I realized RECENTLY that I didn't have free will because I didn't ask to be born. This is all there is to it. If you didn't ask to be born you don't have free will. But to top it off, you're going to die one day. It's an inevitable outcome. So now you DEFINITELY don't have free will.But if we're going to make it simple, I can't even do whatever I want. Can't fly because I'm a primate. Can't float. Can't will myself to be rich. I think we're just a cosmic joke or something because it really seems like God is just trolling us.
>>16133546One could argue you don't have to die, you have free will, you can spend your life on research and invent immortality.You didn't, its too hard? Well tough luck. It's free will, not free win.
>>16133546>I'm mad because I'm not God>everything should be free>entropy sucks balls
Every second of every day that isn't spent attempting suicide, you are giving consent to life and existence. Because you do have free will, and could end it at any moment. It's not omnipotence, but you do have a choice and are not predetermined in your actions.
What do you think of these quantum mechanics-based arguments for free will?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8EkwRgG4OE
>>16133758Quantum effects are irrelevant at the scale we operate at.
>>16133546no one has free will even in the normal definition of it. our brains calculate all our decisions subconsciously and then we pretend we made them. our sentience is real but is just watching our thoughts and senses like a movie cinema
>>16133818what is your separation between "we" and "our brains"? do you believe in souls?
>>16133795>Quantum effects are irrelevant at the scale we operate at.Why? Random number generators exist that utilize quantum effects to generate randomness, which seems to demonstrate that quantum effects can be scaled up to macroscopic scales.
>>16133556No, only severely brain/nerve damaged people can actually kill themselves, most people are just as able to kill themselves as they are able to rip their own head off with their bare hands.
>>16133825Just read what he wrote, he obviously referred to conscious activity as the we and subconscious compulsion as brain activity. Is soul the stupid vague word you use in place of the other stupid vague word consciousness to describe deliberate action versus instinctual reaction?
>>16133546free will is best defined as the ability to have done otherwise; asking to be born is irrelevant to free will.whilst it cannot be proven, i personally believe we do NOT have free will (we could NOT have done otherwise, ever).
tranny thread
>>16133546What if you asked to be born but forgot
>>16134161No, "soul" was the stupid vague word I'd use to differentiate "i made this decision" and "my brain calculated this decision". Does the subconsciousness argument boil down to this?>even though I feel like "I chose to drink apple juice today", I didn't have conscious control over wanting apple juice or having the motivation to drink itSeems like a dumb objection if so.
>>16133818>>16134161LMAO
>>16134233That is not the argument that was presented at all >>16133818, just learn to read what people wrote and figure out how to parse the language itself instead of making up and interjecting your own bullshit.
>>16133556>and are not predetermined in your actions.but you can be nudged to.if we're talking about uncertainty and percentages then the whole free will thing becomes a spectrum thing.does it count if what you are doing nudges someone 10% into doing anything? what about 99%?>it's not 100% bro, I'm not forcing anyone, I respect their free will.
>>16133546>your father decided to fuck your mother>therefore you don't have free willI've recently come to the conclusion that Hard Determinists are all either depressed or retarded.
>>16134318Or are free will delusionalists all just high on their own farts because of the big reward they believe is coming their way the very moment they die?
>>16134262Ok so how are "I made this decision" and "my brain calculated this decision" any different
>>16134307agreed that there is no such thing as 100% free will, but there is rarely 100% any concept
>>16134328>>16134161If you would just read and learn how to parse language, you would understand the difference anon gave is whether the conscious justification came before or after a subconscious decision had already been made, is the awareness, the will, soul whatever you want to call it, a result of actively consciously deciding to act or of observing your body's decisions play out and contextualizing them.
>>16133546>because I didn't ask to be born>not burning with rage that you wereI think youre subconsciously glad.
>>16134344Its also pretty ironic that every single religion that proselytizes free will also mutilates infant genitals and proves people don't even have free will over their own cocks let alone their whole lives.
