>Free Will doesn't exist. It's just chemicals.
OK, now what?
You didn't choose your thoughts; they simply appear to you, making "free will" a psychological construct.But I saw some mundane everyday event in the near future and decided to coin flip which path to take.
Actually I'm the only human with free will, everyone else is a chemical robot
>>17001133>You didn't choose your thoughtsSkill issue.
>>17001133you choose which thoughts you act upon
Free will doesn't exist because God is omniscient.
>>17001129Yes. And?
>>17001129free will has nothing to do with determinism
chemicals don't exist its just particles arranging themselves
What if chemicals have free will?
>>17001129you can choose to believe whatever you want. just suffer the consequences LIKE A MAN.https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Af-k9sTAYEQ&pp=0gcJCUACo7VqN5tD&ra=m
>>17001129Why does only the murderer get free will while the victim has to just go along with what the murderer wants? Or are you saying that every murder "victim" actually wanted to be murdered and the wonder of free will just naturally paired them up with someone who wanted to murder?
>>17001145>>17001149>I must be choosing my thoughts because that's what my thoughts are sayingHoly circular reasoning.
>>17001133A couple of weeks ago I had a vision about a dangerous traffic situation near work. I've been keeping an eye on it for years and sometimes change paths to work. Anyway, the vision was set for a few days' time, and what would you know, a huge truck right at the vision spot tried to cut in from another lane without care. I broke and fell back. Without the dream, I probably would've pushed on; bad mistake.The vision could match the truck driver's determinism, probably because the driver was in a low energy state without a collapse on his consciousness from another person (In his own world)
>>17001131now we keep ignoring schoppenhauer, as always
>>17001258You're just schizophrenic
>>17001245i never said i choose my thoughts.
>>17001268So you can't actually choose to think about which thoughts you act on as you implied, your choices don't actually involve any thought, they just happen?
>>17001274if choices just happened then you wouldnt have free will, it would just be reflex. thought is part of free will. consideration of variables.
>>17001279How do you know that choices don't just happen?
>>17001283if some choices do just happen and other choices dont just happen, then that still proves free will exists. free will isnt the claim that some choices are involuntary, it's the assertion that some choices are intentional.
>>17001285You can assert it but can you prove it?
>>17001286the burden of proof is on you, since you claim that 100% of all choices ever made are involuntary.
>>17001279>if choices just happened then you wouldnt have free willNo, if the choices were made under physical constraints instead of freely open to any possibility, then you wouldn't have free will, you would just be reacting to the physical environment based on your limited physical condition.>thought is part of free will. consideration of variables.So then you were lying when you said you didn't imply you chose your thoughts or all the "thoughts" that led to your choice were actually beyond your control?
>>17001290>then you were lying when you said you didn't imply you chose your thoughts or all the "thoughts" that led to your choice were actually beyond your control?all i said was "i didnt say i choose my thoughts", which isnt a lie.>No, if the choices were made under physical constraints instead of freely open to any possibility, then you wouldn't have free will, you would just be reacting to the physical environment based on your limited physical condition.so you're saying only an unrestrained metaphysical being like God could have free will?
>>17001285>free will isnt the claim that some choices are involuntary, it's the assertion that some choices are intentional.No, it the assertion that all choices are freely made internally instead of primarily imposed by physics and external physical circumstances, so any involuntary choice would undermine any freedom of the will.
>>17001296>all i said was "i didnt say i choose my thoughts", which isnt a lie.You might not have directly said the exact phrase that you choose your thoughts, but you did indirectly say that you choose your thoughts by the way you set up your argument, so its an insincere counterfactual falsehood to claim that your premise is not build on your capacity to choose your thoughts, you just know that doing so undermines your point, so you will do whatever you can to avoid accepting the premise even though it is necessary for your argument.
>>17001287I don't know how to think a thought, therefore I'm not voluntarily thinking them.If you know how to think a thought, please tell me. What are you doing exactly to make it happen?
>>17001298>any involuntary choice would undermine any freedom of the will.who says that? i dont say that. i think thinking it's 100% one way or the other is equally wrong.
