I'm sick of determinism. What books can convince me free will exists?
>>24686533
It doesn't exist, sorry senpai. Read about the effects of brain damage on personality.
>>24686533just forget about it
>>24686533free will is for the non-NPCs
>>24686559Read about Boltzmann brains
>>24686577>Read about Boltzmann brainsIt's just simulation theory that requires you to accept premises that are somehow even more absurd.
This is the Bible of free will. It was written for first year students too so it’s pretty accessible.
>>24686533read the Bible. determinism is debunked every time someone chooses Jesus
>>24686608cope
>>24686533Anything I wrote + Kant, Nietzsche, Bergson, etc
>>24686572NTA but no. You are cursing OP.
>>24686559You are brain damaged yourself
Freedom is not about having one's actions be underdetermined. Action that is determined by nothing would necessarily be random and arbitrary, the opposite of freedom. Freedom is the self-determining capacity to actualize and communicate the good. The biggest limits on freedom are ignorance and weakness of will.Man doesn't create himself from the aether; he is not self-moving. Neither is he wholly powerless over his own acts. One can be relatively more or less self-determining and self-governing, to the extent that one has unified oneself and is no longer ruled over by ignorance, passion, and the lower appetites.As Saint Augustine says: "...the wicked man, though a king, is a slave. And not only the slave of a single man, but what is worse, a slave of as many masters as he has vices."
>>24686848:-)
>>24686559>crass physicalist reductionismBrains are not consciousness i.e. your unconditioned awareness of the World. "Your ego" is just the body, not the true self.
>>24686533Literally just choose to believe in it. You have free will, you can do that.>y-you're just deterministically forced to think it's real! That doesn't count!1!Ok and? That means no one can ever convince me it isn't real. Checkmate atheists.
>>24686533Don't start with the soulless analytics on this question, that's for sure. They seem to think that freedom is either uncaused action (which is incoherent) or else it doesn't exist (which is a false dichotomy).
>>24686533unless you are all-knowing it doesn't matter anyway. just pretend you have free will
>>24687963only the bottom center quote brings something interesting, the rest are all mundane and trite
Do “you” exist outside of reality, are (you) simply a part of realiry and therefore subject to the same thing that makes the rest of it tick?
>>24686533What if I were to tell you that despite the existence of free will, you still have to make predetermined choices?
>>24689483You don't though
>>24689510I swing my arm, and my forearm must follow. "I" have a thought, and the line of reasoning leading to action follows. Nothing to it, and it doesn't matter because you can't see the future.
why does it matter? you dont see all the factors that influence you, you have desires and you act on those desires uninhibitedly in lots of scenarios. you are free by any definition of the word except the metaphysical, which is almost impossible to define because an action can either have a determinate cause or it can happen indeterminately in which case it is random.>>24687079i don't see a true self beyond my experiences, and my experiences change when my brain changes.
>>24686533Here's the thing, OP, and it's something I only realized recently, even though it's so obvious and basic that we're all implicitly aware of it yet don't even bother thinking through what it actually means. You're only "free" insofar as you are not enslaved by your appetites. Other animals don't have "free will" because they're creatures of appetites. If you leave animals to their own devices for millions of years in a relatively stable environment, they will not change their behaviors since selection will optimize their appetites for them. Humans are unique out of all creatures in that we are capable of conditioning ourselves to delay gratification and suppress appetites to achieve things that we want. That's why humanity has progressing culture and technology, why economic growth exists, etc, because humans and human cultures have figured out that you need virtue to truly have "free" will, i.e., a will that's free from the passions, and with that freedom comes the ability to choose how to shape the world around you with your intellect and will. Basically what >>24686848 said. Now, on determinism, of course some people are born with more capabilities than others. Some people have absolutely no impulse control, and that's why they're not "free", because their actions are entirely determined by their biological needs, like animals. But in the average case, anyone can be trained towards virtuous action by discipline, either by themselves (seldom) or by those around them (family, culture), and this creates a feedback mechanism that selects for people that are literally "cultivated", which propels what I mentioned earlier, the phenomenon of human growth and progress that you don't see in other animals.