>>16134345Yesh, the Developmental Cognition aspect, Evolutionarily, is of peak interest.These religions, several I can identify-ish, are like differen, unique, ways of measuring 1 from something else.I did Pi to 1 recently.
>>16133546what exerts "free choice" has to exist and have a brain to make the choice, but I still recognize the whole "I didn't ask to be here" angle sure.this leads into an interesting dilemma. supposing we had the technology to peer into someone's future, would it be ok to abort them if their projected life based on set of genes and spawn time and date projects to a shit unhappy life? is that "humane"?
A "Hyper-Dimensional Magnetic Tree of Life". The amount of data to read it similar to me is something like this, a simulated multiverse.https://youtu.be/PFmAliV1lUAI believe it is the signal that tells an organism which Genes it is going to need/activates them/expresses.
>>16134347Prove it. Count in base-pi from 1 to 10 in pi increments.
>>16134359>Prove it.I did this half as a Medical Doctor and half the reason its important is its application with other Real Numbers (Things in Nature).>Count in base-pi from 1 to 10 in pi increments.Thats retarded, youre using "counting" wrong, clearly you dont have a PhD in Mathematics.What are you?
>>16134359>>16133608Dont @ me without some respect, mk?
>>16133546We are a part of a very long and ancient process, just a small and tiny part of it, I suspect
>>16133556it is extremely difficult to end your own life, it can only be done in intensely emotional states in general
>>16134364That isn't how you count from 1 to 10 in any base let alone base-pi, you didn't do shit other than regurgitate nonsense.
>>16134369I am literally dismastling Euler's Identity on the Cognitive level AND Pure Mathematics.Double major (PhD), you need one to step, son...
>>16134373No, you are literally incapable of even basic counting using your totally heckin valid pi=1 number system.
>>16133546This is a pet peeve of mine.It's self evident:Free will exists and is limited by your environment and genetics.But because an unholy mix of materialism and post modernism has taken over most of science - truly rational people feel like this:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quxW1V8Hwlg
>>16134379>heckin valid pi=1Try again.I calculated THE ENTIRE LINE OF PI.READ IT AGAIN.100% IF INFINITY.LIKE EULER.READ, THEN BEGONE, MORTAL-HUMAN.
>>16134380A pet peeve of mind is superstitious retards pretending like free and limited aren't explicitly antonyms in order to justify their superstitions.
>>16134384we found the midwit
>>16134387>durr anyone who points out my logical inconsistency is [insert mindless derogatory name]
>>16134389>superstitious retardStop swinging at strawmen. Post modernism has thoroughly taken over the academy and you are in a fantasy land.
>>16134393Sorry I ignored your preferred pronouns. What kind of retard do you personally identify as when you come up with self contradictions quicker than if you were a 1984 propagandist trying to claim that ignorance is knowledge, idiotic maybe?
>>16134400This is not for you, but for others:A trend is to shit on "superstitious retards" because it IS a stawman, and you can do it around shitlibs at zero costs.POINTING OUT post modernism is the mainstream cancer, and "superstitions depend on the culture" may get you near fired.
>>16133546Memory exists as a product of physical reality, will exists as a precursor to physical reality. A life form goes into the ether when it dies. Life force goes from the ether into a body when reproduction occurs. Will determines the what where and how of the life force's entry into the physical world.
>>16134403I used superstitious since you were trying to justify some magical freedom of being limited while for some reason invoking unholiness.
>>16134411You are doing midwit word thinking. If you are correct, "freedom" as a concept is an illusion.All that's left is environment and genetics - which is why people are afraid to point it out - it makes "muh racist chuds correct!"
>>16134420>people are afraid to point it outI should say, people in "positions of consequence" are afraid to point it out and stress the implications."
>>16134420No, it means free will is a poor word choice and agency fits much better.You are the one hitting all the midwit bullet points with your cliches and reposting silly memes while demonstrating zero ability to think for yourself or realize when you are regurgitating contradictory concepts.