>>17001301why do you keep talking about thoughts>>17001300i never meant to imply we choose our thoughts, that seems like an asinine assertion to me and i would never make itm
>>17001303>why do you keep talking about thoughtsThe same arguments works for decisions, which are just thoughts anyway.
>>17001296>so you're saying only an unrestrained metaphysical being like God could have free will?No, even if a god like that existed, it doesn't have that as he didn't choose to be divine, he didn't choose to be eternal, it just was eternal due to its divine nature, so it would have divine will. Only if an idea came into that god's mind completely independently and god gave it unfettered choices, but even then, given the infinite power of god, there would really be no way to determine if the idea arose independently or if god created the idea.
>>17001302>who says that?The word free says that.> i think thinking it's 100% one way or the other is equally wrong.Then it isn't actually 100% free, so how unfree can you be while still being free? 1%, 10%, phi%, slavery=freedom%?
To make a voluntary decision you first have to decide to make a decision. In order to do that you have to decide to decide to make a decision. In order to do that you have to...
>>17001305>even if a god like that existed, it doesn't have that as he didn't choose to be divine, he didn't choose to be eternalthis just strikes me as meaningless sophistry akin to "how many angels would fit on the head of a needle". if that god can do whatever he wants in his life, it doesnt matter than he didnt choose to be alive. he has free will in the sense that he is completely unrestrained in his choices and his ability to act on them.>>17001306i never said it was 100% free
>>17001311He is not though, he can't even really kill himself which is the only real free choice people have.>i never said it was 100% freeWhich is exactly why I asked how degraded free can be while still being free, 1%, 10%, phi%, total slavery=total freedom%? Even a slave can kill themselves, so that makes slaves free men?
>>17001316God killed himself in a giant explosion we call the big bang
>>17001326If it is dead, it would just be a god at best, not The God.
>>17001129>/sci/ when asked to model and predict free-will
>>17001326No god still alive. He just like see the human race suffer that's why we are going through clown world at the moment.
>>17001350Free will can't be modeled by its very nature. It's something that only makes sense as long as you don't think too hard about it
>>17001285>free will isnt free, it's conditionalyes means no
>>17001309Yea but you are the one making the decisions>>17001370But you are setting the conditions
>>17001405>But you are setting the conditionsNo, physics and genetics sets your conditions, you didn't decide to be human, you were a result of two retards that didn't understand how to use protection.
>>17001129Yes I'm sure the apple just chose to fall from the tree with its free will
If the universe is determined then since there's nothing outside of the universe to determine it it means it is self-determined. Self-determination is one definition of free will.
>>17001316>he can't even really kill himselfwhy do you say that? if we can kill ourself then this hypothetical god who is much more free than us could certainly kill himself. you're just making things up to suit your argument.>so that makes slaves free men?we are all simultaneously free and not-free in various ways.
>>17001129How can there be free will when the agent is just a hallucinated thought construct?
>>17001129If free will exists, why can't you just use it to conjure up more free will and will yourself to do literally anything?
>>17001858well you see, the devil also has free will and his is like, really big, or something. And he makes me do bad things. But it’s also me because I’m a dirty, rotten sinner and I should be punished but at the same time if I follow God then I can use my free will to love him and repent from my wicked ways, HOWEVER it’s not truly possible to ever be sinless with our human nature like Jesus did (because he’s literally God, DUH), but it’s still the case that every time we sin it’s our fault so we deserve infinite punishment for wronging our infinite Creator.
>>17001870>it’s not truly possible to ever be sinlessWhy don't you just freely will yourself to not sin?
>>17001858why do you think free will means physical freedom? being free to steer the ship doesnt mean you can transform the ship into an elephant. that doesnt mean you arent free to use the ship in any way the ship can be used.
>>17001878You are physically able to lock the fuck in and spend the next 10 years maxxing out a grind with no entertainment, just studying, working, accruing wealth and investing as wisely as possible so you can do whatever for the rest of your life. Why don't you do that instead of posting memes?
>>17001241free will has less to do with whether an action is illegal or not but rather how severely it is punished. killing someone is incriminable, getting stabbed by a murderer isn't.