Philosophy is dead. Molecular biology killed it. Ignore philosophy, read Sapolsky.
>>24686533What are examples of not having free will?
The only way you can demonstrate true freedom of will is to take your own life despite wanting desperately to live. Defying your natural instinct and urge to survive, spitting in the face of self-affirming reasons to exist, is the purest demonstrate of willpower. Most people cannot do this because they are slaves to their basic human nature and their learned psychological coping mechanisms. I myself do not have free will, I am a slave to living and to life.
>>24686533>I'm sick of determinism. What books can convince me free will exists?Reading Aristotle will necessarily convince you that free will exists. ***Necessarily***.
>>24689982Nah just do this: >>24687469
>>24689982Why not just skip a meal when you're hungry, Kirilov?
>>24686533https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nh1Z3UTobrYhttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mRPUOaZl-H0https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=T7INxFs-QkMhttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RcH9LWAlRnU
Determinism doesn’t mean there isn’t free will you retarded motherfucker.Determinism gives you endless paths to take. Fuck. Do you struggle deciding on an ice cream flavor? Congratulations you have free will.
>>24690407Which book?
Determinism is non-falsifiable nonsense that has nothing to do with the real world or objective reality. It also has no use in anything to do with your subjective experience of reality so is functionally inert as a philosophy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEwSBfJWeqs&pp=ygUVbWVuc2F3YXZlIGRldGVybWFuaXNt
>>24691401>Determinism doesn’t mean there isn’t free will you retarded motherfucker.In many versions/flavors of determinism it very much does mean that among other things. Especially in hard determinism. >Determinism gives you endless paths to takeNo it doesn't. It postulates that all paths are predetermined, that there is actually only one path and any appearance to the contrary is a illusion.
>>24691459>Especially in hard determinism. Nope. It just means there are possible possibilities for you to take. You can’t do impossible possibilities, as they aren’t possibilities at all!Thinking determinism excludes free will is basically just probabilistic cope. “I never had a girlfriend in high school I have no free will reeee”. Oh grow up.
>>24691459>No it doesn't.Yes, it does. Biological life is sophisticated enough to choose what course or which path to take. >It postulates that all paths are predeterminedPossible paths are predetermined. Yes. > there is actually only one path and any appearance to the contrary is a illusion.The alternative would be going back in time to make a different decision, which is really just stepping into an entirely different universe altogether. You can’t change the past, you can only step into a different past.
I'm actually a bit shaken at the responses elsewhere and here and if they represent the scientific community at large, even more so. This is very much a scientific question and must not be shunned away to philosophy (not that science doesn’t have a natural philosophy).Indeed all science is based on causality and determinism, but suddenly now, people here are trying to draw a line between determinism and 'superdeterminism'. What's the difference? Ok, at what point does determinism end and statistical independence begin? Why? How do you snip out the causal threads at any scale?I suspect that a lot of people have invested a lot of time and career in interpretations of quantum theory, and cannot face the fact that determinism just simply avoids it. Is determinism or superdeterminism an interpretation of quantum mechanics or a substitute to it entirely?Someone said that determinism is ok, but there is enough noise between it and the event to now make it statistically independent or truly probabilistic. Isn't noise just complexities of causality? How do you snip those tiny threads and say that an event has been born from nothing?Yes. cigarettes causes lung cancer because the more impactful bundle(s) of causes towards lung cancer originated from inhaling tar by a group of people and others not.Are we going to just ignore the truth about nature of reality that is staring at our face and seek comfort in avoiding it because it supposedly undermines science? I thought determinism implied this very stark truth from the very beginning, why suddenly all this gymnastics for quantum theory?How do anti-determinists justify something coming from nothing, which is essentially what they believe when they support quantum uncertainty? It’s silly. They believe in total (highly specific, TOO specific) conjuration. But, even magic has a background. Tldr; Bohr was wrong and Einstein was right.