>>16134423No, I think it's the real life consequences, rather than word thinking. Sure, you can use "choice" I guess. But my contempt for "rationalists" is far and wide, because materialism is simply not enough, and sojacks are beating their dead horse like it's 1910.
>>16134427Yes because limited choice is much more logical than free will.Form is still material, but also abstract, structure is what gives rise to increasingly complex agency and it is a level of abstraction higher than raw material while also being obviously derived from its material base.
>>16134429I posted this because >>16134380I knew this would happen.You will not admit the Western Philosophy of Science, and its Christo-Islamic roots are largely dead. But you are acting like they are in the room with you right now, with their scary superstitions.
>>16134434They are in the thread because you keep invoking them and you knew you were being a superstitious retard when you said unholy, so you knew someone observant would point out what a superstitious retard you were being.
>>16134438You a prideful post modern moron who wants to shit on a "superstitious retard" that hasn't existed for at least 50 years.
>>16134446No, you are definitely invoking superstitious nonsense while acting like a retard, superstitious retard.
>>16134453It's not for you, it's for others. I just want to point out how you are a fish who denies the post modern waters all around you.
>>16134458You are a superstitious retard who used retarded arguments to justify being superstitious.
>>16134460They're not retarded, they're rational arguments based on biology, genetics, sociology, and psychology.
>>16134461Yet you didn't mention a single one of those things originally and still can't explain how they relate because you are a superstitious retard who is worried about what is holy instead.
>>16134470I'm not a word thinking midwit like you, who deliberately cast the first aspersion, because you seethe at even a hint of non-materialism.I'm not even upset at your aspersion, as much as the implications for science in general, because that's were it really matters. I notice you completely ignore the post modern cancer - very telling.
>>16134478bro transation:You literally got triggered by holy,>>16134384holy shit!
>>16134318prove that you could have done otherwise.
>>16134579you prove that he couldn't.
>>16134588ooo we're in a bit of a bind here aren't we
>>16134675no we aren't considering observation. it seems random with no mechanism for anything else other than randomness. which clearly implies the future is not set (and thus not computable). until you can prove you can't do otherwise, it seems you always can. burden of proof is on you if you want to go against observation
>>16134713Mouf.
>>16134713>no we aren't considering observation.what's that supposed to mean>it seems random with no mechanism for anything else other than randomness. maybe to you >which clearly implies the future is not set (and thus not computable).we agree the future is not computable, but that doesn't tell us whether it's deterministic or not >until you can prove you can't do otherwise, it seems you always can. vice versa>burden of proof is on you if you want to go against observationi'm afraid the burden is equally upon you. and there is no observation being opposed here
>>16134338>whether the conscious justification came before or after a subconscious decision had already been madeThe conscious and subconscious are the exact same thing
>>16134787explain
>>16134791Draw me a line between the conscious and subconscious, I'll wait
>>16134345>free will means I am able to decide everything that happens to meretarded definition
>>16133546free will is an illusion of choice. if you have a job, a wife, a pet and a mortgage you can in theory quit your job and become an artist. are you really going to do it though? or are you just going to goto work tomorow
>>16134916do you never make decisions?
>>16134171Try to be more...sophisticated (lol double entendre fyi), Anon.>free will is best defined as the ability to have done otherwiseFree will is best defined as the ability understand the consequences of having done otherwise, and incorporating into the current state function to reduce future coping.Free will isn't controlled will. It is free, which means it is not logical, but free like something unrestrained, with more degrees of freedom than if it were constrained. It is a coping mechanism, and it will find whatever free variable it needs to cope. Free will is a useful heuristic to distinguish NPCs (p-zombies) from PCs/non-NPCs. An NPC does not have free will, and so cannot find a coping variable which will update the current state function so that future coping is lowered. Free will is terribly misunderstood. I am a determinist who believes in free will. This means that it is inevitable that I will find reasons for things, and excuses for why those reasons exist (the resons for reasons endless recursion). Free will is like a wind vane. A determinist can say that it is stuck in a fixed position relative to the Z axis, a PC can say that the wind vane is free to rotate along the XY plane, and an NPC will say that wind vanes are bad examples of demonstrating degrees of freedom.
