your future. It's that we humans can't comprehend things like how decisions are made, seeing how we can't possibly answer questions like why did life begin or what started the Universe.

>>9672619
My life is ruined by my choices.

Is there an argument for free will from a physicalist viewpoint?

>>9674692
Of course not. See
>>9674440

>>9674594
Again, world-play and "it doesn't exist because I say so".

>>9674440
>Yes, you can have conflicting drives and motivations, but they are ALL reducible to the body and brain localised in an environment.
The physics didn't notice that, you did. You noticed physics. You created physics. You do it all the time.

File: 1200px-Nietzsche1882.jpg (204KB, 1200x1601px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 1200x1601px

sage

>inb4 can't sage with image
yes, thanks, you fucking faggot

>>9674715
>dude free will exists trust me it's words that are the enemy

>>9674689

What if you make choices that bring you closer to death and ruin each day, but you are fighting for something just? What if you want to uphold your traditional religious moral values, but the very same believers do not? What if to condemn the guilty you must condemn yourself to do it, not because they are guilty, but because they are powerful?

No matter how you look at a situation we forsake some manner of free will, and utilize another. It remains to be seen whether this is deterministic.

>yet another thread about free will where the self is not defined
>mfw
>>9672576

1) There is no free will in a deterministic universe.

2) We live in a deterministic universe as far as we can discern.

3) "We" do not exist in the purest sense in a deterministic universe. "We" are merely part of the deterministic universe being isolated for the purpose of meaningful discussion.

4) We are the universe in the purest sense.

5) In this realization we inherit the responsibility of the universe. We are the universe and we are its ultimate culmination in the present moment.

6) The existence of free will is wholly irrelevant because we are still responsible, and arguing for a deterministic universe only increases the range of our responsibility.

>>9675252
A choice is only possible between multiple desired things. The fact that I did want to do what I did is not proof of a lack of decision. It simply means that I am not insane.

>>9675426
>3) "We" do not exist in the purest sense in a deterministic universe. "We" are merely part of the deterministic universe being isolated for the purpose of meaningful discussion.

Are you saying that we live in a deterministic universe that we can influence to a certain extent because only a part of us is bound by its deterministic laws, the other part governed by transcendental forces outside of the deterministic universe?

>>9675486
I was breaking down the self there. Nothing is claimed or implied as transcendental.

>>9675495
>breaking down
It's a nice tool, but have you ever built something up?

>>9675503
There's a 7, I left it out on purpose. Let people figure it out.

>>9673479
Freedom is nonsense.

>>9675514
What about freedom-from and freedom-to? Still nonsense?

>>9675426
>1) There is no free will in a deterministic universe.
What about outside of it? You know, like a game and its algorithms, and the player? If you go meta, new rules appear.
>2) We live in a deterministic universe as far as we can discern.
Not true, or not a fact. We know of random elements to our world. Double slit experiment baybeh.
>3) "We" do not exist in the purest sense in a deterministic universe.
"I don't exist because I don't believe it? "
>4) We are the universe in the purest sense.
Hard to think of anything outside of my mind.
>5) In this realization we inherit the responsibility of the universe.
There is an if.
>We are the universe and we are its ultimate culmination in the present moment.
Yes, and that can mean scat porn or Alexander the Great.
>6) The existence of free will is wholly irrelevant because we are still responsible
Choices make the responsibility, not the goals. No choice, everything is validated, everything is legitimized, everything is equalized.

>>9675528
Yes.

>>9675514
>Power is nonsense. Throw a star, and I will be convinced otherwise! Or better yet, topple the universe!
>Reason is nonsense. Give me a reason to believe in logic and reason, and I will keep them around.
You see, relative existence does not reduce the existential value, it makes the world weird.
Power is real, freedom is real, reason is real. They can all be trusted to an extent.

>>9675535
But I can define the things I am free from and free to do.

>>9675547
That's merely the illusion of choice. In reality there is only one thing that will happen in the future and it could not have been any other thing. You're mistaking not knowing what you will do yet for actually having options.

>>9675534
>What about outside of it?
There is nothing outside the universe if you follow the definition of that word.

>>9675495
So, are you saying no matter what your intent, free will or not, you are still responsible?