>>24691495>How do anti-determinists justify something coming from nothingThere's not really any convincing argument that it can't, and plenty of almost-evidence that it can given things like being able to build almost all of mathematics out of just the empty set and sets containing it and each other. Ultimately I'm agnostic on the issue. >B-BUT WE NEVER SEE IT HAPPEN!!!! IT'S COUNTERINTUITIVE!!!Low IQ + autistic + skill issue
The amount of cope against determinism is fucking hilarious. It’s like they hate the choices they were given. Probabilistic atheists are no different from gnostics who hate real life and seek to escape it.
>>24691471>>24691479I strongly suspect you don't actually know what determinism is at all.
>>24691506>There's not really any convincing argument that it can'tQuantum uncertainty is far too specific and in-shape to be truly random or from nothing. The way quantum keks talk, it’s as though they think *anything* can arise, when it just can’t. Sorry.
>>24691507You don't know what determinism is. Shut up and read a book nigga. https://www.britannica.com/topic/determinism
>>24691508I strongly suspect you’re in total denial about how retarded anti-determinism is. How childish it is. “Dude lolsorandom”. Enough. Stop it. There is order even to chaos. It’s all relative. What’s fuzzy to us is fuzzy because we’re quite limited in our ability, or capacity. Just because we’ve approached our limits doesn’t mean those limits aren’t what they are.
>>24691517Determinism is about as simple as causality, dimwit. Do you really think the moon vanishes when you turn away from it? Please fuck off. You’re a fifteen year old on the internet or something. You’re totally unaware of how painfully simple science is. It’s just a goddamned causal process.
>>24691522>>24691525Again, read niggahttps://www.britannica.com/topic/determinismYou don't even understand your own argument and just being antagonistic in ignorance. You literally are too stupid to actually discuss this topic.
Atheists are strange creatures. They truly hate life or something. They do not want to be told that they’re here because of prior mistakes.
>>24691512Completely orthogonal to what I said.
>>24691530It sounds like YOU don’t know what determinism, or causality is, lmao. Even the cosmos evolves. Yes that determinism. There is a background to the foreground always. Deal with it. Get the fuck off your ass and stop being a mental midget. Open a fucking book. It’s hilarious how you’re calling ME stupid when you don’t even know what causality is. Peak fucking irony right there. Causality IS determinism you fuck.
>>24691538Nope. You just have nothing to posit, and I accept your concession.
>>24691530>Determinism entails that, in a situation in which a person makes a certain decision or performs a certain action, it is impossible that he or she could have made any other decision or performed any other action. In other words, it is never true that people could have decided or acted otherwise than they actually did.What moron wrote this
>>24691556Someone who thought it was inconceivable that the Cuban Missile Crisis could have been a world ending scenario? These people are insane.
>>24691522This is isomorphic to "God works in mysterious ways".>>24691550>I don't understand your argument. I win.
>>24691564Being anti-deterministic means you believe in total fucking conjuration lol.
According to hard determinists the Cuban missile crisis would/could never have gone sour, and that a nuclear Holocaust was totally not possible, meaning we shouldn’t have cared about the Russians! Damn it science.
>>24691547Each of your post proves you are incapable of discussing this subject.
I’m still struggling on deciding a flavor of ice cream over here. I thought determinism knew what I wanted? Why does it feel like I have the will to decide on my frustration?
>>24691578I mean, you’re not actually responding with anything of substance to the contrary, you’re just saying he’s an idiot or uninformed. How about you present alternative takes instead of saying “ur dumb”.
>>24691572I said I am agnostic on the question. The burden of proof is on you to prove that conjuration doesn't and can't exist. Are you ESL?>>24691576They can get around it by reframing it/human actions I'm pretty sure. I can see it in my head but too tired to put it into words.
>>24691598>The burden of proof is on you to prove that conjuration doesn't and can't existImpossible. Nothingness, or non-existence, is just the smallest point of existence. Even a zero is a one.
>>24691598Why is the burden of proof on determinists and not quantum quacks? Everything >>24691495 said is true. It’s silly.
>>24691604Care to justify any of that and explain why it makes "conjuration" impossible?
>>24691590Cute projection. Already provided what determinism means and proved that that "he"/you don't know what it means. I also don't need to strawman unlike "him"/you.
The consciousness is made up of cellular bio-infrastructure lolFree will is made/manufactured like a product You are all living in a materialistic reality and you best start getting used to it
>>24691615You didn’t provide anything. You just provided determinism, which is always the crux of the argument. All physicists know what causality is, kid. I bet you don’t even know of the Bohr-Einstein debates on this shit. “Don’t tell God what to do”.
>>24691616Are you OP.Did you make this thread to troll in infantile ways?
>>24691610The burden of proof is on both you illiterate. And no the quoted post mainly just asserts a bunch of shit that feels right without actually proving any of it. To cut to the chase (I was hoping some of you were not retarded enough to make the socratic method work) proving that reality is fully deterministic requires A) observing or deriving from infallible samples the entire universe B) proving that its self causing or part of a chain of infinite regress or similar. We are nowhere near such evidence.
>>24691620And there you go strawmaning again while proving your ignorance and incapability to actually discuss the subject.
>>24691630Oh also C) determining that human reason/senses/brains can actually understand all parts of reality.
>>24687079Consciousness only exists in functioning brains and experimenting on such brains is the only way to learn about consciousness. You are just coping because you don't like reality. Sad.
>>24690407Liberty and necessity are consistent: as in the water that hath not only liberty, but a necessity of descending by the channel; so, likewise in the actions which men voluntarily do, which, because they proceed their will, proceed from liberty, and yet because every act of man's will and every desire and inclination proceedeth from some cause, and that from another cause, in a continual chain (whose first link is in the hand of God, the first of all causes), proceed from necessity. So that to him that could see the connexion of those causes, the necessity of all men's voluntary actions would appear manifest.
>>24691630Infinite regress makes no sense and you know it. You can only justify it through loops and chains. There is no original turtle, or prime mover. Eventually the turtles within the turtles become turtles without the turtles.
>>24691803That is just a argument from personal incredulity and thus not valid. Try again.
Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills. - Schopenhauer
>>24691809Ah, so you INSIST on there being proof, rather than simply not being retarded? Listen pal. The atom was conceived more than two thousand years ago by an Ancient Greek (Democritus or Laurentius). All he(they?) had to do was look at sand, and they assumed from there that shit got smaller and smaller and smaller, and way smaller. And yet everyone thought he was an idiot. Everyone took the side of the big chinned Aristotle, who thought the brain was a cooling mechanism for the heart, what an idiot. Sorry. You can absolutely have a correct sense of nature before you can make the proof for it. That’s just how it is. The earth either revolved around the sun or it didn’t.Infinite regress makes no sense to someone who isn’t retarded. Yes it’s infinite but it doesn’t have a beginning.
>>24691809This LOL>>24691803Nice opinions, please prove them.>>24691829Schizophrenia and/or chatgpt
>>24691834It’s all simulations within simulations. Deal with it. Real life is a cosmic pee pee poo poo joke and we just don’t know it yet.
>>24691846Proof?
>>24691829An 'infinite regress' is just a sequence that diverges, i.e., has no limit in the mathematical sense. This is opposed to a series which converges to a limit. The Aristotelian 'unmoved mover' is just a fixed-point, and an unmoved-mover argument is just a proof of a fixed-point theorem.
