Is determinism real? I want it to be real because then I won't

Yes. It is real. People who don't "believe" in determinism simply don't understand physics.

>>38165665
What if I turned to a completely random page or if I put the book down?

Can you imagine being this pathetic that you want to have absolutely no control over anything in your life because then you "don't have to worry about things?"

>I want it to be real because then I won't have to worry about things

If determinism is true there are still things you might have to worry about. In fact, you might literally HAVE to worry about things, because you couldn't subvert causality to stop yourself from worrying. You could only stop worrying when you were determined to, in response to the effects of the causal chain.

>>38165695
Determinism.
Give me any scenario and I'll tell you determinism corresponds to your perception of it as well as its causation and outcome.

>>38165685
Brainlets are spilling over to r9k
go back to >>>/sci/

>>38165726

What would it mean for you to "have control" over things in your life?

Would such a situation be incompatible with a deterministic universe?

>>38165736
Worrying, self motivation, all perceptions. Which correspond to the illusion of the ego which creates qualia. Understanding the deterministic nature of the universe doesn't put your life on autopilot.

>>38165665
>punches old man in the face
Heh, it was determined to happen, nothing personal.

Free will doesn't make sense and is not a question with any truth value (either true or false). In other words, it's a dumb question.

>>38165742

The disintegration of a radionuclide.

>>38165695
What if you were born with leukemia and died while you were 3 years old ?
Really activates those almonds.

>>38165766
It was determined to happen by all the factors that led to you being an edgy faggot and the old man being in your proximity.

determinists are smug brainlet pseudo intellectuals

>>38165764

Evidence indicates the conscious mind experiences reality as it was roughly 80 milliseconds in the past, not as it currently is.

http://www.salk.edu/news-release/we-live-in-the-past-salk-scientists-discover/

If the conscious mind experienced reality as it was ten minutes in the past, could it still make decisions in the present?

And if not...then why is it any different if it's living 10 years in the past, 10 seconds in the past, or 80 milliseconds in the past?

What's past is past.

In a very real sense we are always on autopilot, watching a "tape" of events that have already occurred.

>>38165796
>Stochastic phenomenon
Happens in more than just elementary particles. There are truly random observances in biology as well... Even behavior.

Basically, free will exists and we it only rarely affects us.

>>38165827

Einstein was a determinist. Would you call him that?

>>38165827
>born in poor family
>tries to get rich
>fails because he doesn't have the resources, luck and/or wasn't born intelligent enough
>ha hahahaha look at all the free will I'm experiencing ha hahahahahh

Kill yourself, mongrel.

>>38165665
No
>>>/b/737894952

>>38165851
why are you so asshurt if i had no choice but to make that post :^)

>>38165742
>>38165801
I was strictly speaking regarding the book, it makes it look like I have to turn to page 72 but I don't have to.

>>38165835


>Basically, free will exists and we it only rarely affects us.

I don't understand how stochastic phenomenon would give us anything worth calling free will. If the universe is of such nature that it sometimes randomly forces people to punch themselves in the face, I don't see how that is any more free than that person having been determined by causal forces to punch themselves in the face.

>>38165866
Why are you so retarded that you can't form a coherent argument ? Probably your shit genes, bet you didn't like the eugenics thread either.

>>38165832
Servers are shit 80ms is literally unplayable

>>38165879
It might be extremely painful if you don't..

>>38165881
You can't explain it by definition. Why did you decide to punch a man in the face? Well your neurons fired because some truly random forces caused a chemical reaction and if we explained any further than it really wouldn't be free will then. At that point it's just determinism.

The will is then dictated in a transcendent realm, aka your soul.

>>38165851
Horrible example.

If the universe is just a series of reactions in a closed system the outcome of every situation has already been determined.