That seems like a modest kind of responsible.

Can I say in that sense, that the soccer player was responsible for the goal, but so was the ball, the direction of the wind and the keeper that couldn't prevent it from going in the goal?

>>9675554
>muh illusion
Nietzsche pooped on Schopenhauer's chest in this debate. Go read him some more.

>>9675556
In that sense, yes. However, the physics that you deem important only work within a sphere. Quantum is the other end. Perhaps quantum is a higher realm. Perhaps this is the lowest.

>>9675554
>it could not have been any other thing
Wrong. Choices and perception affect reality. If the world is a billiard game, you don't see every move.

>>9675556
>There is nothing outside the universe if you follow the definition of that word.

Not a fact, the universe is defined as all of space and time.

If there are realms beyond space and time, they are not part of the universe.

>>9675571
It's all within the universe.

>>9675574
Sure they do, but you're not free to make them. How a chestnut falls out of a tree after a gust of wind affects reality as well, but the chestnut does not determine its own path.

>>9675601
>you're not free to make them
I am free to choose certain things. Nobody is arguing for full control.

>>9675601
You're ignoring the difference of power being things. A human being has far more choices than a chestnut does in your "world of illusion". Illusion itself requires power in order to be identified. Something more powerful than you will see your truth as illusion, too.

>>9675589
Then how do you know that the Universe is deterministic? Science is in its infancy, yet you proclaim that we've understood the Universe?

>>9675615
Philosophers know the universe by knowing themselves. Even the Greeks have known the nature of the universe long before science even became an established study.

>>9675619
I've reached a different conclusion.

I don't understand why y'all claim to know how the universe works, to me it's obviously still an open question.
You seem so certain that your way is the right way, yet I have not seen one single decisive argument or piece of evidence to support any of what you claim to know. It's a fine discussion, I just don't understand how people are so convinced that their conclusion is the one.

File: heraclito-fe.jpg (167KB, 1180x1024px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 1180x1024px

>>9675635
Cheers.

>>9675610
You choose certain things, but you're not free to choose other than what you choose. What you experience subjectively as a choice, something that you could have done otherwise, is something that you could not have done otherwise. If you would rewind the universe to the exact state before you made the decision and press play again it would lead to the exact same decision, since circumstances are exactly the same and therefore would lead to exactly the same output.

>>9675614
A human being is just as determined as a chestnut, he merely thinks he isn't.

>>9675649
If you hook up your brain to monitoring the observers know the choices you make in advance of when you feel like you're making them. Decisions are already made before they even appear in your consciousness. What people experience as deliberate deciding and acting is merely an after-effect of a biological process.

>>9675681
>A human being is just as determined as a chestnut, he merely thinks he isn't.
Regardless, a human has more power than a chestnut. Your attempts to rationalize this away is not based on truth but your contempt as a slave towards the master.

>>9674078

>Forgo the truth for power.

>we know the truth, but prefer lies

A truly wise and powerful, kind and benevolent master.

>>9675708
The truth is cold. Kindness requires telling a lie.

>>9675714

Yes, lets just ignore the fact that the lies being told to the populace today will have disastrous consequences in the future for unborn innocents (descended from you btw), especially where the ultimately super-wealthy and super-powerful are concerned.

>>9675737
And the ice cold truth that provides neither pain nor pleasure would help them, you think?

>>9674213
>Say, a person would kill someone in a deterministic universe. If he had no choice but to do so, it is only natural that some judge similarly has no choice but to lock him up.
Sure, but we are now at a stage where we can metaphysically infer that we are not free from causality, and that blame and punishment is not something that is inherently justified. Imprisonment would then have to be entirely about rehabilitation instead, which a lot of countries are moving towards in a strictly legal sense.

I'd consider myself a realist, alright? But in philosophical terms I'm what's called a pessimist...

I think human consciousness is a tragic misstep in evolution. We became too self-aware. Nature created an aspect of nature separate from itself - we are creatures that should not exist by natural law... We are things that labor under the illusion of having a self, that accretion of sensory experience and feelings, programmed with total assurance that we are each somebody, when in fact everybody's nobody... I think the honorable thing for our species to do is to deny our programming. Stop reproducing, walk hand in hand into extinction - one last midnight, brothers and sisters opting out of a raw deal.

File: 1456209832388.jpg (213KB, 640x960px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 640x960px

>>9672619
>luck existing

>>9675700
Power has nothing to do with it. The sun has more power than a human, doesn't mean he has free will.

>>9675820
This will be the gestalt of the future techno-terrorists who blow themselves up. Give it about 100 years.

>>9675989
Portable nukes soon.

>>9672869
Free will and determinism aren't mutually exclusive. God has the *most* freewill while a single celled organism has the least amount of free will possible (if at all). This isn't hard to understand, dude. We, as humans, are somewhere in between.

>>9672666
>"the ability for an agent to spontaneously make a choice"
But it isn't? Free will is simply choosing certain causes to certain effects. I can stab or fuck you with varying causes/reasons and my free will allows which cause to take precedence. You can't just ad hoc reason out that me stabbing or fucking you is an eventuality when other possibilities exist

>>9676007
You can't be a little bit free. Your choices are either determined by circumstance or made outside of causality.

>>9676016
>You can't be a little bit free.
Equality is a myth. You can measure different amounts of freedom between individuals.

>>9672865
this

>>9674746
You think if I smash an unconscious man on the noggin it won't cave his skull in because he wasn't aware of "physics"? You think if I throw a baby out a window he won't fall to the ground?

You think you'd be able to "notice physics" without a fully operational frontal cortex?

Wew lad.

>>9672576
Free will is a meme. Everything that has happened and can happen has been able to be predicted since the beginning of time, it's just the amount of unmeasurable variables makes it hard to find the method. Chaos theory and all that.

>>9674078
>"grasping the universal scale of determinism is definitely an indication of intelligence"
>attributing every action in your life to a chain you can't stop from happening
>basically saying that every mistake in your life is not your fault, as it was determined
>"indication of intelligence"
Go be a mongoloid somewhere else. Or wait, maybe you can't, because it was already determined?
You're right about determinism being a slave morality, because the retard who believes that gives up himself and becomes a slave to this existence, behaving like one because he thinks he has no control over his actions.
>To be so, you need to have wisdom, not just knowledge, wisdom being a voluntary limitation of knowledge. Forgo the truth for power. That is the mark of an intelligent master. Otherwise you are an intelligent slave, no more right than the intelligent master, just weaker.
What are you babbling about? You used the slave-master dichotomy in relation to free will and determinism, how can you give the definition of a master without using any of those two relations?

>tfw you just wanted to start a bait thread but everyone takes it seriously

>>9672576
>he still believes he can say wether free will exists

of course we have a free will we dont have any choice

>>9672865
Dis.
Free will has always been a meme.
In the grand scheme of things, we are all left with reactive thoughs and unability to not choose.

File: farm.jpg (223KB, 999x1649px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 999x1649px

>>9676228
>we all have freedom, but some are free-er then others
This reminds me of something...

>>9672590
>POV_disgruntled_handjob.jpg

>>9674692
dude quantum physics lmao

>>9680056
Why is this a meme and not taken seriously? Like, the world's top minds including Einstein were trying to comprehend the implications of quantum theory on our vision of reality. Why has it become akin to "huurrrr weed quantum durrrr ayyyyylmao"? It's so frustrating.

File: descartes.jpg (7KB, 240x175px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 240x175px

>>9673581
>>read neurotic jew

Opinion Descarted.

File: robertsapolsky.jpg (161KB, 1200x1732px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 1200x1732px

>free will

>>9680056
At the moment, it would appear that the length scales typical of neural processes are too large for quantum effects to matter. Besides, if they did, we would have a situation where people are at the whim of quantum-mechanical probabilities. Libertarian free will does not seem plausible. On the bright side, we probably don't live in a universe created by one god or another, which would make us all puppets. Some Calvinists find this idea appealing, but I don't.

Real-world example supporting determinism:https://youtu.be/N3fA5uzWDU8

>>9672576
Well, we can test it out.

Try being angry by your own choice.

>>9672646
You're also on 4chan.
This is the problem with meritocratic types. They often just have power fantasies of themselves being super successful, but they are almost always mundane and typical people in real life. It's the idea that they can achieve anything that makes them feel good.

File: 1498362790334.jpg (58KB, 500x387px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 500x387px

>>9672619
>luck
>I never worked for anything and i'm a failure so nobody ever worked for anything

Imagine a man named Bob sitting at a table.
Suddenly, a button appears in front of Bob.
Bob is curious so he pushes the button.
It turns out, the button is a time-reseter that rewinds time by 10 seconds.
The universe is now trapped in that 10 second time loop forever. When time is reset, all matter and energy in existence is changed back to how it was 10 seconds earlier, meaning everything will always happen the exact same way and Bob will always push the button. Bobs brain, and the brains of every living thing in the universe, are not magic. They're made up of matter and energy just like everything else, and they obey the laws of physic just like everything else. Bob will never suddenly choose not to push the button no matter how many times it loops, because his brain is always reset to the exact same state, and will always react in the exact same way.

Now imagine extending the time reset from the beginning of Bobs life to the end. Everything in Bobs life will always play out the exact same way. Bob will always "make the same decisions" every time in the exact same way. Is he truly making the decisions at all then? It's more like he's on a track, experience every moment as it happens thinking it's a dynamic experience, but the course has actually be predetermined since the beginning of time.

The entire universe is on that track. Everything is made of matter and energy, from inanimate objects to the human brain, and they all obey the laws of physics the same way.

File: images (55).jpg (14KB, 468x314px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 468x314px

>>9682063

>>9682333
I'm not sure what message you're trying to convey here.

>>9682063

Second Law of Thermodynamics bb

>>9682349

That's Bob, your creation. You monster.

>>9672597
True, but choices are between different wants. Morality is often the victory of the lesser want.

>>9682359
Time is reset in this scenario, and all entropy with it. I'm aware time travel isn't real but that's the magic of a hypothetical scenario, you can bend rules in order to illustrate a point. That point being if we could magically reverse time, things will always play out the exact same way. If things always play out in the exact same way it means they're essentially on a set path. If everything is on a set path, then there is not truly such a thing as free will.

>>9682370
>That point being if we could magically reverse time, things will always play out the exact same way

Prove it being my point, you fucking dullard

>lol it's just a thought-experiment bro chill!

Your mind is broken.

>>9682376
Prove what, exactly.

>>9682378

Jesus Christ.

>>9678233
>You think if I smash an unconscious man on the noggin it won't cave his skull in because he wasn't aware of "physics"
No, but he did believe that he had a head and that your fist could do what it did.
There is no objective reality.

>>9682380
You're being incredibly unspecific and uncooperative.

Tell me exactly what you believe is wrong in my scenario instead of childishly insulting me while vaguely saying "prove it" to the entire thing.

>>9682386

PROVE THAT 'EVERYTHING WILL HAPPEN THE EXACT SAME WAY' YOU LITTLE RETARD

>dude just like think about it

NECK YOURSELF

>>9682370
>That point being if we could magically reverse time, things will always play out the exact same way
They wouldn't.
First of all, if we could reverse time, we would change the composition of previous time.
Beyond that we also have fully random sequences.

You're stuck in the TV/Newspaper/Radio generations. The world is interactive and has chaotic elements to it.

>>9682391
The laws of physics are not random. When 2 object collide they don't bounce off of each other in random ways, you can measure and calculate exactly how it will happen. And if you perfectly replicate the conditions of the collision again, they will play out in the exact same way again. It's simple math. To claim otherwise is basically to say "1+1 sometimes equals 0 or 3". The same is true of all physical reactions in the universe. All matter and energy interact in set ways. The laws of physics will never randomly just work a different way for no reason.

Your brain is also a physical object. There's no magic going on inside your school. Your brain is just a lump of matter, and all of your thoughts, feelings, emotions and memories are just electrical and chemical signals. The thing that is your consciousness is just a series of physical reactions involving energy and matter interacting. And as previously established, those always interact in the same way. So if you set up Bobs brain the exact same way it was 10 seconds ago, as well as everything else in the universe the exact same way it was 10 seconds ago, it'll happen the same way.

