>tfw free will literally does not exist

So? Why does that bother you? It didn't exist before you knew that fact and it doesn't exist now that you do.

>>38731594
i wanted to say it does, but i'm not going to, to show you that it's real
check mate gaytheists

>>38731622
He is unable to will himself away from worry.

>>38731634
So what controls your actions? Your body or something outside of its physical properties?

>>38731639
Actually, the stimuli I presented could potentially trigger a biochemical reaction giving the effect of comfort, thus relieving him of his worry.

>>38731622
its nothing personal. Just the pure absurdity of us all running around believing we are acting on our own volition when the tracks have already been laid.

>>38731658
Every your action is predetermined by your previous expieriences, personality and psychical/mental limitations

>>38731658
You don't control your actions, you simply react to stimuli however your brain responds. If you play the situation over and over again 1000x you will always react the same way unless something changes. It's destiny/fate.

>>38731725
LOADS of different psychologists would like to have a word with you on that one. Don't spew shit you know nothing about.

>>38731765
What is the difference between choosing something and your choice being predetermined? What would it take for you to consider a will free?

File: 1501345247785.png (150KB, 374x289px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 374x289px

>implying 'free will' is nothing more than genetic primacy, behavioral conditioning, and brain chemistry
Lmao at ''''individualists''''

tfw free will kinda does exist
eye/brainwave static, quantum fluctuations are random nerds

>>38731778
>Social science
Cuck detected
>Don't talk about stuff you know nothing about
That would make me a psychologist lmao.

>>38731832
Nothing is truly random. Some things just seem that way to us, because we do not comprehend the causes.

>>38731594
free will is just the ability to chose between different courses of action, you are probably conflating it with the question of consciousness' existence.

>>38731778
My psychology professor(took the class as an elective) basically called half the class dumbasses for believing in free will when he asked who believed in it.

I don't know how you can be a brain healer and think that brains make choices independent of the brain. That's what you have to think to be a free willer, otherwise the will isn't free.

>>38731778
You know that personality disorders can have increased chance of occuring based on some genes? Also hormones can influence behaviour

>>38731896
choice being something you control is an illusion

no matter what choice you make it was always highly plausible at an extremely detailed level

>>38731930
too bad determinism is bullshit.

>>38731658
me, you faggit, i wanted to call you a faggit so i did
the voices inside my head told me that your to dumb to respond too, but i did anyway feg ;) ;) ;)

>>38731967
You just want it to be bullshit, because you're an egoist. You didn't choose to be an egoist, so I'm not going to fault you.

>>38731832
How exactly does randomness make the will any more free than determinism?

>>38731987
why do you think determinism is true?
if you think science proves determinism then you are wrong.

>>38732021
Neuroscience is pretty in favor of determinism, physics can be used in favor of randomness. Neither support free will in the slightest.

>>38732021
Science is a deterministic philosophy. Science is about explaining the causes of natural phenomena. If you do not believe that all things have causes(determinism) you cannot do science, because you cannot explain anything.

>>38732042
you do realize that determinism is unfalsifiable, just like the scientific method?

>>38731967
>>38732021
Determinism is bullshit though, but so is free will.
Just because every action one takes is highly plausible to begin with doesnt mean that morality doesnt exist or that 'will' doesnt exist in some sense. In a realistic scenario, you cannot predict what everyone everywhere is going to do. In that sense, the will is 'free' because there is a veil of ignorance. If you had a supercomputer able to take every possible input, then surely you could predict everyone's actions in a very strong liklihood.

The idea that the will is 'free' in a literal sense is false, but in terms of social interactions it can be. Likewise, the actions one takes are interpreted through the social values attached to the surrounding group, and deemed 'moral', 'immoral', etc. You can still clearly label moral value to actions, just because they were set out to do it doesnt mean it isnt society's job to prevent.

Free will in its modern conception is just a tool for materialism

>>38732084
but causation isn't. If causation is falsifiable and proven correct then isn't determinism a more likely explanation for a man's choices than the idea that he wills freely?

>>38732154
>you cannot predict what everyone everywhere is going to do
but you still know that they only do what they do because it's what the summation of their life history and biology led them to do.

>>38731594
My willy is very free though.

>>38731658
The trajectory of every single atom/matter/unit in the universe that is being calculated by the laws of physics. In other words, our lives are basically one giant mathematical equation that is still being calculated.

>>38733415
Yes, but this doesnt change that for all intents and purposes, their will is 'free' as in 'unpredictable' because one cannot have the summation of everyone's life and biology.

>>38733865
>'free' as in 'unpredictable'
In what other context are these two words synonyms.and why are they synonyms in this context?

Even then, you don't need a complete summation of an abused drug addicts' life to know he'll probably use drugs again

>>38734544
In the context of 'free' as in 'to act of one's own accord', which is surely false.
And, in terms of general actions that may occur at some undetermined time in the future, yeah, its not hard to predict actions. But trying to predict the specific actions of a person at a specific period of time is more or less impossible, so therefore the will is 'free' in so that you could hypothetically predict it, but doing so would be impossible, making it 'free' in that the actions seem to be of their own volition when it is certainly not

>>38732475
causality seems to work fine almost every time, and determinism literally cannot be investigated by the scientific method so...

>>38734715
>causality seems to work fine almost every time, and determinism literally cannot be investigated by the scientific method so...
Woosh

>>38734906
yes, the theory that events having causes seems to work everytime, that doesn't mean that determinism is working theory.
that would imply that we are using scientific method to reaffirm the validity of scientific method

>>38731594
There isn't anything to say about it in general. I'm convinced any cognitive scientist that feels dogmatic about this is being paid off by the late Mr. Rockefeller to influence public policy.

>*your average liberal reading the NYT* gee, honey, did you see what scientists are saying about free will?
>it's like God, none of it exists, haha!
>looks like totalitarian government policies are the way to go after all, people just can't help themselves anyway!

They pump these talking points into academics' heads too. I saw through it in a second when my math professor who got his PhD from fucking Berkeley could not. It has nothing to do with intelligence because I'm dumb as a brick.

>>38731802
It would need to be completely random. However, only computers can make such decisions.

File: téléchargement.png (5KB, 183x275px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 183x275px

Yep.

This book expands on the idea. This is a must read for Robots.

>>38735578
Most academic philosophers are compatibilists anyway if you look at the surveys.

>>38735662
>It would need to be completely random.
If it was completely random then it wouldn't be an expression of your will.
>only computers can make such decisions.
Those are not actually random.

>>38731594
You're right, it doesn't exist.

However the belief in free will makes the individual being evaluate the situation more thoroughly which is favorable for survival, reproduction, and happiness. Don't try and suppress it, we evolved that mindset for a reason.

>>38733506
Fucking stop
I don't know what to think anymore

>>38731594
Until science bitches learn more about quantum mechanics, we don't know that. I remember thinking the same thing because were all just colliding atoms, but you'll learn within each atom is energy that operate on probability, so reality cannot be predicted even if every atom was mapped out.

>>38736284
Probability has to do with imagined outcomes. In reality there is only 1 outcome possible.

Only an idiot without complex thoughts would say so.

>>38737373
>737373

Digits confirmed
OP ur a fgt

This is the final and last redpill.
Glad you figured it out OP.

>>38737275
This post is nonsensical garbage.

literally exist? no shit it doesn't exist. it's an intangible noun

whether or not it exists doesn't matter. it's meaningless.

>>38735667
>human
>race
>species
>race

book trashed

>>38738396
Is it? Let us look at the definition of probability then.
"Probability is the measure of the likelihood that an event will occur"
Measuring likelihood of possible outcomes. A dice has 6 sides so when you roll it there are in theory 6 possible outcomes. In reality however, there is only 1 possible outcome, which you could calculate if you had all the variables.
I don't think you should talk about natural science, when basic epistomology is 'nonsensical' to you.

>>38738685
>A dice has 6 sides so when you roll it there are in theory 6 possible outcomes. In reality however, there is only 1 possible outcome
This is the non-sensical garbage. Surrounding it by obvious statements won't work.

>which you could calculate if you had all the variables
There is not enough known about quantum mechanics to know if this is possible.

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

it seems that this isn't original

>>38737373
but that's just the opposite. Every thought you have is 'given' to you by your brain but you are your brain. Do you control your every thought or do they just occur to you. There is a finite number of things you (as in your brain) thinks up and you don't 'think' them as much as you 'get' them but do you control the 'getting' part. Sure you have some sort of control of a choice but all the thoughts you have are not purely your own making. Like you don't think up a thought. Your brain 'gives' it to you but the funny thing is you are your brain as much as you are your body and stuff. Think about cancer for example, It's something the body creates as in 'you' create but why would your body want to kill itself? In reality you have little control of yourself and are pretty much doing things 'your brain' tells you to do as in giving you a set of choices.

>>38738727
What you call nonsensical garbage is the principle of naturalism which science is based on.
>There is not enough known about quantum mechanics to know if this is possible.
It is irrelevant if it is possible. What matters is that the result of the dice throw was the sum of all causes and would always land on the same side given the exact same conditions.

>>38738961
>Every thought you have is 'given' to you by your brain but you are your brain


Prove it.

>>38739628
Ok I maybe assumed a bit too much. What do you think 'You' are? A brain? Some kind of soul? Just some sort of consciousness?

File: 1500402679143.jpg (67KB, 480x608px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 480x608px

>>38731594
Vdbxbd