Scientists don't know if the universe is a closed system, and don't understand how higher dimensions of existence effect our universe. It is currently impossible to know whether determinism is a valid ideology

>>38165890
But I'm pro-voluntary eugenics
>brainlets can't fathom that a system can be partially deterministic and still have room for free will

Prove that everything can be measure
pro tip: you can't

>>38165918
Of course there is some room for free will, retard. I didn't claim otherwise. But the extent of one's free will is determined by factors outside of his control.

>>38165954
>changing argument as he goes
The true sign of a brainlet

>>38165915

So then it's not free will. It just sort of seems like free will if you don't look at it too hard. Like how fata morgana aren't ships, but kinda look like them until you get close.

>>38165954
>that goal post moving
Determinists literally don't believe in free will nerd
Its attractive to lazy bitter neets because it absolves them of any responsibility without having to do anything

>>38165961
Except I didn't do that, faggot. But whatever makes you sleep at night..

>>38165971

>Determinists literally don't believe in free will nerd

Actually a lot of them sort of do. It's just that what they call "free will" isn't libertarian free will, it's called compatibilism.

>>38165971
>Determinists literally don't believe in free will nerd
>All determinists believe that we either have complete free will or none at all
Oh, boy

>>38165971
>>38166001

Btw a lot of other philosophers, called incompatiblists, say what the compatibilists call "free will" really isn't worth calling that, because it is substantially different than the idea that you can somehow use your volition that is unbound from well everything else to act contrary to all laws of physics, whether the laws of physics are fundamentally deterministic or indeterministic.

>>38165917
Yet determinism works 100% of the time in macroscopic reality.
The only time it doesn't work is during investigations of particles smaller than any practical form of matter. It doesn't even necessarily not work, it might just be a form of pattern we do not know how to look for.
I think the free will in the face of determinism meme is promoted by people who are frightened by the idea of being clockwork. It doesn't change anything about metaphysical pondering, there is still magic to be found in determinism

Every one who isnt a determinist is a fucking stupid brainlet and I hope my comment results in you killing yourself.

Seriously how could anyone believe in free will.
Just observe your thoughts, they just come into your brain.

When I say find a rhyme with ass.
Observe how you think you find a rhyme when it actually just pops up.

Free will are weak irrational low iq people with no selfreflection

>>38166015

If we experience reality as it was 80 ms in the past then I don't see how we can have any more free will than if we experienced it as it was 10 years in the past.

80 milliseconds ago is just as gone, gone, gone, as 8 million years ago. You can't go back 80 milliseconds extra any more than you could go back 8 million years.

>>38165965
Uhhhh, no to that analogy. It's more like the question of free will is a semantically stupid question.

>>38166048

What about hard incompatibilists who don't claim to know whether determinism or indeterminism are true, but say that either way, there is no free will?

That's a growing perspective these days and it makes a lot of sense if you think about it.

>>38166029
>free will is a flower power ideology made for the dumb masses so they keep working striving for ''success'' regardless of the actual capabilities they were born with
>free will is the morphine of the people
Freetards literally can't prove me wrong

>>38166052

Putting it another way--heaven forbid such a thing should happen, it's just a hypothetical--you can't save your best friend who got hit by a train and killed 2 seconds ago any more than you could have saved him had he died that way 2 years ago. The recent past is just as irrecoverable as the distant past.

So if our conscious mind can only experience reality as it was even 1 millisecond ago, it seems that the conscious mind can't do anything at all in the present. It's just like watching a movie that's already been filmed.

>>38166068

Fair enough fampai

>>38166075
They are on the edge of not being retards. They are close to seing the light.
If they see that there is no free will and everything is based on causality it just is a matter of time before realizing that then the world must be deterministic.
Because how can coincidence be real. There is always a impetus that results in the next reaction

>>38165665
No, indeterminism is the truth. Shit doesn't happen for a reason but rather just because shit happens.

File: pepe.jpg (70KB, 669x583px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 669x583px

>>38166155

But if the universe is a series of cause and effect, then doesn't there need to have been a first cause?

It doesn't seem like it could stretch back to infinity.