Everything everywhere every when exists all at once. Everything everywhere every when isn’t *exactly* a probabilistic argument more than a deterministic one, although I’ve encountered probabilists who claim that it is. Hm.If we assume that going into the past is a true possible possibility, then by such a point you just have to assume that the Many Worlds hypothesis is the correct one, and it all loops or wraps around to support itself (there is no original turtle more so than the chain of turtles - the universes inside universes (and so on) eventually become the universes containing the universes within the loop).You can’t actually justify time travel without bringing in alternative timelines, which are essentially alternate universes.Again, this is assuming time travel to the past is possible. It might not be. And you can’t exactly change the past when that would prevent the past being changed altogether. Meaning when you go into the past you’re stepping into a different past.
>>24691829Oh, and democritus's atoms ended up being splittable (unlike what he assumed), and that sub-atomic particles (something that would've been nonsensical to the greeks) have both particle and wave-like properties depending on measurement, i.e., depending on whether it's in potency (wave) or in act (particle). Sounds a bit Aristotelian, huh.
>>24691854Well, you have people who argue for a hypothetical prime mover, and those who argue that there isn’t one, or that the whole is that prime mover. The turtle sitting on top of a turtle sitting on top of a turtle is the visual metaphor for infinite regress. But is there a turtle at the bottom? Probably not. It’s probably just a loop of turtles that support themselves.
>>24691871>Oh, and democritus's atoms ended up being splittable Not the point. The point is that people came to shockingly modern conclusions even when stuck in antiquity. You even had people who thought all religion and hocus pocus was absolute bullshit, and only demons (their equivalent of an alien) and gods (supposedly benevolent aliens) would ever entertain it, and that humans are idiots for playing what is essentially a game of pretend with inhuman beings. It was one of the Pliny’s that said this. “It’s all retarded and has no basis in nature - but you still better entertain it in the case that some asshole demon or god is around to enforce such horrors”.
just dont be an NPC
They threw the man who suggested surgeons wash their hands before surgery into an insane asylum where he was later beaten to death. Their response upon hearing news of his death? “He was a dick”.None of you realize how stupid, nay, maliciously stupid, the human race is. That sort of blunder isn’t acceptable for any intelligent race. It just isn’t. You don’t need proof for common sense. Sorry.
>>24691863Proof?>>24691892Based
>>24691871>potency (wave) or in act (particle)that... sounds like a stretcharistotle's physics were certainly wrong, and had to be amended by impetus, i wouldn't try applying his concepts to the quantum
>>24686533Paradise Lost
>>24691900>You don’t need proof for common sense. How can we know this to be true?
Imagine actually thinking something comes from nothing. The absolute state of quantum quacks.
>>24686585what a gay fucking quote
Wasn’t superdeterminism proved with the whole ‘reality can’t be both real and local’ experiment? How does that not point to there being phenomena moving faster than light?
>>24691576Yes. They didn't know it at the time but it was never fated to happen.
>>24686848This. Hard "determinism" requires that its opposite be entirely acausal; this is an obviously empty class of phenomena. Even Aristotle only had the nerve to suggest one prime mover. Therefore, an opposed "free will" must therefore be without meaning - and yet the proponent of the debate claims that it is about self-direction instead. The assertion that "free will" and "determinism" are opposed is so nonsensical that it is revealed as a psychological defense.By identifying "free will" with a nonexistent category, the debater simultaneously asserts a privileged self - so privileged that it is indistinguishable from God itself, as it creates out of nothingness - and denies its own existence and responsibility. So everything they do is both born from a wellspring of pure acausality, or from a purely external force. Either way it is not their fault.This kind of argument is familiar. One typically finds it among teenagers, who wish to exist in the liminal space between every limitation being their parents' fault and every vapid decision of values being an expression of their immortal creative self(ishness). But this is meant to be a phase which adolescents experience in order to differentiate ego from their parents, and which they grow out of once that task is done. So what might it mean if this is failing...?t. Lasch
>>24693042We should have just laid down our weapons and let the Russians do their thing?
>>24691576All sides in question were predetermined to care. All human thinking is part of the predetermination, you're going to think "should" and "could" as a pathway to action, but the pathway is set, you are merely walking it.
>>24694333Nah. People struggle with decision making all the time. The pain is part of the process.
