Zero Free Will

>>26204876
So what? Why do you even care?

>>26204876
I think our ability to be aware of this supposed lack of free will is indicative of "something" freer than mere determinism.

I agree that most people function like robots, but I think that can be overcome.

>>26204876
Interesting post

Familia

>>26205025

>I think our ability to be aware of this supposed lack of free will is indicative of "something" freer than mere determinism.

I don't see how. Being aware that you can't survive naked in an arctic winter doesn't give you a better ability to survive naked in an arctic winter.

It can motivate you to make some clothes, though, granted.

>>26205139
>Being aware that you can't survive naked in an arctic winter doesn't give you a better ability to survive naked in an arctic winter.
We're talking about issues more abstract than physical, empirical truths.

>It can motivate you to make some clothes, though, granted.
and one is aware of how to overcome dying of exposure, so your comparison is pretty useless.

>>26204876
Free will is a fedora tipping philosophy. An attempt to be autonomous and free from their creator. Divine determinism is how the world operates.

>>26205269
addendum: granted, the person may still be screwed if there is no access to materials to make clothes, and the relation can be made to a person aware of their own free will, yet not able to reach the means to overcome it, which I believe are within certain peoples reach but involve non-ordinary experiences that can't really serve logical argumentative points.

Ultimately, I "feel" free, to some extent. I realize the sway my genetics have over me, as well as my life circumstances, but I feel like I have a choice in most matters, so regardless if it's actually my own free will dictating said choices, I'm for all intents and purposes free. It seems if you ponder the issue enough you realize how silly accepting determinism is, since we seem determined to feel as though we're free, there's no point in questioning it, but to think of ourselves as puppets controlled by the chaos of the universe with no will, I don't think we have to argue that this can impact the course of events in someone's life negatively. It seems far more beneficial for humans to believe they're free.

Wait i'm pretty stupid and i don't get it very well

So what is it then???

There is no free will (but for the sake of mental health of human beings is good that they believe so.)

so is it neither causal nor deterministic???
what is it??

>>26205303
If there is no free will, then free will believers did not choose that.

>An attempt to be autonomous and free from their creator.
Makes no sense in that context.

>>26204876
I mean in the truest sense yeah, there is no absolute freewill. We are organic computers bound by laws of physics. Although we are self-aware we cannot directly manipulate the chemical and biological processes that dictate our functioning. We do not have the endogenous ability to alter ourselves in such a way. We are an amalgam of patterns recorded by our brains and the organs interacting with it. We are a squishy living neural network, dictated by the laws of the universe. We may be able to consciously think about a decision and make the choice through the perspective of human eyes, but consciousness is not metaphysical.
>>26205025
consciousness is nothing special in a physical sense, just an emergent trait of a strong computing presence.

>>26205303
this is just religion bait, unless you think that all movement of energy in the universe is predetermined by physical/quantum law which leaves us with many questions on the functioning of the universe

>>26205704
>unless you think that all movement of energy in the universe is predetermined
A non-deterministic universe does not imply free will.

File: connect.jpg (354KB, 640x843px) Image search: [Google]

354KB, 640x843px

OP is a 17 year old who just watched The Matrix for the first time

>>26205743
why would you think I'm implying free will there? I'm saying divine determinism has no substantiation, and that the only thing comparable would be hard determinism based on universal laws of operation.

File: sheen the pepe.jpg (37KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 800x600px

>>26205772
anon is a neckbeard who sits around thinking about who will be his waifu tomorrow and doesn't contemplate philosophical notions of existence and consciousness
>there is any true difference between the two, and that all human thought isn't inherently without substance
thanks for reminding me ;_;

>>26205633

>There is no free will (but for the sake of mental health of human beings is good that they believe so.)

I don't think so. I think free will belief is a harmful delusion.

Ironically, it "lets people off the hook" in the worst way possible.

Don't raise your kids with kindness and they turn out messed up? Don't worry--they could have just used their free will to undo all their bad conditioning!

I think free will belief lets people behave MORE irresponsibly than realizing that our wills are clearly causal to a large extent, and any acausality is independent from and indeed antithetical to "free will"

>>26205698

>If there is no free will, then free will believers did not choose that.

OP here. I agree completely.

>>26205946
never thought of it like that.

to me it seems that if you say

Hey faggets you don't have free weill most of your actions are causal get wild it's not your fault.

people will obviously go insane, and stop behaving.

>>26205946
right? Americant's use that concept to support the idea that "you are where you are only because you earned it, with no external intervention of any kind" and it's just fucking funny. This is why you can't just give people knowledge you have to teach them how to use it

>>26205633
It's probably a bit of freedom and a bit of causalities/determinism.

>>26205704
>consciousness is nothing special in a physical sense
Well, we can't discuss it in a physical sense because we haven't a way of empirically quantifying it outside of brainwaves or electrical signals emitted from the brain to electrodes.
>just an emergent trait of a strong computing presence.
if that's so we're sitting here as two computers feeling like we have the will to talk to each other, but you are theorizing we actually don't, we're helplessly propelled to be shitposting to each other in this supposedly determined universe. Computers don't contemplate their own existence, they exist to respond to commands. We're very bad computers if that is all we are.

There is literally no difference between free will and the illusion of free will if we are always in the illusion. That's like saying that reality is a simulation. If you can never leave the simulation then it doesn't matter.

>>26205987
There's a difference between telling people and explaining to people. People barely grasp the earth isn't flat, how do you expect them to understand the in-depth notions of consciousness?

>>26205987

>Hey faggets you don't have free weill most of your actions are causal get wild it's not your fault.

See, the misunderstanding is the idea that just because there's no free will doesn't mean there's no consequences.

It's basically like with God. Some people say, "If there's no God, I can do whatever I want and it doesn't matter". It doesn't really work that way. Actions still have consequences, even if there's no God to come down on you. Similarly, they still have consequences, even if there's no free will.

But with there being no free will and people being aware of that, we can structure our society more rationally. If someone is a thief, instead of saying, "he's a thief out of his own free will" and leaving it at that, we shift to, "He's a thief. That's harmful for society. We need to figure out why he's a thief and fix it".

File: 1454288862939.jpg (124KB, 600x639px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 600x639px

>>26204876
I'm pretty sure /r9k/ has a majority of hard determinists, OP. No need to preach to the choir. Pic related anyways.

>>26206060

Free will is more of a delusion or a superstition than a true illusion.

We don't truly even "experience free will".

George Ortega explains it better than I can.

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

>>26206023

I don't think we can understand it, can it be that maybe things change whenever you try to rationalize them, example of when you observe light it changes from wave to particle.

Could it be that when you analyze your choices and free will it switches from causal to deterministic???

it doesn't make sense and it's all a fedora tippin neckbear argument i realize that. it was just a thought.

Also i'm more in favor of Causality, because it's everywhere, you create a situation and it produces an effect be it you smoking or you choosing to quit.

The cause it's you smoking the effect is lung cancer (i know not everyone that smokes gets lung cancer)

But there's also the argument of how some people just seem to get unlucky against all odds like that old guy getting hit by lightning several times, i mean he didn't Cause anything but the effect of him getting fried happened none the less.....

>>26205946
>Don't raise your kids with kindness and they turn out messed up?
In a determined worldview, the parents were not at fault, there is no correct way to raise a child. It is not a "bad" thing that the children are now messed up. The children must accept their flaws because it is determined to be so.

Now in a world that respects free will, the parents are at fault and if found out they're mistreating their kids then child services removes the children from their care.

You have this bizarre assumption that because people believe in free will, they think causation is not real.
>our wills are clearly causal to a large extent
but...not totally? So you do believe in free will?
>and any acausality is independent from...free will
Then define what the acausality is then lmao

>>26206001
very few people think this way you mongoloid

File: strumpin.gif (2MB, 256x256px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 256x256px

>>26206023
will is an abstract of consciousness. Electrical/mechanical computers are the strict sense of the word from what you point out. Our contemplation of existence stems from our human selves processing an influx of stimuli (patterns), and that ability to compare stimuli and experiences. We're extraordinarily complex neural networks governed by biochemistry. There's a ton we don't understand about the finer points of our functioning, we just haven't learned it yet. Look at the science of living things, it's there and still being discovered.

File: 1446640262203.jpg (685KB, 1200x1500px) Image search: [Google]

685KB, 1200x1500px

>>26206062

Can't argue with that, we live in such sad times, people have access to the complete knowledge of human kind in their pockets and all they choose to do is send dick picks.

Why is this race still alive.

>>26206065
>Actions still have consequences

ah well yes then i misunderstood i automatically implied that if there is no free will consequences don't exist aswell.

File: download.jpg (12KB, 243x208px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 243x208px

>>26204876
It's only a matter of time before the normies start killing off people with undesirable causes i.e, genes.

>>26206127
How do we not experience free will? Do you not feel you make your own choices?

>>26206165

>In a determined worldview, the parents were not at fault

It would be more correct to say that they could not have done otherwise of their own accord. It could be their "fault" in a sense that a jewel can have faults--their manner of raising their kids was flawed (faulty, you could say), but they couldn't have done otherwise of their own accord, so it makes no sense to condemn or hate them.

>there is no correct way to raise a child

No, that's not the case. Just because you can't help having fucked up doesn't mean you didn't fuck up.

>It is not a "bad" thing that the children are now messed up.

Just because it couldn't have been otherwise (or at least, couldn't have been otherwise without the intervention of acausality, which still doesn't grant free will) doesn't mean it isn't bad.

>our wills are clearly causal to a large extent

>but...not totally? So you do believe in free will?

No. Acausality is antithetical to free will.

>Then define what the acausality is then lmao

An acausal event is an event that has no cause--and therefore cannot be caused by human will.

>>26206236
you don't have free will because as the guy puts it in the video, all the decisions you take are first made unconsciously, and you are not aware of it.

>>26206236
Yes, but "you" are just your brain, and "making choices" is just chemicals and electrons moving around in a complex but predictable fashion.

>>26206236

>How do we not experience free will?

Thoughts just come to me from my unconscious mind. When I'm asked, "pick a color", the name of a color just comes to me. I don't see an assortment of every color in front of me, all laid out for me to "freely choose" from.

When I'm lying in bed trying to sleep, I don't choose to think of the bad things that happened to me in my past. Those are thoughts that'll keep me up at night. I don't choose those thoughts. They just come to me.

When I'm faced with picking A or B, I always pick the one I think will be better. I have competing desires and the one that wins out is the one I pick.

>Do you not feel you make your own choices?

I feel like my choices are causally determined by antecedent events and my drives (food, sex, the urge to explore and reason). To tell you the truth though, it doesn't much feel that there is an "I" that exists independent from my experiences and feelings at a given moment. My use of "I" is to a large extent based on the fact that "I" have been conditioned to speak and write this way.

>>26206316
to be fair the rest of your body does a huge amount of contribution to how we perceive reality.

>>26206316
If it feels like free will and I will never know the difference then what does it matter its not "actual" free will?

>>26206370
Well yeah, what I posted was an oversimplification. "You" are your body, not something supernatural like a soul.

>>26206339
the self/consciousness is often used by people to try and differentiate one's corporeal being and what we perceive as ourselves. Your mind is not an independent substance from your physical being, you are your experiences.

Do animals have free will ? Does your pet choose to live with you because free will or because something else ? In case of animals people start talking about instincts, so does our free will actually mean our instinct ?
if you google "instinct" you get : An instinct is something you don't need to learn, so do learn free will ? Can you learn free will ?

>>26206394
thanks anon, I'm critical of your word choice because my skepticism towards people in general, not because of some perceived shortcoming of your own. Much love

File: Corn.jpg (125KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 1200x900px

>>26206390

>If it feels like free will and I will never know the difference then what does it matter its not "actual" free will?

Does it really feel like free will?

Look at this picture and don't think of the name of a color like orange but less red, and don't think of any words that start with "c" or "m".

Could you do it?

The real problem with arguing about free will is that it implies everything can be predicted with 100% accuracy because there is a cause to everything. Except that's not true, there are many unknown and unknowable variables that force us to react to stimuli and adapt to it. If we couldn't make choices of our free will on how to adapt or survive we would not be here, as the rest of our bodies aren't capable of surviving without those intelligent thoughts and choices. There's plenty of choices in your life you make to steer it in certain directions. For instance, I could quit my job right now and fake a mental illness to get autismbux and live the neet lifestyle, but I don't want to do that.

Unless you believe free will literally means you have 100% control over your thoughts and the world around you, in which case only God would have that power.

>>26206183
>Our contemplation of existence stems from our human selves processing an influx of stimuli (patterns), and that ability to compare stimuli and experiences
Yes, but without some sort of "code" to explain how we process these experiences, then your explanation falls short, it's just a guess.
>There's a ton we don't understand about the finer points of our functioning, we just haven't learned it yet.
I agree, and that's why I believe it's too early for us to decide if we're determined, free, or somewhere in between yet. We're only capable of discussing this issue through the medium of philosophical abstractions. I don't see the scientific research we have as being supportive of either or yet. Don't mistake me, I've no dedicated dog in this fight, I'd be fine with a determined universe because, as I said before, I more or less feel free. I just don't see determinism's merits outweighing something like compatabilism.

When it comes down to it, asking such a question is ultimately pointless in the larger scheme of human existence. I suppose the only implication knowing for certain would yield is a change in ethics, where we give more credit to causality, but removing freedom entirely seems to be conducive to more social entropy. You must concede that some things we believe in, no matter how irrational or unfounded to you they may seem, serve as effective social tools between humans. Even if our will is a determined abstract, that's ok, and working within the framework of these abstracts is ok as well.

Also your autism is admirable.

>>26206426
The ability of animals to problem solve and produce novel action is relative to their physical properties. The bigger/more folded/gooder the brain is the more complicated the computation process and more scrutinized the potential output becomes. We are merely aware of our ability to process problems and compare differnt instances of stimuli.

>>26206394
>"You" are your body, not something supernatural like a soul.
And that's where you're wrong. Every worldview you've adopted with this belief as a fundamental is therefore invalid.

>>26206451

>The real problem with arguing about free will is that it implies everything can be predicted with 100% accuracy because there is a cause to everything.

That's not the case. Even if everything can't be predicted, that doesn't give us free will.

Acausality is as antithetical to free will as causality.

>If we couldn't make choices of our free will on how to adapt or survive we would not be here, as the rest of our bodies aren't capable of surviving without those intelligent thoughts and choices.

Many of us don't have very intelligent thoughts, and make bad "choices". Did those people not have free will?

>Unless you believe free will literally means you have 100% control over your thoughts and the world around you, in which case only God would have that power.

If God knows everything, he can't have free will because omniscience implies determinism. If God knows everything he'll ever do, for definite, then he's following a track/script.

>>26206436
don't understand any of what you just wrote so i win i guess

>>26206390
You get better results when you act according to reality. That's why science is such a great thing. For example, how we treat crime and punishment would be a lot different and a lot more effective if we abandoned the notions of good, evil, choice, and guilt. We could focus solely on finding out how to treat criminals so that they commit the least amount of crime in the future. If research found out that this was best accomplished by giving them hot cocoa and teddy bears, we would do it. With the concept of free will, we would be bothered by the idea of "rewarding" poor "decisions" and would end up doing something less effective, like locking them in cages with other criminals for 10 years. Same thing in other aspects of life. If you abandon the concept of choice, you can better determine the cause of poor outcomes (poverty, crime, alienation, etc.) in a person's life.

>>26206251
>Just because you can't help having fucked up doesn't mean you didn't fuck up.
To say one CAN fuck up is indicative of an alternative, it's indicative of a choice, of one having the will do choose said choice. In other words, at least partial free will.

>An acausal event is an event that has no cause--and therefore cannot be caused by human will.
you're admitting humans have a will of some sort- you'll have to define this.

Well, I think that unless you can define what reality is, you can't realy define free will and so the questin is in a sence unanswerable

>>26206517

Let's try again.

Look at the picture I posted, and choose (out of your own free will) not to think "corn".

it doesn't matter

either way you have no control

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzW-r_vPf50

File: dope-ass kringler.jpg (93KB, 1484x835px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 1484x835px

>>26206476
>Yes, but without some sort of "code" to explain how we process these experiences, then your explanation falls short, it's just a guess.
our ability to understand human cognitive function and its relation to the brain and body are infantile, yes

>I agree, and that's why I believe it's too early for us to decide if we're determined, free, or somewhere in between yet. We're only capable of discussing this issue through the medium of philosophical abstractions. I don't see the scientific research we have as being supportive of either or yet. Don't mistake me, I've no dedicated dog in this fight, I'd be fine with a determined universe because, as I said before, I more or less feel free. I just don't see determinism's merits outweighing something like compatabilism.
I agree, I have to make some leaps of faith in this one because the information simply isn't there. I try to adhere to the sciences to interpret my understanding, I may be strong in my opinion but that is because I have faith in the consistency of scientific methods. I look forward to whatever we learn, this is just how I understand based on available information.

>When it comes down to it, asking such a question is ultimately pointless in the larger scheme of human existence
I agree with you there

> You must concede that some things we believe in, no matter how irrational or unfounded to you they may seem, serve as effective social tools between humans
sure, I just faith that knowledge is the answer. Closest thing I experience to religion.

>Also your autism is admirable.
thank you good sir

pic not related

>>26206548

>To say one CAN fuck up is indicative of an alternative, it's indicative of a choice, of one having the will do choose said choice. In other words, at least partial free will.

I don't agree. A cell can "fuck up" its replication and cause cancer. That doesn't mean it had the free will to do otherwise. It doesn't even imply that the non-fucked up replication was ever a real (ontological) as opposed to hypothetical possibility.

>you're admitting humans have a will of some sort- you'll have to define this.

"Will" is like "desire" or "wish" or "drive".

"Free will" on the other hand is the ability to make choices free of prior causes or divine intervention.

>>26206499
>the human consciousness is metaphysical because I say so
ob boy you sure showed us anon, I'm sure your mommy will let you hang that on the fridge today

>>26206671
Whether I can eloquently explain it or not doesn't change reality. I guess we all find out sooner or later but the only people who have come back to tell the tale are rationalized away as "nutjobs" or having experienced some self-imposed psychedelic experience.

>>26206592
Hehe i like you anon

Im not the guy you were replying to, but youre clever dude

>>26206715

Even if we have "souls" or "spirits", that doesn't give us any free will.

An action of a soul is either causal or acausal. Either the soul's action was compelled by causality, or it was uncaused.

Either of those means the soul has no free will.

>>26206524
I don't understand how people don't act according to reality? What does that mean?

>>26206715
>come back to tell the tale
we have never had a human completely neurally disincorporated and brought back
>but they died and came back
yeah a heart can stop, that doesn't mean you cease to exists in that instant. Eliminate all electrochemical activity in the brain and body, then bring them back and have every action of the body recorded down to the molecule. Then come talk to me.
>people claim to experience something I want to believe in so I'll take it for face value
kek
>self-imposed psychedelic experience
DMT is real, but hey believe whatever you want

I'm sure you can ask Ben Carson to store some grain in his allotment of the pyramids. Maybe pray to jesus that your flat tire will fix itself.

When you choose things like what you are going to wear or what you are going to eat you feel like you have free will. If it's impossible not to have the feeling of free will then there is no difference even if it is "artificial".

>>26206665
>A cell can "fuck up" its replication and cause cancer
I'm going to assume when you were referring to the parents "fucking up" as a judgment of their behavior.

The cell has no say in it's replication processes if it's interfered by carcinogenic substances, it has as much say in fucking up as a rock does of shattering into pieces after falling off a cliff. You can't say the cell "fucked up" here, that implies human judgment on the matter. It was an irregularity in the function of the cell, but isn't right or wrong.

In accordance with your example, the parents' treatment of the children means it's just an irregularity but neither good nor bad. In this universe the parents still have no reason to be punished than the cell has fault for becoming cancerous.

That's all fine, but you can't say they "fucked up" or look on it with dismay as you would that one cell that over-replicated and became cancerous, yet I'm sure intuitively you still will.

I do concede that our variety of choices are often causal, but the choice between them is still free, otherwise there's no moral culpability on anyone's part.

>>26204876
Define "free will".

>>26205987
>Hey faggets you don't have free weill most of your actions are causal get wild it's not your fault.
Makes no sense at all.

Consequences are ONLY important if behavior is bound by causality

>>26207070
>Consequences are ONLY important if behavior is bound by causality

if i state it without evidence then it must be true friends. case closed.

>>26207006

>I'm going to assume when you were referring to the parents "fucking up" as a judgment of their behavior.

You're assuming that even though I explicitly stated I don't believe in free will, I'm still operating under a free will belief paradigm. I'm not.

When I say the parents fucked up raising their kid, what I mean is, "The parents raised their kid in a detrimental manner". I'm also implying "It would have been good if they had raised him better".

What I'm not implying is, "They could have of their own accords raised him better, but they freely chose not to and therefore should be condemned and hated".

>The cell has no say in it's replication processes if it's interfered by carcinogenic substances

Agreed. Like how an entire human has no say in its behavior if its interfered with by conditioning.

>it has as much say in fucking up as a rock does of shattering into pieces after falling off a cliff.

Agreed.

>You can't say the cell "fucked up" here, that implies human judgment on the matter. It was an irregularity in the function of the cell, but isn't right or wrong.

I can say it fucked up--but when I say that, I'm not "blaming" the cell. I recognize what it did was unfortunate (for the animal it comprises, at least), but I'm not actually implying the cell chose to do something wrong.

>In accordance with your example, the parents' treatment of the children means it's just an irregularity but neither good nor bad.

I don't define "good" and "bad" like you do. I see bad things as those which increase suffering, and good things as those which decrease suffering.

Continued...

>>26207112

If you get hit by a rock and the rock causes you to lose your leg, that's "bad". It doesn't imply a condemnation or personal hatred of the rock. That's how I feel about parents who fuck up their kids. It's bad that they did that, but I don't believe they could have of their own accords done better. I lament the fact that causality (or acausality) compelled them to suck as parents. I feel sorry for their kids, and I most likely would feel sorry for them, too.