This whole 'free will' vs determinism debate is just something modern philosophy teachers only teach because they're repeating a tradition that mostly had relevance because of the importance of religion in the past.

Nobody in this thread appears to have bothered to define what free will is. The most common sense interpretation of the term is something like "unhindered, unrestricted" "exercise of preference or desire", now the 'free' aspect primarily implies freedom from other forces or actors within the universe, and preference or desire can only be exercised by an actor which has certain qualities or a form. Recognising that human beings as indivduals are both the result of and made up of chains of causes and effects doesn't in any way invalidate free will as defined this way.

When I say "John chose an apple for a snack", "John" is a convenient term which is limited in its use. John DID choose the apple. John exercised his will in a free manner in that nobody coerced him into eating it. The fact that John is part of a series of causes and effects doesn't invalidate this. Language is for communication and so in most cases it's designed for making every-day communication easier, it would be ridiculous to have to say "The psychological and chemical forces operating within the body of the individual named John processed stimuli and acted on previous causes" blah blah.

This debate USED to have meaning because much of Christian thought treated us as having 'souls' and God was thought to want to punish us for certain actions - predeterminism is basically determinism as applied to the faith of those who believe in the existence of Hell.

It's fucking settled guys, compatibilism is the only way. Go watch LOST.

>>38166227
t. A philosophy major making a final attempt at seeming like something more than a failed human destined for mediocrity

>>38166227
>compatibilism is the only way

Basically this, yeah.

>>38166227

>When I say "John chose an apple for a snack", "John" is a convenient term which is limited in its use. John DID choose the apple. John exercised his will in a free manner in that nobody coerced him into eating it.

What if he really needed to eat, but his only "choices" were an apple or an orange, and ten years ago a guy in an orange sweater killed his entire family right in front of him, so now he hates anything orange as a result of his conditioning, to such extent that the idea of eating the orange was so repugnant as to render it not a real possibility?

He was compelled to eat the apple rather than the orange by an event far in the past. But that event in the past doesn't seem to me any less "coercive" than someone threatening him with pain in the present if he ate the orange. It's just a delayed effect, and he is still choosing the orange under threat of pain--in this case emotional pain, that someone else compelled him to have--just that they set up that situation far in the past.

>>38166345

>What if he really needed to eat, but his only "choices"...

The point is that you're making up this distinction between 'John', and the internal psychological forces that are within John. My point is that everyday language like "John chose an apple for a snack" is only meant to be practical, so the "John" refers to and includes those psychological forces.

Now, this doesn't mean there isn't in a way a difference between the 'consciousness' of John or his 'experience' and the psychological forces working within him. I do feel much of the time that 'I' an subject to psychological forces I wish didn't hold sway over me, and perhaps ultimately we'll find out that it's true that the 'experiencer' could be seen as distinct from these psychological forces - but that doesn't change what I'm saying about the terms 'free will' and 'choice'.

If you want to continue start by defining what free will would be.

>>38166227
best post ITT desu fampaitachi

>>38166200
>But if the universe is a series of cause and effect, then doesn't there need to have been a first cause?
>It doesn't seem like it could stretch back to infinity.

Exactly. Determinism makes no sense for this reason. "Cause" and "effect" are artificial separations we make of things that are not actually separate. It's like saying the sunrise "causes" the sunset because the sunrise happens earlier in the same process.

>>38166405

>The point is that you're making up this distinction between 'John', and the internal psychological forces that are within John. My point is that everyday language like "John chose an apple for a snack" is only meant to be practical, so the "John" refers to and includes those psychological forces.

I question you on this. A lot of people believe that John can use a magical type of "free will" to override all his psychological forces. This belief is not at all practical; it is destructive.

That's why if John has depression and is from an old-fashioned family, they will (metaphorically I hope) shit all over him for not using free will to overcome his sadness, which is actually the product of physical causes.