Now how about you prove that it wouldn't.
And more importantly, prove how if it did happen differently, how exactly was that the "free will" of Bob. Cause it seems as if every discussion of this topic goes the same way. People who want to believe in free will sit there stubbornly saying "free will is real it's real it's real", people who know it's not try to explain otherwise, and the free will wannabelievers just do everything they can to desperately nitpick the explanations while offering none of their own.

>>9682410
>And if you perfectly replicate the conditions of the collision again, they will play out in the exact same way again

This is what I'm asking you to prove. With math. Show me the physics, you silly bitch.

How do "free will" defenders deal with the natural occurrence of immediate or delayed effects?

How can one extrapolate his or her own "choice" out of the environment?

I mean, if I "choose" between two items, the metal process that (possibly) ends with the decision is based on past experiences and the expectations drawn from them.

Our body continuously "keeps track" of past choices via different systems (memory, emotion...), drawing from the well of personal and, where applicable, collective experience.

The metaphor of the "Homo faber" is a product of ancient times. It survives today because it seems to be necessary to ensure the well being of many contemporary cultural systems.

I'm not trying to say that there's no choice. I'm trying to say that the final choice would be obvious if we had enough data on the behavior adopted by the organism in the past.

File: chapter8.07.01.gif (16KB, 600x360px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 600x360px

>>9682417
Wow dude. You can't blame me for needing multiple explanations of what you were asking. I was giving you too much credit, I didn't think you could possible be demanding I "prove" the fundamental basics of physics and math in general. I foolishly assumed you had at least graduated high school or something, where taking and passing a class on this stuff was mandatory.

Well here I go. Basically these super smart people called "physicists" used their big smart brains to measure stuff and come up with things called "formulas". I'm afraid I'm not quite sure how to show off every single formula in existence to you in a single image so here's one I just randomly grabbed. You can look up more if you want, though I doubt you will. Basically the way these formulas work is that you can take numbers and plug them into the formula, replacing the letters, or "variables". And then when you've filled in all the variables, you can simply run the math with a calculator, and you get a result. If you put the exact same numbers into the exact same variable slots, you always get the exact same result.

Here's a super simple example that most children are taught in elementary school, so hopefully even you should be able to do it (though I still have my doubts).

A + B = C

A = 1
B = 2
So tell me, what does C equal?

>>9682349
He is probably trying to convey that yours is entirely just a theory you have no way to prove.

>>9682434
You free will wannabelievers are the ones claiming magic is real. Everything I've said is backed by math and logic.

Meanwhile everything you've said is backed by
>
Oh it's nothing. In fact you're not really saying anything, just trying to discredit what I say with desperate petty nitpicks because it would hurt your feelings and make you sad to accept free isn't real.

>>9682439
No it isn't. Since you seem unable to read, I'll say it again: yours is just an interesting theory. You have talked and talked and talked and yet no actual proof. Very easy to erroneously claim that "everything is backed up by muh physics" without actually saying what and why it backs it up.
Very very easy. The internet has made looking smart incredibly simple.

>having so much popcorn to this thread

>>9682410
>laws of physics not random
The laws of physics, once you get to a certain level, really are random, and this claim clearly shows that you like talking your ass out about something you never studied past what was required in high school.

>>9682458
If you're disagreeing with anything I've said so far then you are literally claiming "1+1 sometimes equals something other than 2". You're claiming magic exists. You're admitting you're a high school dropout who has never even learned the first thing about physics, and doesn't understand what a mathematical formula is, and that you think when you plug different numbers together the results just pop out at random and are different every time, and that those numbers being random somehow proves you have free will.

>The internet has made looking smart incredibly simple.
Yet you somehow can't manage to do it. What does that say about you?


>>9682469
Even if you want to go that deep you're still not winning the argument. Everything I've said thus far has been more about determinism than free will itself.

So if you want to say "nuh uh muh quantum particles are random", so what? Do they create free will? If you want to tie all your decisions to randomness, then that just means you're controlled by randomness. You aren't choosing how any random events occur, so you still don't have free will in that scenario either.

>>9682469
Not the same poster, but your reply is fucking retarded.
He was referring to newtonian physics, from which he extrapolated his example.

In a world without free-will, is "will" similar to a powerlevel?
Some people definitively lack the quality of "willing" something enough to motivate them to do it, and are all around passive people with no motivation to do anything. People suffering from depression have this kind of behavior.
Some people are quite the opposite, bording on hyper-activity and always being entrepreneurs of their own lives because they have a desire, a "will" strong enough that it pushes them to act upon it.

But you can't really control desires, so the natural conclusion to the denial of free-will would be to say that the lazy and the busy-body are quite equal in "merit". I can see why some people would feel threatened by the idea.

What would be the best way to raise a kid so that he grows up willing?

>>9682485
It's a sad answer, but honestly what you would need to do is keep them ignorant. The vast majority of people can't handle the revelation that there's no free will. When you think too deeply into the nature of existence it tends to result in very nihilistic viewpoints and depressive tendencies.

I hate ignorance on principal so I try to spread awareness wherever I go, but I also realize the majority of people who read what I say will ignore it because they can't or don't want to understand it, because doing so would undermine basically everything they've ever known, thought, felt or cared about in life.

>>9682496
>zomg im so enlightened free will doesn't exist the masses are so stupid

>>9682514
It doesn't exists, and the masses are stupid.

Like you for example. You think putting a greater than sign and the word "zomg" in front of something somehow renders it invalid and incorrect, and also somehow proves your own beliefs correct. That's a very stupid attitude.

No matter how long this thread goes on for you will never offer any proof of free wills existence, you can't even explain what it is. You will only insult people who tell you it isn't real, because that upsets you, and you believe insulting them somehow changes things.

You're going to respond to this post with yet another insult and no argument now because you think it's clever to do it anyways after I preemptively say you're going to.

the trolling is strong in this thread

>>9682349
That >>9682063 is depressing as fuck.

>>9682385
And the newborn baby? Way to cherrypick and let the point fly above your non-existent head.

>>9682419
There are no facts, only interpretations.

I would tear out my heart and offer it up to God too see you brought to justice. Anything, and I mean anything.

Damn, anti-free willers seem incredibly aggressive.

>>9682476
>If you're disagreeing with anything I've said so far then you are literally claiming "1+1 sometimes equals something other than 2"
There are random things in reality, or at least physics. Disagree and you disagree with physics. There is no Determinism in nature. In math, there is. Mathematical axioms are not physical axioms.

>>9682654
Ahahaha.
You believe in power. You see power.
You are as strong as you believe yourself to be.

>>9683087
The ones in this thread in particular seem to be. They seem hard pressed to convince others that there is an objective conclusion to everything and a constant state of the world. Change alone is unchanging though and the determinist viewpoint is only a viewpoint. It may be more accurate than the limited viewpoint of someone who perceives free will as a possibility but they are nonetheless both viewpoints and each one has its purpose. In most cases throughout life it will be more practical and emotionally interesting for you to assume you have free will.

free will is nothing to do with personal choice and willpower . it's a metaphysical question

>>9683172
Whether you see will as free or not is a matter of your morality though, like all philosophy. The weaker you are, the more you feel that the universe is outside of yourself, and then you see will as something that is chained to the universe. But when you are strong, you feel more that you are the universe, and then how can the will be chained to itself? How does the matter of freedom vs. lack thereof even exist then?

>>9683172
>free will is nothing to do with personal choice and willpower . it's a metaphysical question
Untrue. It has massive ethical ramifications. Consider prisons, if people were always doomed to be criminals is it really fair to incarcerate them? And if criminality is in fact predictable, is it just to arrest people before they've committed the crime based on said predictability? The question is very relevant to all of society in countless ways.

>>9674078
U srs? Just because a dog doesnt understand or even realize relativity, doesnt mean relativity isnt real for it. Its still subject to it, and its experience is altered by it. Your arugment is bullshit

>>9683355
I believe his argument is something like solipsism. Your very conception of a dog is exclusive to you, not unlike your knowledge of 'my' saying so.

>>9683159

You will concede to the terms or this will not end, try as you might. How embarassing this must be for you.

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

>>9683087
>can do literally noting to backup your view point
>"haha u mad the people who call me wrong sure are mad and that somehow means the thing I believe in for no reason is actually real I don't have to explain why it's real cuz ur mad"

File: 1494128772267.jpg (72KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 640x480px

>>9672576
>he's still cucked by oriental despostic Judeo-Christian nomolatry

>>9683087
That's your causally inescapable understanding. Mine disagrees.

>>9683698
>>9683791
My stance on the matter is neutral, I make no claim I have to prove. Congrats for further proving how thirsty you are convincing the world that your conclusions must be correct.

>>9683845
Your stance isn't that you believe the anti-free willers seem aggressive? Are you retarded?

>>9683852
I'm neutral on whether free will exists or not. It seems to me that the truly retarded post is yours, assuming it's not low quality trolling.

>>9683866
It's comical how dumb you are, directly contradicting yourself and claiming your misunderstanding is proof of other people being desperate to be correct.

>>9673084
Freedom and Belief by Galen Strawson is the only one worth reading. Correctly identifies compatibilism as damage control and spends the rest of the book contrasting the apparent logical impossibility of truly being "causa sui" with the powerful subjective experience of free choice

>>9680847
because the fact that the "randomness" that we currently associate with quantum physics is irrelevant to the free will debate is obviously trivial. In order to prove free will, libertarians need to give an account of self-determination, which our understanding of quantum physics does not currently support.

>>9683698
>needing to prove free will for those who do not want to believe it
Placebo makes wishes real. Your belief in getting better improves you. Fact.
I believe that truth sets me free. Knowing that, I dare say that the limits of this world (not deterministic based on physics) are secondary to the limits of what can be.
The fact that I have boundaries does not enslave me. Likewise, my lack of omnipotence does not make me weak. These structures and states define where I am.

If we are mere "matter" in the broad sense of the word, so are our opinions and whatever we say. All meaning is in them as well. Therefore there only can exist different shaped patterns and lumps of this matter, interacting with itself. No perception is 'wrong' nor can be. Of course, the meaning of 'wrong' would be a separate signal from the alternatives. The difference is not relevant. Pretending that it is - for what purpose could that be? A real purpose? Not more than the surreal, or even non-real purposes. It would simply be impossible to be. Random blobs claim

Transcendent qualia is the way out of this loop. However, where does the freedom lie therein? It lies in separation, in structure, in hierarchy compared to the lower truths - meta truth shapes truth, like metaphysics shape physics; I do, so it becomes so. Truth has to be meaningful for it to have a liberating effect.

>>9683895
Considering that you've only been able to say "you're dumb" or "are you retarded?" with no real point to make, I can conclude that this is indeed low quality trolling.

File: salvation2.png (440KB, 645x1260px) Image search: [Google]

440KB, 645x1260px

>>9672576
If free will exists I would've killed myself already.

>>9684028

You were good until your last paragraph. 'Qualia' is a conceptual trap, and a reality-constitutive consciousness is at odds with the ontological plenum toy describe.

>>9684028

Your placebo example doesn't really cut it.
By definition, when a placebo is administered, the patient is unaware of its nature.

>>9684200

'No'.

http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/placebo-can-work-even-know-placebo-201607079926

>>9684223
Thank, you. That was an interesting read.

However, it doesn't really solve the issue:

>experimenter gives placebo, telling the subject about its real nature
>at this point, the subject has to decide whether or not the experimenter has lied

This creates another typical placebo setting, do you agree?

>>9684200
So whatever you find certain, is placebo.

>>9684052
Don't underestimate your cowardice, anon.

>>9684045
Your only point literally was 'umad', the irony is staggering.

And if you weren't so dumb you'd understand the joke that has completely gone over your head here but I'm not about to explain it.

>>9684291

In both a 'normal' placebo administration setting and the modified one in which the placebo is declared as such before administration there is an implicit trust on the part of the subject that they are being told the truth and, conversely, that the subject must determine whether or not the administrator is lying. In this way are the settings the same. However, in the former case, IF the subject chooses to believe the administrator, then they take the placebo as a 'real' medicine. In the latter case, IF the subject chooses to believe the administrator, then they take the placebo as a placebo, yet still benefit from the 'placebo effect', as if they didn't know it was a placebo. The subject in this latter setting hasn't convinced themself that they were being lied to in order to 'activate' the placebo; they know it is a placebo insofar as that knowledge is relevant to the scenario, and yet are affected the same as if they lacked that knowledge, even though it is 'knowledge' of what the placebo actually is that is supposed to determine it's efficacy.

>implying it matters whether it's real or not

File: 9254926-2-402.jpg (315KB, 1200x1200px) Image search: [Google]

315KB, 1200x1200px

>>9684353
>implying one cannot make use of the fact that they are both observer and observed once they observe it

>>9684368
>implying anyone can observe it and it's not just their ego at play

File: 1498480305785.jpg (23KB, 540x356px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 540x356px

>>9684373
>t. samsara bound wretch
seek enlightenment senpai

>>9684385
It's the same ego at play when redditors talk about recognizing the "simulation"

It's a cheap way to overcome yourself.

>>9684349
Thank you for your well thought response. It does make sense and I hope things will be looked into a bit more.

However:

My problem is that I cannot trust the subject even if he declares (makes explicit) that he believes the placebo, because he could be implicitly feel as the placebo actually is a medicine, and then benefit from it exactly like in your average placebo administration.

Now, seeing what you meant originally, I take back my attack on your original statement. It does make sense at a metaphorical level.

>>9684328

No sir, I didn't intend to convey that idea. I was referring specifically to the article linked by the other anon.

>>9684337
My point was none at all, I just made an observation. Now go back to your little troll cave.

I think conscious is not a binary thing, for some superior being that can perform meticulous calculation of the universe, they probably think that human are so predictable that we don't seem conscious.

Its like, we are to them like ants are to us

>>9684978
The supporters of determinism ITT for some reason insist that it's a binary thing and that free will can't be understood as a relative spectrum.

>>9685957
The spectrum of free will ranges from "not existing" at the bottom to "not existing" at the top.

>>9685988
Congratulations for further proving his point.

IF God exists, then there is no way free will exists. If God doesn't exist, free will exists

>>9687059
there is nothing preventing the two conclusions from being swapped

>>9685957
>there are varying degrees of free
You must be a Eurocuck.

>>9687233
nice job proving you can't read

>>9687215
Yes there is, the logical incompatibility of perfect foreknowledge and free action.

Macrocosmic and microcosmic events are bounded by hard determinism.
Consciousness its an anomaly of time.

>>9674298
you're retarded. you still are soing exactly what you desire but your desire to fuck her is overshadowed by the desire to maintain a friendship/morals.

>>9688412
The question is, are those conflicts deterministic?

>>9688412
>damn he's right, better call him retarded

>>9689317
Not him, but what exactly are you right about?

Do you not desire both to fuck her and to not cause conflict with your buddy?
What's more, did you choose to have either of those desires? You didn't choose what kind of person you're attracted to. You don't choose any of your own opinions, they develop naturally due to a combination of your genetics and your life experiences. Else wise you could just choose to not be attracted to her altogether and not have to deal with the conflict. You could choose to be attracted to rocks and be the happiest person in the world just by having a rock as your girlfriend.

I bet you're the kind of person to use a phrase like "I wanted to do this, but my brain told me to do this, and that proves I have free will", because you don't realize there's no such thing as you and your brain. Your brain is you, and you are your brain.

Thoughts and decisions are just different parts of the brain processing information like a bunch of computers before eventually coming to a conclusion, and that's what the body does. But you can't control how your brain processes things or what conclusion it reaches. To claim otherwise you would have to say "My brain controls my brain", which is an endless cycle with no beginning, meaning it's not possible.

>>9672576
>he still believes free will doesn't exist

This is bait, everyone. It has to be. Why are we arguing over a concept so simple to understand?

>>9672666
non determinism != free will

>>9690374
Because truth is a woman.

Why does free will even matter?

Even if I did have free will what can I do with it that is so amazing?

I mean if you told me having free will meant I could have telekinesis and move at the speed of light and live forever maybe I would give a shit you know?

>>9672576
because it doesn't.
Do you decide to die?
Do you decide to need food?
Do you decide to be bound by the laws of nature?

Ofc, your will is free in a twisted kind of sense, if you disregard physical and mental inability and stuff like that, but that isn't exactly what I'd really call "free"