>In this universe the parents still have no reason to be punished than the cell has fault for becoming cancerous.

Punishment is only good for deterrence and conditioning. Punishment for the sake of increasing suffering (because the sufferer "deserves" it) is idiotic and based on the toxic, delusional "free will" paradigm.

>>26206236
>choices are free will
If [ "you" = "fag"]
then
echo "ur a fag"
else
echo "ur still a fag"

this script "makes a choice", does it have free will?

>>26206251
>so it makes no sense to condemn or hate them.
Incorrect.

Condemning them alters the behavior of others, under determinism condemning them is all the more important.

>>26207134
so the only reason not to horribly torture as punishment people is because it isn't useful.

>>26204876
Free will doesn't exist for the reasons you write, but we have to live by it, otherwise everyone will just blame some external event for whatever shit they've done. You blame person A for shit A did towards you, A blames person B, person B blames society etc

>>26206548
>indicative of an alternative
Determinism is not fatalism.

>>26207227

>Condemning them alters the behavior of others

I think condemning their actions would do it just as well.

What do you think works better:

"You are a horrible piece of shit for hitting your child. You are a monster. I abhor you. You should hurt, and your pain is a good thing!"

or

"Hitting your child is an abominable thing to do. I condemn your action, and unfortunately you will have to be punished so you realize that what you did was wrong".

It might be hard to find data on this, but I think the second would be just as efficacious, or even more so.

>>26207240

>so the only reason not to horribly torture as punishment people is because it isn't useful.

I don't see how you figure that.

Good reasons not to torture someone would be both that torture doesn't seem efficacious, and also it's intrinsically bad because it intrinsically involves the creation of suffering (which I see as roughly synonymous with "bad").

If it could be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that torturing someone were necessary to prevent an even worse torture of someone else, perhaps a case could be made for torture in that context. It would still be horrible. It would be choosing the lesser of two evils.

>>26207244

>Free will doesn't exist for the reasons you write, but we have to live by it, otherwise everyone will just blame some external event for whatever shit they've done. You blame person A for shit A did towards you, A blames person B, person B blames society etc

No, we don't have to live by it. And if we all realize there's no free will, then we can't legitimately "blame" others as much as "hold them responsible", while simultaneously being compassionate towards them because we realize that they could not have of their own accords done otherwise.

The no free will paradigm lets us realize, "Yes, if you treat a kid badly, that will most likely make them less capable of having a good life in the future, so we need to stop kids from being treated badly, because they can't just use their "free will" to undo their bad conditioning. At the same time, the people who treat kids badly are programmed that way, and hurting them beyond the extent necessary to act as a deterrent and conditioner is useless."

The "free will is fake but we need to pretend it's real or else people will behave badly" idea makes as much sense as "God is fake but we need to pretend he's real because people will behave badly".

File: 1367186481135.jpg (10KB, 251x242px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 251x242px

>>26207093
If behavior is NOT bound by causality then consequences have no effect on anything and are wholly pointless.

You punish the thief or murderer because you want less thieves & murderers, this only follows under a deterministic worldview.

>>26207416
stupid frogposter


anything you said now is null and void.

>>26207293
Hair-splitting. There's little functional difference between condemning an action of a person and condemning a person. Essentially under a deterministic worldview, where you are little more than your actions.

>>26207401
>The "free will is fake but we need to pretend it's real or else people will behave badly" idea makes as much sense as "God is fake but we need to pretend he's real because people will behave badly".
This is what I want desu.
I don't believe in God but I wish everyone did, I am a misanthrope.

What a dry conversation. I bet someone who would test INTP/INTJ on an MBTI started this shit.

File: 1446036239587.jpg (220KB, 600x324px) Image search: [Google]

220KB, 600x324px

>>26207464
should check that butthurt, tourist, might be hemorrhoids

Why do I experience consciousness then? No determinists can answer that. Why can I read this and then choose the way that I react to the information, don't reply with "it's ust a le illusion", if it doesn't real, who's being fooled? It's just a very unscientific and cop-out way to view the world.

>>26207513

>There's little functional difference between condemning an action of a person and condemning a person.

I strongly disagree. Condemning a person, to me inherently implies

>Hurt. You should hurt. Your pain is good for all of us, even if it doesn't give us any real benefits beyond our sadistic enjoyment at watching you suffer. Roast in hell, bitch!

Condemning their actions to me is like,

>Your harmful action has demonstrated that there's something wrong with you, and we need to fix this. Fixing this may be painful to you, but it is like an operation to remove a disease. We ideally wouldn't have to cause you any discomfort, but it seems necessary to condition you by using this type of reinforcement.

The difference is enormous to me. I'm surprised you don't see the difference.

>Essentially under a deterministic worldview, where you are little more than your actions.

I think a person is his thoughts and feelings at a given time. I don't believe in an ongoing "individual" personhood that follows a human being from conception to death, so my conception of who one is is a bit different.

>>26207574

>Why do I experience consciousness then?

Not knowing why you experience consciousness doesn't suggest you have free will.

Either your actions are causal (in which case they're not freely willed), or they're acausal (in which case they're not freely willed).

The fact that you're conscious doesn't give you free will.

>Why can I read this and then choose the way that I react to the information

Can you "choose" to have it make you feel wonderful, like you're floating on a cloud and feeling a loving touch? No.

Can you choose for it to make you so angry that you feel like murdering me, but instead your heart starts racing and you vomit due to the overwhelming rage you felt? No.

Can you "choose" to react by typing symbols you haven't been conditioned to associate with abstract meanings? No.

How is your reaction a "choice", really? What evidence is there that it's not merely the result of cause and effect?

And if it were not the result of prior causes, then your reaction would not be caused by your "will" (since that would mean it had a cause and therefore was not acausal), so it wouldn't be a freely chosen reaction either.

>>26207574
see this
>>26205704

>>26207565
then why the fuck are you here cucklord?

>>26207549
I enjoy this. It's true, some peopel are just shit and you have to scare them to make them act well towards others.

>>26207401
I like this I think it's a good exploration of what morality and human experience is

File: 1447069262454.gif (1MB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 500x281px

>>26204876
We only think that free will exists because part of our "programming" is the evaluation of multiple options and their potential outcomes, leading to a "choice". In reality, given the exact same conditions (both external and neurological) we would make that same "choice".

This does not mean that people can not make decisions, logical or not. It simply means our decision making is complex, with many factors that we don't understand. These factors are even more mysterious when we consider other people, as their values are hidden from us just as our own machinations are hidden from ourselves.

This complex decision making process lends utility to concept of free will. It is an assumption that we must make in day to day life/interaction with others (INB4 REEEEE), due to the fact that we don't know the exact chemical makeup of others, nor do we know the relationships that these circumstances have with behavior. If the day comes that we have those capabilities (think PsychoPass), then we can finally eliminate the concept of free will. Until then it remains a useful assumption.


>And that's why autists can't understand free will

a lot of fucking kids on here don't understand how to think or what thinking. Normies get the fuck out, go back to keking over snapchat garbage.

What is free will?

>>26207875
That's half of the argument really

>>26207805

>This complex decision making process lends utility to concept of free will. It is an assumption that we must make in day to day life/interaction with others (INB4 REEEEE), due to the fact that we don't know the exact chemical makeup of others, nor do we know the relationships that these circumstances have with behavior.

I don't see how this compels me to engage in delusion at all.

I communicate with other people fine without believing in free will. I don't need to know all their motivations.

Not pretending to believe in free will has actually had benefits for me and my ability to relate to others. I don't feel nearly as judgmental, I feel far less sadistic, and more relaxed. I also feel like people are more predictable, and this helps me work with them easier.

>>26207905
If you subscribe to the theory of mind, then you utilize free will as a concept to model behavior. You may not "believe" in it, but you use in nonetheless. It's kind of like using classical mechanics to model the motion of a ball, even though it's wrong. It just works well enough.

>Not pretending to believe in free will has actually had benefits for me and my ability to relate to others. I don't feel nearly as judgmental, I feel far less sadistic, and more relaxed. I also feel like people are more predictable.

If you don't believe in free will, how do you formulate those predictions. Sound foolish desu

>>26204876
go outside anon

>>26208100

>If you subscribe to the theory of mind, then you utilize free will as a concept to model behavior.

I don't need it, and in fact I think it works AGAINST making any models of behavior.

B.F. Skinner didn't believe in free will at all and he based his work on the idea that there's no free will. He even raised his kids on the idea that they didn't have free will.

>You may not "believe" in it, but you use in nonetheless. It's kind of like using classical mechanics to model the motion of a ball, even though it's wrong. It just works well enough.

It doesn't, though. It doesn't work well at all.

"He choose to steal out of his own free will. Nothing was compelling him to do it--not his genetics, not his conditioning. He just chose to without any cause, except his will was also the cause".

It doesn't work. It's incoherent and clearly not how this world is.

>If you don't believe in free will, how do you formulate those predictions.

To me it seems more the reverse--if you do believe in free will, how can you predict anyone's behavior, ever? They could do a complete about face. A serial killer could just use his "free will" to become the sweetest guy ever, so you may as well invite him to stay with you instead of your friendly, good-natured brother, because the brother could just as easily use "free will" to torture you to death.

File: mfw1.gif (2MB, 500x264px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x264px

>>26204876
>There is no free will
>Trying to convince people

File: dale gribble.jpg (29KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 320x240px

>>26208281
>"He choose to steal out of his own free will. Nothing was compelling him to do it--not his genetics, not his conditioning. He just chose to without any cause, except his will was also the cause".

He chose to steal because of his value system. He values his homeostasis, and perhaps the homeostasis of his family, over shoplifting laws. He could have chosen to beg if he valued his pride less. He could have chosen to work if that fit his situation.

I'm not saying that free will is magic, I'm just saying that I don't know this persons values and motivations completely. I know that his choice is predetermined, but since I don't know the initial conditions and all events that stemmed from that, I have to make assumptions. The main assumption is that he chose to steal because he believed it was in his best interest at the time.

If I didn't believe that he has a choice, then his action is purely mechanical, like a rock that falls on a rabbit. If that is the case, then concepts of rehabilitation and goodwill are nonsensical.

I think we may have an issue with semantics

File: fucking retarded.gif (2MB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x375px

>>26206081
Sam Harris is HILARIOUS
>Sam; "There is no free will at all"
>Sam: "Give money to my lobbying firm so I may change the minds of others"

No shit, genetics should have finally buried the concept of free will decades ago.

>>26208394

There's no contradiction.

There's no free will. People's beliefs are the products of their genetics and conditioning.

Trying to convince people is a form of conditioning.

>>26208441

>I'm not saying that free will is magic, I'm just saying that I don't know this persons values and motivations completely. I know that his choice is predetermined, but since I don't know the initial conditions and all events that stemmed from that, I have to make assumptions.

>The main assumption is that he chose to steal because he believed it was in his best interest at the time.

That doesn't imply he has "free will" and doesn't imply a need to pretend he had free will. In fact, the fact that "people do what they believe to be in their best interest" is more conventionally used as an argument AGAINST free will belief.

>If I didn't believe that he has a choice, then his action is purely mechanical, like a rock that falls on a rabbit. If that is the case, then concepts of rehabilitation and goodwill are nonsensical.