They really, honestly believe there is a magical part of John that can somehow rush in and fix him, and if John doesn't let that part of him in, then he should be cursed at and ridiculed. This is happening right now, all over the world.

>>38166499

When I say 'practical', I just mean that most people use this language "John chose..." "John did..." "John wants.." because in their day to day lives they're not that interested in analysing the deeper psychological forces within him, they just want to be able to communicate roughly what happened and why in a general sense. Maybe you're right and this contributes to a lot of the "just be happy bro" shit, but I'd say that's more to do with a lack of empathy of the people who talk that way. I feel like even on an animal level, I have a sense of other people as having their own personalities, temperaments, limitations, etc. So I'm not sure that giving people names and talking about them as agents in this sense is really the source of what you're talking about.

I know that we use the same language when we talk about men and women, we don't tend to use different language when talking about women, for example - but when it comes to everyday life and court cases, women get treated as being less personally responsible, they get more sympathy, they are seen more as being victims of circumstance or of other men.

>>38166227
This.

The concept of free will and the physical mechanism which make for human decisions happen at two very different levels of complexity, one in the macroscopic and the other in the microscopic regime. Whilst apart from some randomness most of the universe would be predictable, this isn't a practical attitude to have given that we don't have the necessary information to actually make those predictions nor do we usually think in this way.

>>38166227
t.brainlet

Hard determinism is the only way. Go kill YOURSELF

>>38166227
John didnt choose the apple. John thinks he chose the apple. Because John is just the consciousness.

>>38166956

>John didnt choose the apple. John thinks he chose the apple. Because John is just the consciousness.

Again, the issue here is definition. In the vast majority of cases, when you refer to another person, like "John", you're not talking about merely his consciousness. You're talking about him as a whole human being, even as a historical being ("John was born in..."). If you want to say "John's consciousness didn't choose", you might have a case, but then the question is - in what context does consciousness exist? Can consciousness exist without a physical body? You say for example "John thinks he chose the apple", so your use of terms is confused - in the first case you use it to refer to his consciousness, in the second to a 'thinker', but isn't thinking outside of his consciousness? If the experiencer isn't involved in any choices, then it isn't involved in any thinking - is it?

>>38167043
yes If you refer to John you are talking about his consciousness. John is the illusion he thinks he is and is also the illusion we think he is. Most people have no clue about how their brain works, that there are many unconscious things working.
consciousness is merely a screen that is self-conscious. On that screen everything gets projected and the screen thinks that everything that is projected is him. and we also just see the screen of John.

hey guys, let's debate something currently unfalsifiable

>>38167184
t. brainlet

your brain is just not intelligent enough to connect the dots and to recognize how itself works.

>>38167209
i don't think you understand what i was trying to communicate
...brainlet

>>38167237
Sorry English is my fourth language, without looking the word up my brain thought that you mean let's debate something we can't debate because there is no answer at this point.

>>38166931
But hard determinism simply isn't true, there are things which happen purely at random. Plenty of examples of that if you ever studied quantum physics

>>38165665
Determinism isn't something that can be "real" or something you "believe" in, it's simple logic and just a fact. Pick up a glass, the glass gets picked up. The glass does not randomly get lifted by magic, and the glass does not levitate through force of "will." How retarded do you have to be to think that it does?

It just seems like an argument that can't be proven wrong.
So, if we all just say fuck it, nobody trades and the markets all around the world crash, then it was always "meant to be". It's just retrospective analysis right when the 'thing' occurs, so that you can say "well, it was gonna happen anyways".

>>38168391
>Plenty of examples of that if you ever studied quantum physics
Just because we don't fully understand the why doesn't mean there isn't a cause and effect relationship going on with particles in the quantum world. Not having an explanation for why quantum particles do what they do and declaring "It's completely random!", is on the same level as not having an explanation for where the sun goes at night and declaring, "It's the gods!"

>>38168550
Nah we cna prove that it isn't just deterministic by some process we don't understand. Some processes are just objectively random

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem