What was our consensus on free will again?

How do you obtain consensus?

http://youtubedoubler.com/?video1=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Da0Q7e9Q6DlI&start1=0&video2=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DcNiQBTC_UEA&start2=&authorName=Ann+O%27Nymous

Free will is a meme. Necessary meme for judgement.

it's bullshit but what can you do about it?
who cares anyway

free will not a thing, things are caused by other things, free will can't exist as a system

>>8990419
This is a philosophy problem,
Go make a thread on /lit/

Free will is logically impossible.

Define "free will".

I think it was a good movie for kids. Had that native American guy as a major character, too. He was bad ass.

no free will

Free will doesn't make any sense, but who cares? Choices appear as though they're free will even if they are ultimately deterministic.

We feel like we make choices, and that's all that really matters.

>>8990560
This.

File: 1454803064715.jpg (30KB, 300x320px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 300x320px

>>8990419
>our

>>8990419
God hacked it into the universe.

Free will makes sense, is logically possible, has a clear definition, and exists.

"free will doesn't exist" is a meme. but more importantly, the question being asked so much by people who are atheists, is beyond retarded.

>>8990660
This

>>8990660
Also, it is independent of determinism (whose existence or non-existence is unknown).

>>8990419
The universe is indeterminate, so free will isn't a problem.

>>8990419
"no free will" is the meme position
it's never explained (1) how we know determinism is true or (2) why it implies no free will
also (3) fw skeptics never accept any of the consequences, they just think the nonexistence of free will changes nothing, which shows how false their understanding of it is

>>8990665
A meme that actual physicists like Albert Einstein and the like discussed at length, and even cause a divide in the community for a while.

If free will is real genes aren't.

>>8990700
If you went about your life and it was revealed that a little man behind a curtain foretold and manipulated every one of your littlest decisions, looking back would you say your decisions were your own? Determinism implies that all of our decisions are wholly influenced by outside forces, so we cannot conclude that any of our decisions are in any part our own, ergo free will does not exist.

Define "free will".

Either live a life thinking you're in control or live a life where you take no responsibility for yourself. Even if we are drones it doesn't fucking change anything. It's a waste of time thinking about it. It's all philosophy at this point.

I've never understood how someone can simultaneously claim an atheist, materialist view of the mind and also argue that free will isn't a thing because decision making is a physical process. It seems like you would have to be holding on to some sort of definition of self separate from your physical body.

>>8990722
Are you seriously implying the believing in free will produces better behaviors?

File: 1497978824534.jpg (8KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 225x225px

Yes, free will exists.

There exists a part of our brains which we have yet to discover that contains matter from a higher dimension. The properties of that dimension which allows this is something which we have yet to understand but will eventually do so through further exploration of the physical sciences

Do some analysis on random and get back to me.

>>8990716
No, the consequence is that the singular me doesn't exist, except as a measurable unit of observable phenomena. The existential limit implies a body, which is the absolute everything, the opposite of no thing. To compromise between free will and determinism we simply state that there is no absolute everything, that things are there own objects, and that nothing is actually the opposite of any thing. Not one thing can be another.

>>8990884
Use analysis on manifolds and ockhams razor to prove objectified subjectification. Use classification and algebraic topology to find an a subjectified objective.

>>8990458

Science is blockaded by philosophy due to recent advancements.

>>8990722
Is this the teenage nihilist phase at work?

>>8990884
What does any of that mean?

>>8990700
The only reasonable definitions of free will imply no determinism.

File: 1484004800663.jpg (55KB, 571x515px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 571x515px

>>8990419
jews have made you believe free will doesnt exist so they can scam you of your shekels.

>>8990798
2/10 bait, made me respond

>>8990798
this

>>8990798
this is the only good answer

>>8990798
>higher dimension

Exactly! this is the only "brainmore" answer

>>8990798
"shut the fuck up, you're an idiot"

...

Is what a brainlet would say. Well said brother!

>>8990798
/thread

>>8990798
>more dimensions implies free will
I'm not sure how you arrived at this conclusion but whatever floats your boat.

Free will would imply that we can activate neurons without them being acted upon by anything other than our "will".

I don't think that this can actually happen, so I don't believe in free will.

Quantum thought is kind of a fun idea but ultimately I think it's only wishful thinking.

That being said, the illusion of free will is good enough that I can't tell the difference in my day to day, so I don't really take any of this into consideration unless I'm arguing on the internet.

>>8990419
It may not exist but for the sake of society it's for the best that we act like it does.

>>8990419
I was going to say that free will is not possible, but I changed my mind.

>>8992117
If it doesn't exist, we can't choose to to act like it did, even if it IS better for society.

>>8990419
doesnt exist

It's not real but explaining it to brainlets will make them kill themselves

>>8990419
The idea of libertarian free will isn't meaningful, and as far as I know, the science suggests that, in practice, we make choices subconsciously and then rationalize it later. But, it feels real enough, and I don't know how to formulate a theory of justice in the absence of free will, so we just go with it.

>>8990798
>>>/x/

>>8992457
>I don't know how to formulate a theory of justice in the absence of free will,
Why would that matter?