It's almost the exact opposite.

*With* free will the concept of rehabilitation (and conditioning in any form) is rendered nonsensical.

>>26208447
nigga, wat?

no free will
choices determined by input (both internal & external to the person)
lobbying alters inputs
ergo, lobbying is effective if free will does not exist

>>26208485
>You can't change your mind, let me convince your that's true
>No, there is no contradiction between me believing I can't change your mind and trying to change your mind

File: 1449220877541.jpg (32KB, 610x406px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 610x406px

>>26208538
How do you define free will? I believe that free will is "the ability to choose between different possible courses of action".

Under that description, my model that people choose actions that fit their values and circumstance utilizes the concept of free will.

Intellectually I know that it is not the case, but in practice making this assumption allows for the rough prediction of future behavior.

Therefore I use the concept of free will, and in that usage it exists.

>>26208601
>choices determined by input (both internal & external to the person)
>internal to the person
But that would be choice. Your own thoughts influencing your decision. That's choice.

This is the type of belief embraced by defeatist people who are trying to blame all of their shortcomings on 'lack of free will'. If you can tell yourself, 'I have no free will, no ability to actually change the future' then it's much easier to just roll over and let life pass you by without ever feeling guilty about not trying your absolute hardest.

>>26208601
LOLOL!
>I can't decide what to do because I lack free will
>Opinions and desires carry exactly no moral weight because we make no choices and cannot change our minds by choice
>Let me change your mind so you choose to give me money; I will then change the minds of others so they choose to do the moral thing
HILARIOUS!!

There is no free will because to have free will there has to be a person in charge making decisions.
There is in fact no person, no 'self' in charge making any decision whatsoever that is merely a fiction which anyone who's practiced any kind of meditation or self-inquiry work knows.
This is a topic of discussion only for the most ignorant and unenlightened, either look inwards and realize what 'you' actually are and what you mean when you say 'you' or stop spouting ignorance.
Here's a one hour long video to smash any person's belief that free will exists.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fecQUZ-ehKQ

>>26208761
>There is no free will

Then how do you rationalize the choice to pursue enlightenment/not to?

>>26208694

>This is the type of belief embraced by defeatist people who are trying to blame all of their shortcomings on 'lack of free will'.

Even if that were the case, and I don't think it necessarily is, that would have no bearing on whether or not it were true.

What you're doing here is literally the same thing as when religious fundamentalists say "atheists embrace atheism because they want to do evil acts".

Exact same kind of fallacious "argument".

>f you can tell yourself, 'I have no free will, no ability to actually change the future' then it's much easier to just roll over and let life pass you by without ever feeling guilty about not trying your absolute hardest.

Why on earth would I do that, unless life itself is miserable and worthless?

Even if I don't have free will, why would that remove the desire for a good life with pleasure and happiness?

Why would I be conditioned against working towards pleasure and happiness, even if I were under the impression that the work I was doing was compelled by the laws of physics rather than some nebulous, incoherent, spooky superstition like "free will"?

>>26208805
>choice
huehuehue
it's just a collection of systems that 'we' come to know as the human body reacting to our environment
there's no choice in play just merely a collection of systems reacting to the environment in such a way that the result is the suppression of another system known to 'us' as the ego and the placing of truth over fiction

File: tip.gif (1MB, 292x278px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 292x278px

>>26204876
why are you people so obsessed with free will?

avoidance of responsibility?

Do people that now believe there is no free will act differently than before?

>>26208761
>Here's a one hour long video to smash any person's belief that free will exists
>That's right - you have no ability to choose or make decisions, but this video will convince you to change your mind and choose to agree agree with me
>Why no, I am *not* smart enough to see the contradiction

>>26208694

I'd also like to add that many great, highly-motivated thinkers in history didn't believe in free will.

Einstein, Spinoza, B. F. Skinner, and many of the ancient Greek and Hindu philosophers.

The idea that people who don't believe in free will are "defeatists" or any other pejorative is a slur and ad hominem attack which is patently false.

>>26208873

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism

File: Meanwhile.jpg (11KB, 420x300px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 420x300px

>>26208872
So you have no idea why "you" pursued self-inquiry.

Also
>There is in fact no person, no 'self'
>that is merely a fiction which anyone who's practiced any kind of meditation or self-inquiry work knows
>any kind of meditation or self-inquiry
>self-inquiry
>no 'self'

File: 1415260827133.jpg (52KB, 492x419px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 492x419px

>>26208881
What 'I' am trying to get across to 'you' is that these concepts of 'you' or 'me' of the self itself is a mere fiction, a mere product of imagination, a construct that was necessary for humanity to survive years and years ago that we can grow out of.
I'm not saying you have no ability to choose o make decisions, I'm saying there's no 'you' to make them in the first place.

>>26208881

>That's right - you have no ability to choose or make decisions, but this video will convince you to change your mind and choose to agree agree with me

People don't choose their beliefs out of their own free will. They're compelled to believe things based on their genetics and conditioning. Showing people a video is a form of conditioning, and in some cases it can compel people to believe things.

You can't just "choose" to believe anything you want.

>>26208944
What the fuck are you taking about? How does this knowledge affect your life?

>>26208694
Optimism is cowardice. You delude yourself for comfort, you've stared into the void then ran back from it rather than embracing it.

You claim that determinism is defeatism but do not recognize that while some are destined for defeat, others are destined for victory. Victors embrace the ideology of free will for the same reason that you perceive losers to embrace determinism for, because it offers comfort. Free will assures our winners that they were more clever and made better decisions in life than those losers when in reality it all came down to fate.

Ultimately, it's just as stupid to be prideful of being a winner as it is to be ashamed of being a loser, we're all dealt our own hands, and we all play them to our whim. But the character of the hand dictates how one must play it.

So was I predestined to eat strawberry rather than blueberry yogurt 10 minutes ago? No, but I was predisposed to it. Was I predestined to join the military after 9/11? Yes. Because of a large number of factors, I couldn't bring myself to not do it. This is the litmus test for whether something was predestined or not, if you can't seriously entertain the thought of NOT doing something, it was predestined.

>>26208958
You can choose to believe anything you want. What you want is affected by a mix our nature and nurture.

>>26208944
and why should we "grow out of" these concepts?
so we can feel mystical and wise
so we can look down on others, while not acknowledging 'their' existence
so we can post on a taiwanese knitting newletter

how self actualized of you

>>26209016

>You can choose to believe anything you want.

No I can't.

>What you want is affected by a mix our nature and nurture.

Agreed.

>>26208944
>I'm not saying you have no ability to choose o make decisions, I'm saying there's no 'you' to make them in the first place.
I don't agree. and here's why - your entire argument demands that others exist to disagree or agree with a position held by you. The fact that you are attempting to *convey information* demands that you be incorrect.

I want to reply to your retarded thread, yes that's because of the sum total of my previous experiences, but it's also a conscious decision. How is that not free will cuck?

>>26209051
What do you mean you Can't believe what you want? What's stopping you?

>>26209073
Because if everything were the same, you would do it again. Also OP has a faggy definition of free will

>>26204972

Because I'm genetically programmed to care.

>>26209073

>I want to reply to your retarded thread, yes that's because of the sum total of my previous experiences, but it's also a conscious decision. How is that not free will cuck?

What do you mean it was a "conscious decision"?

>>26209123
cogito ergo sum, I was aware of my action.

1. causality is not a law
2.our actions our caused by our wills, our wills have no cause.

>>26209107

>Also OP has a faggy definition of free will

As opposed to what, compatibilist "free will"?

>>26208958
IF THAT IS TRUE then Sam Harris is a bigger idiot than ever for arguing that religious people are somehow "wrong". If there is no ability to choose, then there is no such thing as "intelligence"
>the answers on your SAT? Reflexes that had nothing to do with intelligence or choice or creativity. just like a bird building a nest or an ant building an ant hill
If I were to kill his wife he can't say I was evil - I did not choose anything! It would be like saying a virus must stand trial.
His lobbying firm is a joke - the conditioning of a politician is going to be overcome with a lunch? OPPOSED TO HIS GENETICS?! LOLOL!
Religious people live longer, are healthier, and have less crime - if choices aren't made how, oh HOW, can he complain about religious people? THEY CAN'T CHANGE THEIR MINDS!
Further, his atheism means *NOTHING* because it is nothing but genetics and such: he can't claim ANYTHING related to ANYTHING he believes, or knows or says.

>>26209147
>our wills have no cause

why would that be the case?

>>26209147

>our wills have no cause

Are you joking?

the illusion is essential to our survival
which is the ironic part
i will partake in proliferating the illusion, because i believe that the fruit that it brings will be better than any alternative

of course, i have to think this

>>26209107
That doesn't disprove me, both times (in your scenario) it was what I wanted to do.

>>26209190

>the illusion is essential to our survival

No it's not. Lots of people don't believe in free will and survive just fine.

>i will partake in proliferating the illusion, because i believe that the fruit that it brings will be better than any alternative

The fruit of free will delusion is the justification of sadism.

>>26209190
It is literally impossible to step outside the illusion.

>>26209200

Did you want to want to do it?

>>26209190
>i will partake in proliferating the illusion, because i believe that the fruit that it brings will be better than any alternative
So you're implying you have a choice? determinist fags btfo

>>26209190
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introspection_illusion

>>26209224

It is for some people, but not all.

I've done it. I don't have free will.

I'm aware I don't have it. The sky has not fallen.

>>26209236
The "me" you are referring to does want want to.

>>26209256
Saying you are aware changes nothing in your life therefore you are still in the illusion.

>>26209280

Okay.

Why did you want to want to reply to this thread, as opposed to just wanting to?

>>26209280
do you have any evidence, or a pretext of explanation behind this belief?

>>26209299

>Saying you are aware changes nothing in your life

False.

>>26209176
i don't know. i'm not omniscient. I can say wills have no cause because the same factors can lead to differing outcomes. This is not compatible with causality, which is a weak theory anyways with no real justification. causality is simply useful in science. There's no reason to believe it applies to everything.

>>26209315
What does it change?

>>26209333

>I can say wills have no cause because the same factors can lead to differing outcomes

Name one instance when this has ever happened.

>>26209333
nice trips
>the same factors can lead to different outcomes

i really doubt that you have an example, but i'm going to ask anyway.

>>26209301
Because that is how I want to behave.
>inb4 brain chemistry, previous experiences etc made you want to behave this way
Well I am the sum total of these factors so that would really mean that I made myself want to behave this way which means I have free will
>>26209306
I wouldn't be replying to you if I didn't want to. And if I didn't want to that means I didn't want to want to reply to you.

>>26209356

I feel a great deal more compassion for myself and others. Rather than feeling hatred or sadistic desires for "evil" people to hurt, I feel bad for them and wish they would be rehabilitated.

I look at the mistakes my parents made in raising me, and instead of thinking they "freely chose" to make mistakes in childrearing, I understand they were doing what they were compelled to do by causality (or acausality). So I'm freed from even having the grounds to feel acrimony towards them personally.

I realize that any substance I take into my body fundamentally alters who I am as a person--if I drink a beer, I realize that I can't just use my "free will" to undo the effects it'll have on my actions and words, so I'm more careful.

I realize that what I say to other people can affect them deeply, and they can't use "free will" to undo the effects of what I say to them. So I'm more careful about what I say.

The list goes on.

It's made a huge difference in the way I live my life. Even if it hadn't though, it would still be true, and I just take it as self-evident that the truth is better than delusion.

>>26209371
>>26209377
this is an elementary philosophical exercise.

hold something in your hand and close your eyes. start a timer. after some time, drop the item. what determined when you dropped it? why is it different every time despite the circumstance being completely identical?

File: 1447642834661.jpg (13KB, 300x100px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 300x100px

>>26209433
it sounds like you were foolish before, and now you found a way to be less foolish thanks to misunderstanding a philosophical position

that's a net positive i guess

...and?

A universe in which determinism is real and not real is functionally the same (though that does pose a problem with ignoring causality). Free will is true in a local space.

>>26209497

>hold something in your hand and close your eyes. start a timer. after some time, drop the item. what determined when you dropped it? why is it different every time despite the circumstance being completely identical?

The circumstances wouldn't be completely identical. There would be all kinds of different factors in play.

I could have a slightly different balance of neurotransmitters in a certain part of my brain the first time, compared to the second time.

The earth would be in a different position relative to the sun.

I might feel an itch.

There could be a thought in my head that wasn't there the first time.

I could hear a noise I heard the first time I didn't hear the second.

The position of the object could have been slightly different one time or the next.

Neither of the two times will be identical.

>>26209497
because it's not. they have literally done experiments on this phenomenon.

in fact here's an article on it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will#The_Libet_experiment

>>26209549
>retarded bullshit
go away

>>26209576
I made you say that

>>26209433
Everything you listed is you using your free will and even if it's not "free will" it's basically the same thing. You chose to do all those things.

>>26209500

>it sounds like you were foolish before, and now you found a way to be less foolish thanks to misunderstanding a philosophical position

How was I foolish before, and what have I misunderstood?

It looks like you're just trying to play games here.

none of this matters

so what, you proved that free will is a fluke, how has that changed your life in the slightest?

>>26209602

>Everything you listed is you using your free will

Libertarian free will, or bullshit compatibilist word game "free will"?

>You chose to do all those things.

We freely choose all our feelings? Really?

>>26209654
It's called learning for learning sake, it's fun. Also address >>26209429 plz. I want to know if anons didn't respond to me because I'm retarded or if they just didn't see it.

>>26209085
you seem to fail to understand the difference between a thought and a belief system.

>mfw determinists get blown the fuck out every time they realize free will is just a human experience they don't feel themselves
>mfw determinists today are the same as religious fanatics 50 years ago
>mfw they probably don't even have someone else actively responsible for their lives, and just drift between mindless self indulgence and frantically rationalizing their poor decisions

Saying free will isn't real is as meaningful as "real is real"

Nice paragraphs on that nonsense, loser

>>26209708
but it's not learning for learning sake because you aren't learning anything

it basically amounts to theology except it has even less applicable use in real life. You can't prove that there isn't something beyond the universe that affects causation at the most elemental level.

Other discussions in philosophy at least attempt to make a point that acknowledging a mind set or actively participating in it will lead to the betterment of one's life but this has no value in any single way

>>26209659
Free will or even the illusion of free will doesn't mean you are not affected by things in your life you can't control. Some things make me feel good and some things make me feel bad and that is controlled by chemical reactions in my brain which have been shaped by genetics and life experiences. But if you make a decision that is you making the choice.

>>26209741

>mfw atheists get blown the fuck out every time they realize God is just a human experience they don't feel themselves

>mfw atheists today are the same as determinists 2000 years ago

>mfw they probably don't even have someone else actively responsible for being their lord and savior, and just drift between mindless self indulgence and frantically rationalizing their existence in a world without divinity

Saying God isn't real is as meaningful as "real is real".

Nice paragraphs on that nonsense, loser.

File: the one good pepe meme.gif (807KB, 640x440px) Image search: [Google]

807KB, 640x440px

Your consciousness is not a separate entity from your corporeal being /thread

>>26209762

>You can't prove that there isn't something beyond the universe that affects causation at the most elemental level.

"Beyond the universe"?

If the "universe" includes everything, then no, there's nothing "beyond the universe" that can affect anything in the universe.

If "universe" is something less than everything, then things "beyond the universe" can't affect things inside the universe, or else those things aren't "beyond the universe" to begin with.

If you start believing there is no free will does that mean you can start doing anything you want because it's not under your control?

>>26209762
>aren't learning anything
w-what? How is learning that free will is a myth not learning?
>basically amounts to theology
no, it's logic based rather than faith based
>no value in any single way
It's fun, that has value.
also respond to >>26209429 plz

>>26209775
I didn't say god isnt real, what a clown

>>26208984
>>26209020
If you want to grow out of the mediocre suffering filled life you currently have you have to understand that it all stems from the illusions you attribute yourself to. By creating this story, this fiction of 'you' you trap yourself in a mental illusion world of labels of a man or woman always trying to get to the next moment instead of stopping to smell the roses of the perfection that is already in front of you.
>>26209054
I'm not arguing at all 'I'm' an adult explaining to children why even though Santa doesn't exist they will still get presents.
>The fact that you are attempting to *convey information* demands that you be incorrect.
Being aware of one's ego does not make me 'wrong' at all.
I'm saying that what you think of you does not exist yet the illusion of you does exist. It takes a lot of work to fully undo the illusion of the self but once you do it is pure paradise. Of course you get glimpses of the bull along the way, however taming the bull and riding it home is the full experience anyone along the path to enlightenment strives for.
Feel free to ask me any questions you have about this or any existential problem such as religion or whatever.
I would've posted earlier but I was a bit busy.

>>26209838
>learning that free will is a myth
because no one has proven this

Let's say I have two options, either A or B, and I choose A, how is that not free will and even if it isn't technically free will (because it's all controlled by reactions in my brain) what is the difference?

>>26209835

No. You can't do "anything you want" even if you do believe in free will, because you're still bound by your circumstances.

If you mean does a lack of free will belief mean that your actions don't have consequences, the answer is still no. Actions still have consequences even if they're not freely willed.

This is a similar question to when people ask, "If you stop believing in God, does that mean you can start doing anything you want because there's no God to stop/punish you?"

The answer is the same: No, not really.

>>26209888
So what's the practical difference between free will and the illusion of free will?

>>26209887
there is none

people who believe in hard determinism are just trying to free themselves of any responsibility over shit decision they have made in their lives and just pushing it on "oh well, I couldn't REALLY control that scenario"

>>26209878
I thought we were operating under the hypothetical that OP had proved this. You said it yourself
>so what, you proved that free will is a fluke, how has that changed your life in the slightest?
are you going to reply to my post?

>>26209887

>Let's say I have two options, either A or B, and I choose A, how is that not free will and even if it isn't technically free will (because it's all controlled by reactions in my brain) what is the difference?

Well, it means that you couldn't have actually chosen "B" of your own accord--that your choice of A wasn't really a "choice" except in the way a computer program can "choose" to move a pawn versus a knight.

The fact that you're conscious doesn't mean your action was "freer" than the action of a (presumably unconscious) computer program.

>>26209835
The point of not believing in free will is to make an excuse for past decisions which have bad results. It's the opposite of how people brag about their unique abilities and competence when the decisions have good results.

you can rationalize "yolo" behavior with a million different philosophies. You can do whatever you want and make it sound like an investment or learning experience or something. But if you're a fucking failure, few things sound as effective as "it's not my fault :)" but nobody wants to phrase that like a fucking child. The response to this, naturally, is "it's not my fault for blaming and punishing you ;)"

>>26209916

>People who don't believe in God are just trying to free themselves of any responsibility for sins and just pushing it on "Oh well, God isn't REALLY real anyway".

This is literally what you sound like.

>>26209942

Was Einstein a failure? He didn't believe in free will.

>>26209951
>god
who the fuck has said anything about god?

>>26209887
The difference between free will and not free will is that in a world with free will people should be awarded for their actions (because it was them who achieved these things) and that in not free will they shouldn't because it was just a result of them being lucky.

>>26209933
But I didn't want B, I wanted A. So why should I care and how does this effect my reality?

>>26209970

Atheists are frequently told, "You choose not to believe in God just because you want to sin".

It's an ad hominem attack that's almost identical to the "free will skeptics are irresponsible losers" attack.

The parallels line up perfectly.

>>26209557
none of these things would be relevant to your decision except the itch and maybe the brain chemistry one.

If you want to say its brain chemistry, then you should be able to define a brain chemistry that results in a 2 second drop vs 3 second drop. as far as I'm aware, no such brain chemistry can be defined. In fact, its fairly irrelevant even which person is doing it, much less the state of their brain at the time.

you can also throw the itch case away if you want, though really it doesn't contradict what im saying.

the problem is you're going to extreme lengths to justify causality (the world is in a different place!), reaching to defend it as though its some law of nature. it is not a law of nature, there's no basis for it to be a law of nature, and the lack of causality in free will is the most reasonable explanation given that people can make decisions without any justification. Unjustified choices would be impossible in a universe of causality.

>>26209559
This is an entirely different experiment. All this shows is that some brain activity occurs before a decision is made. This is likely simply the person changing their focus from the clock to the decision making. it in no way contradicts free will nor does it address this specific exercise.

>>26209982
What a fucking cop out. Your life must be really sad. Keep making your poor life decisions then blame it on not having free will.

>>26209999

>none of these things would be relevant to your decision except the itch and maybe the brain chemistry one.

You don't know that.

>>26209982
are you absolutely goddamn retarded?

even if we recognize a world without free will, if we stop rewarding people, people will stop doing things worth rewarding

you still have agency over a local space; a world in which free will exists and doesn't exist is EXACTLY THE SAME

>>26209799
this is only relevant if our universe is deterministic.

>>26209982

I don't believe in free will and still think people should be rewarded for certain actions--not because they really "deserve" it, but because rewards are a form of positive reinforcement and have been shown to be quite efficacious.

>>26210009
>explain topic to anon that asks
>get attacked
why senpai
>>26210030
it was a gross simplification, stop bullying me ;_;

>>26210025
>appeal to ignorance

you're reaching.

>>26209982
Get better at trolling

File: 1442231878029.jpg (17KB, 250x238px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 250x238px

>>26209887
Because 'you' aren't choosing anything. The body does it by itself, the 'you' you believe (and that's all you are just a belief) to make an action is a fiction of the mind.
This isn't about determinism or any of that nonsense this is just straight up about you having to undo the illusion you're currently in.
>>26209942
>The point of not believing in free will is to make an excuse for past decisions which have bad results.
It's literally an empirical fact that you can witness for yourself. The illusion of free will, this belief that you cling onto with all your heart is just a means for the ego to attach itself onto things it had no part in, for if it came to undo the illusion of free will and the illusion of the self the ego would be powerless to the finest degree.
>>26209997
People who call themselves religious do not understand their own holy books.
They are esoteric writings that you cannot go into reading them at face value otherwise you're start believing shit like God meaning an entity that governs the universe or supernatural demons and angels or what ever tripe follows reading texts without the prerequisite knowledge to do so.
I know all of you in this thread are like blind men arguing with themselves over what an elephant is as they touch it's body parts yet not being able to see the full picture.

>>26210067
how was that trolling
>anon asks a question
>I answer
go back to b

>>26210030

>a world in which free will exists and doesn't exist is EXACTLY THE SAME

No it's not.

World without free will belief: "This guy is a murderer. Something must be seriously wrong with him. It's a terrible loss to the family of his victim. We need to find out what CAUSED him to do this. We may need to punish him to deter others from committing murder. We need to keep him sequestered from society to prevent him from killing again.

World with free belief: "He murdered out of his own free will. It'll be good when he fries. The fear he feels in the electric chair is a good thing. I hope it hurts when they kill him. I hope it's very, very painful. I'm justified in my sadistic pleasure at thinking about another person die, because free will".

>>26209982
the difference between free will and not free will is that in a world with free will people should be rewarded for their actions (because it was them who achieved those thing) and that in not free will shoulds don't fucking matter because were all machines that will do what they do and nothing can change that.

>>26210064

No, you're the one making an appeal to ignorance.

I pointed out some factors that would or could be different the first and second time.

You said most of those factors don't matter. You gave no proof.

I said, you don't know those factors don't matter.

You're implying that because you don't know the factors don't matter, they don't. THAT is an appeal to ignorance.

>>26210093
The body and mind come together as a package and there is nothing you or anyone else can change about that no matter how hard you want to.

>16 year olds who discovered determinism via wikipedia trying to justify living life differently because 'free will doesn't exist'
it's generally known in /lit/ that discussions regarding determinism are useless because of the infinitely small effect we have on the entirety of the universe

There is no single action that can change because of the realization that free will is or isn't real. The illusion of choice is functionally choice.

>>26209968
Maybe in his mind he was. But it would make more sense that he was saying that within the context of his theories about space time. I can just as easily say that water doesn't exist because some simplified model of the universe only counts for gases. What does bringing him up do against my argument? Most successful people say they personally are responsible in general for their success.

>>26210117
its not my responsibility to justify your chains of causality friends. your argument is "there MIGHT be a chain out there somewhere!" its your responsibility to demonstrate their existence, not my responsibility to disprove them. this is basic burden of proof friend.

>>26210154

>16 year olds who discovered determinism via wikipedia trying to justify living life differently because 'free will doesn't exist'

Ad hominem straw-clutching.

>There is no single action that can change because of the realization that free will is or isn't real.

Complete bullshit. The very fact that I realize free will is an illusion is part of what's compelling me to write this reply.

>>26210154
Eloquently stated senpai

>>26210162

>Most successful people say they personally are responsible in general for their success.

I'm not even sure that's true. Lots of them say they'd be nowhere without their parents, or without God, or without their community, etc.

>>26210093
>muh illusions
Your first mistake is contradicting yourself by separating individual from his ego, and then somehow giving this ego the decision that you don't allow to exist in individuals. Lame move, son. No argument. Also everything is an illusion. Your perceptions have no connection to reality ;)

>>26210163

>its not my responsibility to justify your chains of causality friends

You made the claim that there would be no differences between the factors in play in the first ball drop and the second ball drop.

I proved you wrong.

You countered by saying that most of the differences could not possibly have any effect.

The burden of proof for that claim is on you, not me.

>>26210098
you don't understand what determinism is at all

the fact that both of those thoughts currently exist already disprove your horrendous example

>>26210209
But they still recognize that they did the work or took the opportunities given to them. You can be humble without completely forfeiting your self esteem.

>>26210236

>you don't understand what determinism is at all

Oh, really? Why do you say that?

>the fact that both of those thoughts currently exist already disprove your horrendous example

How so?

>>26210175
>The very fact that I realize free will is an illusion is part of what's compelling me to write this reply.
This would be different in a world where free will exists because...?

>I disagree, you chose to make that post out of your own free will

>My life would be so much better if only I had free will.
You guys need to grow up.

>>26210265

>But they still recognize that they did the work or took the opportunities given to them.

Okay, but that doesn't mean they don't recognize that their own resolve was necessary BUT NOT SUFFICIENT for their success.

>You can be humble without completely forfeiting your self esteem.

A lack of free will belief doesn't imply that anyone should have low self esteem.

>>26210280
>mfw people here just whine about not having hair, height, free will etc
>mfw their lives are just awful

File: 1449145631502.png (62KB, 255x248px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 255x248px

>>26210116
>because it was them who achieved those thing
Except they literally didn't achieve anything. The YOU, the THEM, the I is all a fucking part of 'your' imagination. There literally is no you. Yes in a sense we are biological machines but that's the beauty of it and once you resign yourself to this truth, this stone cold fact of the human life it is only then that you can 1. free yourself from the chains of suffering but also experience the world for the beauty it truly is.
It's literally ascending to another level of consciousness. You RIGHT NOW, are in this hell state. YOU are the devil that wants to take credit for all these actions, It's YOU that decides to stay in your hell and be the so called ruler of this world of illusions instead waking up to the fact that this 'you' you think did all these things is just an illusion itself.
>>26210137
Of course. Everything is one, every system working with the one next to it. Think about the billions upon billions of cells all having their own little duty and they all form this collective 'human body'.
>>26210213
>Your first mistake is contradicting yourself by separating individual from his ego
Haha I never did that at all in fact as I write this 'I' know I suppose you could say my higher self recognizes I am literally taking no part in writing this comment at all. It's literally the body moving on it's own. Think about it, when you type your sentences, where do those sentences come from? There's no you that invokes those sentences they literally come out of nothing. Nothingness. The source of everything.
Again I am not arguing with you, I am not trying to usurp the philosophy you currently BELIEVE in with another belief, another philosophy, another dogma, I'm trying to wake you up to pure truth.

>>26210271
>This would be different in a world where free will exists because...?
That's retarded. It's like saying what would change in a world where a triangle's interior angles didn't add up to 180. It's a logical impossibility.

>>26210271

>This would be different in a world where free will exists because...?

"Free will" is actually incoherent. There couldn't be a world where it existed.

Either everything is causal, in which case there's no free will, or some things are acausal, in which case there's no free will.

We don't even experience free will. Thoughts just come to us. Try to sit still for 20 minutes and just use your "free will" to not think. You can't do it. The thoughts just come.

>>26210329
>>26210332
>still not answering the question

>>26210344
That's because it's a stupid question. It doesn't even make sense

>>26210297
>sufficient
For the specific success they have no, but do you think they would describe themselves with "I don't ever make any decisions, other people/forces do it for me :)"? They take some credit for their success. You can't do that without believing in your own understanding of willpower. The determinist meme is a thought experiment, not a religion anyway. You can go between "it's not my fault!" And "I did it" a thousand times an hour if you wanted to

>We don't even experience free will. Thoughts just come to us. Try to sit still for 20 minutes and just use your "free will" to not think. You can't do it. The thoughts just come.
Exactly. Now think all these actions. The actions just come as well. As well as emotions, memories popping up, there's no you behind those eyes making these things pop up, it just does, there isn't a you in control of all these things they just pop up. In reality we are the phenomena of life experiencing nothingness shape itself into everything.

>>26210322
>I am not arguing with you
>acknowledging (you) while saying (you) doesn't exist
still contradicting yourself, I see

>>26210232
relevant factors. if you make an absurd claim like "the earth's position plays a role" then you need to demonstrate how that is the case. your argument is essentially "things happen in the universe, so free will doesn't exist" if you want to leave your argument at that, go ahead.

>Because I can't change choices I made it n the past or control others beliefs, I don't have free will.

LOL

>>26210381

>For the specific success they have no, but do you think they would describe themselves with "I don't ever make any decisions, other people/forces do it for me :)"?

Nobody thinks they don't make "decisions" in a colloquial sense--as in, choosing one option instead of another option they feel is inferior.

But a real, "free will" decision is a decision that you can make free of prior causes--free of your genetics and conditioning--just "you" doing it, with no internal or external compulsion. If people believe they make decisions like that, they're simply deluded.

>The determinist meme is a thought experiment, not a religion anyway.

Free will skepticism =/= determinism, just making that clear.

>You can go between "it's not my fault!" And "I did it" a thousand times an hour if you wanted to

The reality is either everything has a cause, in which case we don't have free will, or some things don't have causes, in which case we don't have free will.

Something can be my "fault" in that some aspect of myself (such as my balance of neurotransmitters, or how I was conditioned, or the quality of my eyesight) was the CAUSE of me doing something that ended up being in some way detrimental.

This is a "fault" like the fault in a piece of jewelry. It's unfortunate, but I don't need to believe I could have used some magical thing called "free will" to "rise above" my genetics and conditioning and undo the laws of physics for the sake of "being responsible".

>>26210402
this is meaningless. The shit you call "phenomena of life" everyone else just calls an individual. And if your actions have no human cause then we can just as easily act upon you claiming there is no human cause. All consequences for actions would remain the same in such a childish worldview

"libertarian free will"

what the fuck does this even mean?

>>26210423

>if you make an absurd claim like "the earth's position plays a role" then you need to demonstrate how that is the case

I didn't say actually say it played a role. I said it was a factor. It might play a role.

The idea that it doesn't play a role because you can't prove it does is an appeal to ignorance.

>your argument is essentially "things happen in the universe, so free will doesn't exist"

Either things are causal (meaning everything is completely determined by what happened before and could not have been otherwise), or some things are acausal (meaning our personalities, thoughts, feelings, desires, wants, likes, dislikes, and so on cannot cause them).

Either way, no free will.

>>26210431

Nice strawman bro.

>>26210402
That's true, but that doesn't disprove free will. Just because I have no control over the types of things I think doesn't mean I don't believe these things.

>>26210483
what are defining free will as? not the guy you're arguing with, just curious.

File: 1408970086848.jpg (27KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 200x200px

>>26210414
Haha if I am to communicate to you and relay information necessary to break you out of the illusion you're currently in this is the only way for 'me' to do so. I have to play the game of language and words so that I can express it to you, I can't just hand you an experience of the truth of no-self now can I? No more then I can tell someone who's never seen the colour orange in their life or an orange what an orange looks like. Words are not truth. A good analogy would be to say that this is like if you were in the matrix and you were I don't know, lets say in a prison and I handed you a cake. But hidden on top of the cake in code written in sweets is a code explaining the escape plan of how to get out of the prison.
Now the code is not the escape plan itself but a means of getting to the escape plan. I have to play the game to get you to realize.
>>26210462
>The shit you call "phenomena of life" everyone else just calls an individual.
Haha of course why do you think my friend? They're all in the illusion!
>And if your actions have no human cause then we can just as easily act upon you claiming there is no human cause
Of course.
>All consequences for actions would remain the same in such a childish worldview
Not at all. There may be such an animal in this world that cannot control it's nature to rip others apart. Yet you still know that sleeping next to such a beast would meet you a grizzly fate.