>>16133546If free will doesn't exist can someone explain how I went made a complete 360 in life and am thriving.
>>16134933if determinism is actually true, then it would be meaningless to consider the supposed consequences of having done otherwise. alternative timelines with different events would be completely undefined; you could say nothing valid or true about them except that they don't exist.
>>16134944you were unlucky then you got lucky
>>16133546>I didn't have free will because I didn't ask to be born.What are you talking about? You swam like a madman through your mother's cervix and beat like ten billion other competitors in a race to reach the egg. If that is not asking to be born, then I don't know what is.
>>16133546Are you 9? We have studies that prove that we don't have free will.
>>16134984no we don't. it is impossible to test if we could have done otherwise.
>>16134726>In scientific research, the null hypothesis is the claim that the effect being studied does not exist. Note that the term "effect" here is not meant to imply a causative relationship. The null hypothesis can also be described as the hypothesis in which no relationship exists between two sets of data or variables being analyzed. If the null hypothesis is true, any experimentally observed effect is due to chance alone, hence the term "null".You need to prove your shit, else it's as we observe it, random.
>>16134954I think your problem is that determinism is true and you don't like tautologies. >then it would be meaningless to consider the supposed consequences of having done otherwiseSee, you are an NPC. But, fear not, some NPCs can turn into PCs with great effort. It's not "meaningless" to suppose alternatives. Supposing alternatives is what allows you to...how did I put it, "find a coping variable which will update the current state function so that future coping is lowered."You failed in this. You should just accept determinism as an inevitable tautology, and move on. But you can't move on. Because you are an NPC. >alternative timelines with different events would be completely undefinedThey are not undefined. Every alternative possibility (which could not have happened any other way, that's right) is a template for future things which will happen. This is literally the idea that "history repeats itself". You use the understanding of the inevitable decision to predict future happenings. YOU do this. This is something which happens in YOUR head. And the more accurate the prediction, the greater one's understanding. It's NOT about making YOUR decisions, you fucking solopsist. It is about understanding the decisions of OTHERS. And, the greater your free will, the more you can believe fringe beliefs. Free will is something which is OBSERVED, not something which you POSSESS. A person who calls themselves a poet or a philosopher is not a poet or a philosopher. Being called "a poet" is receiving a title, just like being "a philosopher" is a title, which conferred onto someone else.You are an NPC because I call you an NPC. I observe NPC behavior and I lablel it as such. I have the free will to believe you are an NPC. I'm not going to fish for excuses to show why you actually know what you're talking about. I am not going to do your work for you, except that is exactly what I did because I have free will.This is /sci/, after all. But I've got faith in you.
>>16134928Not freely.
>>16134981No, they were just an egg that dropped and got invaded by a sperm and transformed into a mutant against their will.
>>16133546It's even more simple than that.Determinism = TrueThus free will is impossible.>this confuses and enrages the Compatiblistard
>>16134380A pet peeve of mine is /pol/tards and /x/tards not staying in their respective containment boards and shitting up the only board for math and science.In other words, you need to go back and the jannies need to do their fucking jobs.
>>16135541Political science is science.
>>16135250since you don't agree that alternative timelines are meaningless under determinism, then you must be using a different definition of determinism. as i said, i take determinism to mean that no alternative timelines exist/were ever possible.
>>16135604>determinism to mean that no alternative timelines exist/were ever possible.I agree.> then you must be using a different definition of determinismI am using a different definition of free will.Free will is not about personal choice, but about environmental understanding. That is, a person WITHOUT free will cannot understand their environment. They are a cactus in the arctic. And a person with free will can be from an arctic tern, flying from pole to pole, to an ostridge, with its head buried in the sand--but it's free to do so. The cactus just dies slowly, not even wondering how it got there.Holy shit, I just watched The Good Life and I can see how it just affected my thought process.This is free will. Free will just not being a retard.
