If free will is real. Why do people say depression is caused

>>9064936
Free will is obviously not real

>>9064936
Define "free will", OP.

File: thinking-face.png (53KB, 256x256px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 256x256px

>>9064936

If humans can run, why can't they run when we break the bones of their legs?

>>9064936
>Why do people say depression is caused by serotonin?

Because neurotransmitters are involved in mood regulation.

>Does our brain chemistry influence how we act?

Obviously. You can verify it by taking a mind-altering drug.

>That's not free will.

Free will, if it actually exists, would your ability to exert volition in spite of physical conditions such as low serotonin levels, i.e. "mind over matter".

File: 1465733220031.jpg (47KB, 640x702px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 640x702px

>That's not free will.

It is, actually. Your mind can be both free and influenced at the same time. You see, when we say that free will exists, we usually don't claim that it's _entirely_ free.

Let's use the game of chess as an example:
1. If you choose to make only legal moves, your decisions are influenced by the people who came up with the rules for the game.
2. If I blunder my queen, it would be smart for you to capture it (given that it's not a tactical trap). If you do capture it, then we could argue that I influenced your decision with my move.

Neither 1 or 2 negates free will.

>>9064936
Free will has no rigorous definition. If you mean something like that humans' ability to make choices is not modulated by factors such as brain chemistry, then clearly this is false. But I think it's implied that free will refers simply to an idea that conscious decisions are not predetermined by things like brain chemistry. It may be that consciousness is a complex system which emerges from brain function, in which case it may not be predictable from the activity of the brain.

>>9064936
there is free will but your current situation is determined by your past actions, its the law of karma

You have free will to determine what action to take, but not over the result of said action.

>>9065043
But "physical condition" is subjective. Some people are born disposed to a condition others would find disabling. Even in the range of normal personality.

>>9065067


>>9065126
1. Predictability isnt indeterminism (metaphysically).

2. There is no clear way to distinguish the influences that impede on free will and the ones that dont by your definition. It leaves free will as overly subjective. Not good for philosophy + at odds with our intuition of agency which is arhuably where the idea of free will comes from.

>>9065067
That did not demonstrate free will at all.
If by some abstract demonstration you mean serotonin is the "rules" you're sucking your own farts and loving the taste.

>dont claim its _entirely_ free
Makes no sense either. When dealing with thoughts or actions they are either _entirely_ free or _entirely_ products of neuronal systems.

>>9064936
Accept hyper-determinism and move on

>>9064936
Your brain chemistry today is ruled by your past actions and how your neurons were wired...

The free will exists in the concept that with hard work enough you can rule over that and construct new neural pathways...

Your brain is a plastic tool, therefore it can be changed by your today actions...

Of course it is not something you can do overnight, but in a process which takes time, for instance meditation is the perfect training for developing the free will in your brain and breaking your current condition.

Pills to change the chemistry in your brain don´t work forever, and they by itself won´t work if you don´t go out and experience more happy things.

>>9065590
The decision to change would still be dictated by the two initial factors you posited.

>>9064936
Imagine a computer program. Those who cannot see the source code have no idea what the program does, or can predict what it will do.

It's the same with us. We are able to see a small part of our world's source code, and call it physics. But we cannot see it all. We cannot possibly, most simply because we are stuck in time. We cannot know the future like a 2D character cannot move in to the page. He may assume that it exists, but he cannot go there or predict what it is like.

But isn't that free will then? We know everything that is or will be is a result of the universes source code, but it's so beyond our comprehension we will never be able to predict how. If 1 + x = y, where x is based on the resultant y, can't y be anything? Aren't we thus, in the same way, capable of any decision?


TL;DR we're totally in a sims game.

>>9066502
Is the sims game we are in, itself, in a sims game?
Is there a top level of the simulation hierarchy?

File: 1497826158929.gif (3MB, 357x281px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 357x281px

>>9066757
Yes
t. the top level

>>9065520
he didn't say he proved free will, he just said that OP didn't disprove free will.

>>9064936
Free will isn't real OP, neither is consciousness.

You need to change your perception of "you" for this. Think of yourself as a conscious part of your body whose job it is to make good decisions. Now you wouldn't be very good at it without sensory input to give you information, so you get that from your body, filtered by your unconscious. But even on that involuntary selection you aren't allowed to make free decisions. The unconscious is still very careful to control you with various hormones(maybe even other techniques), so you dont destroy the natural balance (getting too egoistical, greedy etc which would be bad for the body) Free will is limited is what I'm saying.