>>26210448
>this idiot thinks "real free will" doesn't use muh genetics for some absurd reason

The fact you wrote a bunch of word salads and still act smart just makes this argument pointless. You are confusing a whole lot of pop science shit into a gross philosophical statement. A guy can squander his opportunities or take them. That's free will. You can be a retard who dies at 30 from a heart attack but you can still be responsible for where you end up. None of what I said even made room for your poor interpretation of how genes work. Starve yourself for 5 days and you'll see an effect of free will. If you don't want to call it that, then keep arguing about it while squeezing in buzzwords

>>26210536

Speaking of it in the present tense, I would define free will as "The ability to make choices free of prior causes or divine intervention".

In the past tense speaking of a "choice" you made, I would say you would have had free will if "you could have, of your own accord, actually-as-opposed-to-hypothetically chosen otherwise".

>>26210509
The you typing ''Just because I have no control over the types of things I think doesn't mean I don't believe these things.'' you think is actually you is but a mere fiction. You don't believe anything because there is no you to believe in them in the first place! When a thought that pops up that says 'I hate this!' or 'I hate that' or 'I believe in this' and vice versa it's of course in your nature, your very instinct to buy into these thoughts (coupled with emotions that pop along side the thought as well as a memory to guide the fiction of 'you' as how your character would next respond) and attribute yourself to these claims that seemingly popped up out of nowhere.

>>26210576

Ad hominem bullshit. Debate me or don't.

>A guy can squander his opportunities or take them. That's free will.

A guy does what he thinks is a good idea at the time. Sometimes he ends up being right. Sometimes he ends up being wrong. Sometimes he'll never no.

That's not "free will" in a libertarian sense.

Of course free will doesn't exist, but the concept is absolutely crucial for humanity. If we simply acknowledged everything to be a result of something else and not our own choices, we'd have no logical need for laws of any kind.
Basically, for practical purposes, free will must exist.

>>26204876
So you had your first philosophy class? Congrats OP. Now go to bed, it's past your bed time

>>26210649
Laws are made so that you can tame beasts. Since you choose to stay in hell and be the devil the beast that you are needs rules so it does not harm others. In an enlightened world there is no need for made up laws and such.

>>26210649

>Of course free will doesn't exist, but the concept is absolutely crucial for humanity.

No it isn't.

>If we simply acknowledged everything to be a result of something else and not our own choices, we'd have no logical need for laws of any kind.

Not true. We'd still have need for laws because laws affect human behavior.

Your line of reasoning is literally identical to the people who say "God doesn't exist but we need to believe in him or else people will behave very badly and life will be completely pointless. We can't live without belief in God".

It's literally the exact same kind of argument. It's not true.

>>26210670

Here's your (you) champ. Enjoy it.

Can we just find a common ground and say people have different definitions of what free will is? While I do think we have more control of certain choices we make, other phenomenons people can't understand shouldn't be because of "free will".

>>26204876
HEY FAGGOT
This is news to who? You sound like one of those edgy teens who just found out there are no good reasons to believe in god. We know. Stop acting like you are some enlightened individual who was the first to think of this shit

>>26210620
>You don't believe anything because there is no you to believe in them in the first place!
I think therefore I am.

>>26210448
>But a real, "free will" decision is a decision that you can make free of prior causes
So you are saying free will is impossible

>>26210762

Yep, that's right.

>>26210725
You literally have zero control over anything that happens in your life. There's no you behind the eyes making choices and decisions haha. Is it really that hard to just resign 'yourself' to truth instead of living a lie that only brings you pain and suffering?
>>26210747
Really now? You invoke the thoughts you have? Is that why when you sit still you can't go a few seconds without a new thought popping up and interrupting your peace of mind?
>I think therefore I am. - The Ego/The Devil
But there's no you to invoke those thoughts at all. Therefore 'you' do not exist. 'You' are nothing experiencing the collection of systems coming together to create 'life', to create what in english has been dubbed 'the human body'.

>>26210617
>"The ability to make choices free of prior causes or divine intervention".
What about the movement of electrons? They move free of prior causes. Does that mean that they have free will? If someone measured the movement of electrons and made a decision based on his findings does that mean he's "free"? Just sounds like randomness desu.
>you would have had free will if "you could have, of your own accord, actually-as-opposed-to-hypothetically chosen otherwise".
So if I have a machine that predicts I will yawn and I see it and then do not yawn am I free?

>>26210683
You're might be right, but how do you assign responsibility then? Let's say one person murders another, can he really be blamed for it inside a system which acknowledges he didn't do it out of his own free will.
Could a person be blamed for his behaviour not being affected enough by laws?

>>26210825
Is this a troll? You know you do have control over what happens in your life by the choices you make. Just because I don't make excuses for myself doesn't mean I am living a lie and bringing myself pain and suffering.

>>26210856
The only free will humans need is the ability to make choices which we do. If someone murders someone else they made that decision and deserve to be punished.

>>26210825
>You' are nothing experiencing the collection of systems coming together to create 'life', to create what in english has been dubbed 'the human body'.
No, I am the experience. You've got a twisted sense of identity. Stop separating the emotional from the logical. Logic gives structure, emotion is substance.

>>26210895
No, we don't, that's the whole point of determinism. I'm simply trying to argue that the concept of free will is necessary even though it's most likely false.

File: 1340107422593s.jpg (2KB, 124x124px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 124x124px

>>26205946
you act as though our personalities and thought processes are static, and that we as people cannot change our actions.

>>26210859
Haha ok this is gonna require a lot of patience to get through to 'you' but if it does it will be worth it.
>You know you do have control over what happens in your life by the choices you make.
False. THERE. IS. NO. YOU. OR ME. THIS CONCEPT OF 'I' IS AN ILLUSION OF THE MIND.
>Just because I don't make excuses for myself doesn't mean I am living a lie and bringing myself pain and suffering.
I'm literally saying there is no you. There is the illusion of you. But not an actual you. The thing is though you are bringing yourself pain and suffering by choosing to remain in this illusion. You will suffer. Even if you have happy days, that happiness is not true happiness for you do not even know what that really is yet. It's a fragile kind of egoic happiness. One that shatters easily. By resigning yourself to truth and breaking free out of these illusions you have infinite and I mean infinite pure paradise. This is what religions refer to as heaven.
>>26210909
>No, I am the experience.
In a sense yes, and that's exactly what I'm trying to get to you. You are life yet you are not the living.
>Logic gives structure, emotion is substance.
What if perhaps what you consider to be logic is just merely models of reality? What if they're mere illusions as well? After all how many times has science been wrong in the past? Many 'people' consider themselves logical yet have a belief they're perfectly still even though they're moving at high speeds as the earth orbits. You're confusing logic/truth and emotion/experiential first person truth

>>26211021
>By resigning yourself to truth and breaking free out of these illusions you have infinite and I mean infinite pure paradise
And have you achieved this infinite pure paradise?

What if Improbability Drives become a reality in the future?

>>26210895

>The only free will humans need is the ability to make choices which we do.

We don't "need" any free will, and we only make "choices" in a colloquial sense. Either everything is caused, in which our "choices" are actually compelled by a causal chain stretching back before we were born, or some things are acausal, meaning our personalities, good will, bad will, etc. can have no effect on them. Neither of those are "free will".

>If someone murders someone else they made that decision and deserve to be punished.

This is what I was talking about with free will belief justifying sadism. Punishing a murderer might make sense as a deterrent, or to condition him against future murders. Sequestering him would likely be for the good of society. Killing him might be necessary if sequestration isn't feasible.

But free will belief justifies belief in "desert"--even cop-out compatibilist "free will" (FWINO as I call it--free will in name only) justifies it. And desert justifies sadism.

He "deserves" to suffer, and we should enjoy the pleasure we get from hurting him--whether he actually could have done otherwise is immaterial. Maybe he murdered BECAUSE he was an abused child, but that's okay. Let's relish in his pain.

Free will belief is toxic and antithetical to a decent, kind society.

>>26211071
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Bulls
I am on stage 3. I hear the bull just around the corner yet have not even seen a hair of the tail just yet. I edge close and closer.

Wouldn't Quantum Fluctuations nulify any kind of determinism entirely?

>>26211021
>In a sense yes, and that's exactly what I'm trying to get to you. You are life yet you are not the living.
Then I have free will because "I", the experience, want what I want even if I cannot control what I want
>What if perhaps what you consider to be logic is just merely models of reality
If logic doesn't exist then it exists cuz fuck logic
>You're confusing logic/truth and emotion/experiential first person truth
No, I purposely separated the two

>>26211136
no, they're just random events. Randomness==! free will

>>26210856

>Let's say one person murders another, can he really be blamed for it inside a system which acknowledges he didn't do it out of his own free will.

There's no need to "blame" him. What's necessary is to first of all contain him so he's no longer a danger to others. Then we should find out what CAUSED him to commit the murder, and fix it. If it can't be fixed, he'll have to be sequestered indefinitely. His actions could be condemned in the newspapers as human rights abuses. Articles could be written on what the best psychologists and neuroscientists believed compelled him to act as he did.

All throughout this, there's no need to say "he murdered out of his own free will". We could simply say "Circumstances compelled him to commit murder. Something went wrong with him somewhere along the line, and this ended in great tragedy."

>Could a person be blamed for his behaviour not being affected enough by laws?

I'm not sure what you mean here. Would you be so kind as to clarify?

>>26211185
But being a murderer is part of his identity. Stop separating the crime and the criminal. Some people love to torture others, it may be a result of their circumstances but it's still a core part of who they are.

>>26211156
But 'your' wants, you desires are not invoked by what you belief to be you. Not only that but what you call you wanting something is actually just the experience of experiencing the illusion of desire itself. A reaction to external stimuli that can be observed within.
>If logic doesn't exist then it exists cuz fuck logic
wut
>No, I purposely separated the two
Well, this made up structure of yours in what you believe in to be you, where the is logic in which gives structure and emotion which gives substance is just that, a belief. In reality they are all just content in the experiential field and you rise above them to observe them, or at least if you wish to free yourself that's what will happen.

>>26211254
The problem here is that identity is an illusion in itself.
'You'. Are. Not. Real.

Using fancy words and "smart" jargon ==! intelligence

Let's see that degree

>>26211114
>He "deserves" to suffer, and we should enjoy the pleasure we get from hurting him
really don't see how it necessarily follows that you would be a sadist if you believe in free will. People have a wide variety of beliefs concerning justice and punishment, that's just one of them. Really it seems like you're just cherrypicking in order to make it sound like your evil if you believe in free will.

>>26211254

>But being a murderer is part of his identity.

And that's unfortunate. He could not have done otherwise of his own accord, and because being a murderer isn't helpful to society (or generally speaking oneself), he's effectively a sick person whose illness got out of control.

I pity the sick people.

>Stop separating the crime and the criminal.

I think separating the crime from the criminal makes as much sense as suffering the ailment from the ailing.

>Some people love to torture others, it may be a result of their circumstances but it's still a core part of who they are.

It's an unfortunate part of who they are, and it would be good to get rid of that part.

Mental illness should be redefined as mental states which are harmful to the person or to society because they result in harmful actions, either to oneself or others. This is what I think the core of mental pathology truly is, and free will belief is holding it back because of the urge to blame and hurt other people.

As far as I'm concerned, all murderers are mentally ill. There is no such thing as a sane killer.