>>16133546you did ask to be born
>>16135894well that's not what i care about. i only care about whether we ever could have done otherwise. i call that free will, but in this thread we can call it whatever you want to call it
>>16135959You know, why don't you help me?I think free will is an observed behavior, like using tools, or grooming. And you see free will when you happen to observe an agent AVOIDING traps. Free will obeys this binary: If you fall into a trap, you do not have free will, and if you avoid a trap, your degree of free will is relative to the degree of traps you can avoid, the last trap being death. Obviously, if you live forever, you have free will, because who is to tell you otherwise, as the most successful living agent of all time?What am I describing, Anon?Help me out.
>>16135959>i only care about whether we ever could have done otherwise.why do you care tho? it's not like you can change anything anyway. we could always do otherwise. that's what current view is. you can start building you narrative any way you like, just don't call that shit real, not until you prove it.
>>16136099>all this coping just to desperately cling to the notion of "free will"This goes well beyond normal coper mental gymnastics.
>>16136143You see, now you have to explain why NPCs are capable of inventing new words and terms, like "free will". And if you feel like you have no need to explain things, you are trolling--providing nothing.>free will is best defined as the ability to have done otherwiseWhy is this the best definition? Wax eloquently, Anon.
>>16136142>why do you care tho?because that's real control, as far as i'm concerned >we could always do otherwise. that's what current view is.your view, ok, not mine though >you can start building you narrative any way you like, just don't call that shit real, not until you prove it.same goes for you lol
>>16133546I wish /lit/ would fuck off from /sci/ with their retarded and meaningless threads.All fields
>>16136695>because that's real control, as far as i'm concernedyou always have control, you just cannot change what already happened.>your view, ok, not mine though pretty sure it's commonly accepted that radioactive decay is random which means the future is not set. if you state otherwise you need to fucking prove itbut let me guess, you enjoy the thought of things being predetermined because that takes away your responsibility for your actions, isn't it anon?
>>16136715if I always have control then why can't I levitate?
>>16136760you can't use the lack of control over breathing or eating as justification for why you don't have control over everything else, where you have options.>I have to drink water ergo I have no control over stealing your money, sorry, just how it besee...that's retarded af
>>16133546You have the free will to come onto 4chan and bitch about circumstances outside of your control. Don't worry though, little bro, we've all been there at some point or another. The most important thing you can do is get over yourself and accept that life isn't fair. Leave the whining about not getting what you want to kids and actually work towards what you want out of life. You also have the free will to ignore my advice and continue wasting the spark of self you've been granted.
>>16136099>What am I describing, Anon?NTA but consider the following>I think knowledge is an observed behavior, like using tools, or grooming. And you see knowledge when you happen to observe an agent AVOIDING traps. Knowledge obeys this binary: If you fall into a trap, you do not have knowledge, and if you avoid a trap, your degree of knowledge is relative to the degree of traps you can avoid, the last trap being death.>Obviously, if you live forever, you have knowledge, because who is to tell you otherwise, as the most successful living agent of all time?
>>16136891nta but I believe free will means having choice.for example, people mostly don't have free will over working. the system is set up such that they don't actually. funnily enough, I could argue the only ones having free will are criminals, because they refuse the imposed lack of free will in having to work to stay alive. or be happy.
>>16133546How do you know you didn't choose to be born?
>>16136911you can't consent as sperm
>>16136898That's the thing isn't it? Everyone makes choices. Some of them affect the world at large, some of them are completely internal, and many are a shade between. Not working is still a choice despite resulting in terrible consequences for the majority of people. If there was no free will, there would be no criminals at all.The system doesn't force people to work anymore than nature does. You'd still have to get food to survive, with the only difference being working a modern job to get money instead of hunting or gathering.Free will exists because you are able to make decisions, good or bad. What you are conflating with free will is freedom, which is variable based on circumstance.