>>8990419
It exists. but personally I don't think its quite what the meme makes it up to be
When we figure it out, it'll probably just be something trivial and relatively meaningless

File: 1496243436406.jpg (75KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 640x640px

>>8990419
>What was our consensus on free will again?
There is no consensus.
You can believe whatever you want to.
Or can you???

>>8990419
We are not being controlled or lead so how does it even matter? The fact that everything is determined is just a law which we humans abuse since ancient times. Trough knowledge we have the ability to predict and can use it to our own advantage but at the same time the future is unpredictable which gives us a decent sense of free will.

Once the experience of can be released it will be free, but not free to do anything, free to do nothing. Once we die our piece of consciousness will fall into this state. But the truth is you were never alive, nor was the chronology of important events important in chronology. The you who will soon die already exists but the only reason you are experiencing this you is because it is the one that is here at this point. Essentially you don't really know what 'time' it was. The current you exists in infinity and finity. You are simply the experiential backdrop of a point in time for a specific creature. But this realization is how you began. You began to crawl and walk to explore the world and put the current you in a novel experience. Novelty is probably infinite and experiencing it really isn't that hard. Like you could always read a book or suck a dick.

>>8993391
People who use philosophical writing with a bloated word count need to be shot on the spot.

>>8990492
define "define"

Our brains have free will but our consciousness do not.

>>8990930
I'm just saying, i rather believe in free will than to think i'm a drone. But hey, if i am one then what can i do about it. There's not enough evidence to confirm either one. It's basically the, 'are aliens real' argument.

>>8990693
/thread

>>8990783
Not that guy, but yes

Otherwise you could do whatever you want with the "justification" that you don't have a free will

>>8990665
free will has nothing to do with belief in god

>>8990722
i recognize the existence of free will and take no responsibility for my actions. ethical/pragmatic arguments for the existence of free will (or for the existence of anything) are buttfuck retarded

>>8995925
except if god is omniscient btw (IE knows what you're going to do before you do it), in which case there is no free will

>>8993412
Define 'define "define"'.

Plot twist: Neither free will or determinism exist. It's all randomness.

Thread over.

>>8992171
under rated post

>>8995905
People already do whatever they want. Some people just realize that they are being influenced while others just don't think about it. Believing in free will means you exclude the possibility of outside influence affecting you, which means you never try to minimize outside influence.

>>8990419
>what was "our" consensus on free will again?
well gee anon, I don't know about """"our"""" consensus, but I think we can all agree you don't have any free will you trend following sheep

Ok, here's what I never understood about the predetermination = no free will. I have free will if I do what I want, why is what I want not predictable?

Like, if you offer me free money I'm gonna take it. If you knew I was gonna take the free money, that doesn't change the fact that I still chose to take it. It was still an exercise of free will to take the damn money. You might be able to predict what people will do with 100% accuracy, that doesn't change the fact that they're still doing what they want though.

FREE WILL DOESN'T EXIST. STOP BEING RETARDED IDIOTS. EVEN IF YOUR INCORRECT UNDERSTANDING OF QUANTUM MECHANICS WAS CORRECT, YOU STILL HAVE NO CONTROL OVER WHAT HAPPENS INSIDE YOUR BRAIN. YOUR DECISIONS ARE LITERALLY DONE BEHIND YOUR EYES BEFORE YOU CAN EVEN CONSCIOUSLY BE AWARE OF THEM. DO NOT RESPOND TO THOSE WHO "BELIEVE" IN "FREE WILL", THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO STILL BUY INTO THAT SHIT ARE THE SAME PEOPLE WHO MAKE THREADS ABOUT AFTERLIFE, DUMB AMERICANS WITH RELIGIOUS EDUCATION. JUST REPORT, IGNORE AND SAGE WHEN YOU POST.

File: Screenshot_20170626-183505.jpg (497KB, 743x1524px) Image search: [Google]

497KB, 743x1524px

>>8996287

Yeah I cant yet understand people who believe that 'regardless of whether free will exists, we should act as if it does, for good moral outcomes and to uphold personal responsibility' (which might not even be considered legitimately moral anyway, if driven by fear of accountability, or just wanting to feel proud of your superior decisions)

Really, by saying that people will only try to be virtuous or proactive if they believe in free will, youre arguing that their actions are being at least partly and predictably determined by a belief: that belief in the existence of free will is one of the conditions that causes moral behaviour. So a determinist could argue the same.

another point to make is that if a person does some bad thing like commits a crime, regardless of belief of free will, the system is still justified in punishing the individual regardless, as either (i) a deterministic input to prevent them doing the same (behavioral psychology) or (ii) keep them away from the rest of society so they cant cause harm.

Question for anyone believing that the chaotic and quantum random universe is evidence for indetermination and for free will - random stochastic events are without purpose or intention, so how exactly would random quantum events be considered free?

and if chance events follow patterns (regress to the mean) then it seems like even things that cant be determined/predicted by math or science (either now or ever) still have some hidden influence on them.

in short though, this topic has been done to death by philosophers hundreds of years ago who have said and argued more points of view than whatever creative responses you might find here, its not really a topic that belongs on /sci/. Science cant answer it, we dont know what consciousness is, determinism and indeterminism are both religions of faith. It's a metaphysical topic and a metaphysical question.

Sage