>>26211353

>really don't see how it necessarily follows that you would be a sadist if you believe in free will.

I never claimed it did, and I'm sorry if I gave that impression.

But free will belief does justify sadism. Not all free will believers are sadists...

However, there are ordinarily kind, gentle people who engage in sadism due to their belief in free will. There are people who are quite kind to others, but who feel gleeful when "bad" people are being hurt. Not because they think the pain will deter others, and not because they think the pain is a necessary evil of any kind--they enjoy the pain of the sufferer and think it's a true "good", because that person used his "free will" the wrong way, and therefore it's good to enjoy his pain.

This is a mistake. There is no free will, and so using free will to justify sadistic actions is wrong.

>Really it seems like you're just cherrypicking in order to make it sound like your evil if you believe in free will.

That's not my intention and I'm sorry I wasn't able to be more clear.

>>26211369

>I think separating the crime from the criminal makes as much sense as suffering the ailment from the ailing.

>suffering

I meant to type "separating". My bad.

>>26211307
>Not only that but what you call you wanting something is actually just the experience of experiencing the illusion of desire itself. A reaction to external stimuli that can be observed within.
To me it's real. Cut yourself and you will feel pain. Yes it's not "tangible" but that doesn't change the fact that you desire to not be in pain.
>wut
It was a joke. The humor is that not believing in logic is paradoxical because you need logic to not believe in logic
>In reality they are all just content in the experiential field and you rise above them to observe them, or at least if you wish to free yourself that's what will happen.
Logic exists no matter what man when I said "If logic doesn't exist then it exists cuz fuck logic" I was trying to illustrate this

>>26211645

>Cut yourself and you will feel pain.

Is it really a "you", apart from the pain, "who" is feeling the pain?

Or is it just "pain"?

Think about this.

Imagine "you".

Now imagine "you" not thinking anything.

Now imagine "you" without sensations (hunger, itch, pain)

No thoughts, no feelings.

Is there any "you" left?

>>26211327
Ok well now you're just being inconsistent, if no one exists then why even try to fix society in your little anecdote? If no one existed and no feelings weren't real then murder shouldn't be a crime because it essentially does nothing. Be consistent nigger.

Isn't free will the ability to make choices?

>>26210483
first you use an appeal to ignorance now you present a false dichotomy. no, saying the universe is not deterministic does not discount some things from being causal. it simply means not all things are causal.

and it is not an appeal to ignorance to say some fantastical like the position of the earth should not be assumed to have an impact on the scenario. It is an appeal to ignorance to then turn and say "well you can't say that for certain."

I'm saying we shouldn't assume the tooth fairy and you're saying I can't disprove the tooth fairy.

>>26205704
>there is no absolute freewill. We are organic computers bound by laws of physics
>>this is what STEM majors actually believe
LaughingHeidi.jpg

>>26210833

no it would simply mean the machine is wrong.

>>26211772

>first you use an appeal to ignorance

No, I didn't. You did.

>now you present a false dichotomy

I present a dichotomy, but not a false one.

>saying the universe is not deterministic does not discount some things from being causal. it simply means not all things are causal.

If everything is causal, we don't have free will. If some things are acausal, we can't be the cause of those events.

It's simple logic.

>and it is not an appeal to ignorance to say some fantastical like the position of the earth should not be assumed to have an impact on the scenario

The idea that the position of the earth can't possibly affect human behavior is bullshit. Ever heard of circadian rhythms? That's one way in which it could make a difference.

What you are doing is EXACTLY appeal to ignorance.

>>26211021
if 'I' is an illusion, what is the mind?

>>26211434
but sadism could also be justified if you assuming a deterministic point of view. The criminal is not responsible for his actions but in order to condition him we need to inflict pain on him and its good to enjoy this pain because we are helping the criminal.

>>26211697
Yes there's me as the conscience, me as the feeling of existence. That me you described has no will of it's own. Therefore the "intrusive" thoughts that come into my head randomly are my will and since they are sincere I have free will.

>>26211740
I'm saying that this concept of you is not real not that what you're looking and and experiencing isn't real lol
You're experiencing an illusion but you aren't the illusion (of 'you', of 'self', of identity') itself.
>>26211645
>but that doesn't change the fact that you desire to not be in pain.
That aversion is but mere content. Try putting your hand under very hot water (not to the point where it would scold you of course) and attempt to ignore the pain and focus on the experience itself. It is not this 'pain' itself that you experience which brings forth suffering but the thought of pain itself which brings you suffering.
>It was a joke. The humor is that not believing in logic is paradoxical because you need logic to not believe in logic
Logic is merely the act of using models of reality in an effort to act more efficiently, no? But models of reality are not reality itself, hmm?
>>26211902
What is this mind you speak of? Something you heard from someone else, just hearsay interpreted differently through the ages or a model of reality you came up with by your own intuition?

>>26211839
It's true, everything thought you have is the result of a subconscious effect that was influenced by your genetics and past experiences.

Ultimately, it doesn't really matter since we're unable to change these "variables" that affect our outcomes.

>>26211926

>Yes there's me as the conscience, me as the feeling of existence

How can you have a "feeling of existence" if you have no thoughts and no sensations?

more proof that meditation is the way to go

>>26211180
how can you have randomness in a deterministic universe? the entire basis for denying free will is that everything is bound by cause and effect, and thus everything follows a linear line. if there can be random events, why cant there be free will as well?

>>26211847
What if a supercomputer with infinite knowledge predicts I will sit down and I am then shown this prediction and I purposefully stand up? Will I have free will then?

>>26211973

What you posit is incoherent.

If the computer knows what you will do, then you can't do otherwise, because if you were to do otherwise, it would mean that the computer didn't actually know what you would do.

>>26211870
your argument is "if some things are not apples, then granny smiths cannot be apples"

>The idea that the position of the earth can't possibly affect human behavior is bullshit. Ever heard of circadian rhythms? That's one way in which it could make a difference

circadian rhythms are based on sensory inputs. this is why you close your eyes.

>>26211946
I'm going to pretend that I'm not on /r9k/ and assume you don't believe these things because they're red herrings that help support your defeatist attitude towards life, and instead assume you're being serious.
What is your "you"? Or, better yet, what can be constituted as being A BEING? These are basic questions of ontological discourse that you take for granted with presumptions fed to you through cultural and commercial conscription. You don't even understand what it means to exist but you believe to know what we are? Formless (material) Energy in a void? Read some Heidegger or Hegel.

>>26211973
yes, but likely no such machine can exist.

>>26212063
I should have made myself more clear with that last sentence.


Ultimately, it doesn't really matter if we don't have free will since we're unable to change these "variables" that affect our outcomes. So there's no real point in worrying about this question.

>>26211958
Yup. Like you don't know if I or anyone else here is ignorant, is telling the truth or is straight up lying. But if you look inwardly you will see everything you want to know.

>>26212050

>your argument is "if some things are not apples, then granny smiths cannot be apples"

No it's not.

I'll try and spell it out for you one more time.

If everything is causal, then there's no free will. Everything we do is the product of prior causes stretching back before we were even born.

If some things aren't causal, that can't give us free will. Those acausal events are inherently out of control, including our control. If we could cause those events, they wouldn't be acausal. So clearly we can't cause them. You can't posit the existence of acausal events and imply that we cause those acausal events. It's incoherent.

That's why acausality can't rescue free will.

>circadian rhythms are based on sensory inputs. this is why you close your eyes.

Closing your eyes for a long time could possibly cause the release of melatonin in your brain, because melatonin is released in response to darkness.

This would affect your thoughts and behavior.

>>26211973
>infinite knowledge
If you assume something that's impossible, you can prove absolutely anything. This is basic logic, I hope you weren't being serious.

>>26211943
>That aversion is but mere content. Try putting your hand under very hot water (not to the point where it would scold you of course) and attempt to ignore the pain and focus on the experience itself. It is not this 'pain' itself that you experience which brings forth suffering but the thought of pain itself which brings you suffering.
How does that prove anything? Either way I do not wish to suffer and that is why I remove my hand, because I do not want something.
>Logic is merely the act of using models of reality in an effort to act more efficiently, no? But models of reality are not reality itself, hmm?
Logic is the rules of the world. It's not a tool we invented for efficiency it's a concept. Like try and prove to me that if I have one apple and then buy another I will have two, it's impossible.

>>26212165

At some point, it seems that logic breaks down, though.

For example, is the universe finite or infinite?

Neither idea seems logical.

This is actually interesting. What are your opinions on empathy and morality?

>>26212165
> Either way I do not wish to suffer and that is why I remove my hand, because I do not want something.
'Your' mistake here is identifying with the aversion itself. That is the illusion you face in this scenario. By identifying with the aversion this concept of you in you mental world becomes the very aversion itself. Thus it is not the pain that would make you suffer it is the aversion to the experience of pain that would make you suffer. There is a mirror of illusion behind the gold of experience. You see by identifying with suffering you become suffering itself. To be the ruler of hell is to feel the flames at your feet every time you walk.
>>26212255
Both concepts stem from the ego as well as the emotions associated with them. All suffering however stems from ignorance, the suffering you bring to you and the suffering you bring to others. The way to stop suffering is with truth.

>>26212222
nice quads
That's a scientific question rather than a philosophic one. It requires empirical evidence rather than synthetic a priori knowledge, science and nature may not make sense but concepts like free will and logic do.

>>26212255

OP here.

I'm some kind of utilitarian.

I think empathy is usually a good thing because it helps reduce suffering. Sometimes it might possibly be a bad thing but probably not that much compared to a lack of empathy.

I think morality is real in that suffering and pleasure are real as anything else. I think the best definition of "evil" is suffering and the best definition of "good" is pleasure. But I'm not sure exactly how levels of good and evil can be assigned to things. It's not an easy thing to do.

>>26212222
Infinite as the source of everything is nothing. And nothing is the very concept of infinite.

>>26212290
> Thus it is not the pain that would make you suffer it is the aversion to the experience of pain that would make you suffer
Like I said, I still suffer, it doesn't matter what the cause of it is.

>>26212360

I don't understand what you just said at all though.

>>26212409
>it doesn't matter what the cause of it is.
Of course it matter about the cause!
Because as you said:
>I still suffer
The root cause of the problem is YOU!
Now do you get it?
>>26212417
the one thing I doubt you can put into words

>>26212484
idk man you seem kind of insane desu

>>26212536
haha all guys that are on the path to enlightenment and all guys who are enlightened speak of the same things perhaps more eloquently than I

>>26212290
>>26212336
Honestly I have more of a problem with morality than empathy. I like how you guys summed it up though.

You're gonna get a C on this Intro to Philosophy paper, OP

File: image.jpg (17KB, 959x959px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 959x959px

>>26204876
Consciousness is reaction formations that can be controlled, creating more underlying psyche this makin more resctionary material (not free will, automatic) and experience for conscious action (free will)

I guess what I'm trying to say is op is a faggot, learn to quantum mechanics i.e. learn that there is randomness and choice rather than total predestination.

>>26212821

I already got an A and that was 3 years ago but thanks for the encouragement.

>>26212893
Damn. Sorry you went to community college.