>What you are conflating with free will is freedomyou cannot exercise free will without freedom.
>you cannot exercise free will without freedomLack of exercise may atrophy your muscles, but they still exist. Same here.
>>16136934listen, the religious free will is a weponized concept to control the masses. it makes no fucking logical sense, scientifically speaking, it's fucking nonsense. you use it to control cattle, that's it, stop it with the mental gymnastics. you use it to force people do what you want, that's it, hence why you insist on the vague illogical definition. I'm not having any of this bullshit.free will is freedom of choice. that's what we always do, make choices based on available info to suit our own goals. it exists as long as we have choices towards our goals/needs. it's a spectrum, that you constantly abuse by "nudging" people into what you want them to "free will". and that's how you keep your hands clean, you're not breaking their free will by nudging them. but you are.
free will (freedom of choice) is a spectrum, starting with having the freedom of choice to stay alive (as in not be killed), having the freedom of choice toward what you need to stay alive (what and when to eat/drink/sleep, what shelter). and then having the freedom of choice to follow your life goals. the more options the more freedom of choice and thus free will you can exercise. free will (as in freedom of choice) allows one to customize their experience.separating free will from freedom of choice only allows whoever's selling you this bullshit to take your freedom of choice away and replacing it with the virtual free will, so you "don't notice", and stop asking uncomfortable questions.this lack of freedom of choice is recognized by the legal system, with self defense. you clearly had no choice. same if someone forces you do something bad, against your will, gun to your head or whatever. you have no choice thus you are not responsible.problem with seeing it as a choice spectrum is you'd want to maximize it, where "free will" is always "free", there's not much to maximize there.
>>16136936While you may not be OP, I am also going to give the same advice. Get over yourself. Do you think you are some enlightened individual for knowing that everybody's lives are manipulated by outside forces? I came into this thread with the sole purpose of telling the OP that he does in fact have free will and to knock it off with the teenage angst. I don't define free will as binary to abuse people like some big bad church you fedora. I did that to try and be objective about it. It exists or it doesn't, no middle ground. Choices made under coercion are still choices. Meanwhile, you say I'm being vague and illogical while calling it a fucking spectrum. I don't even know why I should bother posting a reply to some fag who is fine talking like a smart guy when he can't even capitalize the first word in his sentences. Where on the spectrum would I lie then? You "nudged" my freedom of choice by being such a aggressive twat that there was no other option.
>>16136989by your definition I had nothing to do with that and you should freely will to be cool while answering me. still small letters because I'm not playing your shit power games. this is my creative license.I really understand your need to have it as binary, because you can abuse the shit out of it and still call it "free". see, a spectrum is pretty inconvenient because it begs extra questions on each abuse. where your version of free will can easily be used to force someone get over you abusing them.
>>16136897I can't really refute this. Ultimately, I just want persons to agree with me.It's a good thing nothing matters, and this is all just one big simulation on semantics.
>didnt ask to be bornhow do you know?being born consists of incarnating as a biological temeporally casual being. if there is a "higher will" that made this choice, it would know that being born would mean having zero knowledge of its previous self.for all you know, you chose this. but this is verging on spiritual/theist ideas, the only scientific conclusion to be made is that it is wholy impossible to know.
on the topic of "free will", its a bit of a meme.will being the manifested vector of conscious thought, and free implying an unhindered, unattached awareness.this is a bit paradoxical as a will cannot be free when hindered by engaging with reality, conceptual thought, dualism, etc.so will in its most free form does not actively engage but observes and intuits without trying to understand or rationalize.while the thing you mistake as free will, like choices, are actually a form of delusion created by an attempt to understand the conscious experience by using the conscious experience. it just doesnt work, thats why it seems paradoxical