>>17001892>why dont youbecause i have free will
>>17001919Why don't you simply will yourself to only do things which are maximally beneficial to you in the long term?
>>17001932because that wouldnt be free will, because i dont want to do all of those things.
>>17001934Why don't you? Do you hate yourself? Why don't you will yourself to want to do things that would be good for you?
>>17001934you must be absolutely perplexed that addictions exist, huh. You’ve somehow sped run millions of years of evolution ahead of everyone else to become the most content goycattle. The average person’s vice is your comfort, and you don’t call it a vice.
>>17001937>>17001939i dont understand these disingenuous arguments. i dont think you really believe anything you say, i think you just make up words that sound like the opposite of whatever other people say.>you must be absolutely perplexed that addictions exist, huhi dont even know what you're getting at with this, but breaking addictions is possible, even when physically and psychologically everything inside is telling you to keep being addicted, which seems more like evidence for free will than determinism.>Why don't you will yourself to want to do things that would be good for you?you can will yourself to do that if you want to, but you dont have to. that is free will.
Let the goyim believe they are free to choose from goyslop option 1 over goyslop option 2. Yes, yes, you are so free! Your descendants will always be mediocre slaves, but everything they do is… freely willed!
>>17001966concession accepted
>>17001946>you can will yourself to do that if you want toWhy don't you, then? Literally justify not using your free will for maximizing rational self-interest. Why don't you pick and choose what to want at all?
>>17001129Look at this butthurt christcuckWhy don't you fuck of to /his/ to post this dumb fucking shit you closeted faggot
>>17001233what if free will has chemicals?
>>17001594>why do you say that?The definition of God as an eternal being that can't be created or destroyed, again if it can die, you aren't talking about The God, you are talking about a god, ie something with more power and ability than you can comprehend rather than the infinite eternal being that creates everything.>we are all simultaneously free and not-free in various ways.No, you are just too retarded to make a factual statement that doesn't contradict itself.
>>17001878Why do you think freedom means being limited?> being free to steer the shipBeing forced to be the ship steering crew member means you are trapped at the wheel, not that you are free to do anything, even steering you aren't free to do everything that can be done, you are still limited by your physical ability and skills at steering a ship such that other crew members will probably be better than you at it.>free to use the ship in any way the ship can be usedThat isn't freedom, that is being a ship captain, being a slave means you are free to be a slave too, but that doesn't actually make sense because being a slave is the opposite of being free.
>>17001905I didn't say anything about legalities, a murder victim can't punish their murderer and many murderers aren't ever punished by anyone, the whole point of the relationship is that victims aren't free at all, they are completely subject to the whim of their murderer unless your claim is that every murder victim freely willed themselves to be murdered in which case there is really no justification in punishing murderers at all since it was mutually consensual and the victim freely willed to be murdered on a whim.
>>17001919So you can't choose not to have free will, the only reason you don't do a bunch of great things and don't have any good ideas is because you are stuck with a degenerative, terminal condition you can't possibly change that will eventually cause you to freely will yourself to die?
>>17001129That's one of the discraces about materialist reductionism in our health care systems like if the body has engineers instead of doctors like they wanted to start doing in the 1980's we would have a free will system. Many schizoposters think there is free will and we could pay them a small scientific grant to draw the blueprint.
Even if we had souls, that wouldn't automatically imply free will.
>>17002034>i didn't say anything about legalities>there is really no justification in punishing murderersanon... i...
>>17001932because not everyone is interested in long term returns or even the same values as you? and what may be considered the most rational choice in attaining a specific goal is entirely subjective in the first place. did you fail the breakfast test or something?
>choose to make pasta for dinner>shift to the nearest timeline where the initial conditions of the universe are such that the molecules making up your body were predetermined to move in a way that corresponds to you making pasta for dinnerSimple as.
free will exists from your own perspective, therfore you might as well consider it as existant.Whether or not free will exists from the POV of an omniscent observer watching every physical interaction in your brain is irrelevant, as "you" exist several layers of emergence higher than this.
When we look at lesser animals like cats and dogs, they clearly don’t have free will, despite having consciousness and the ability to rationally determine future outcomes based on past experience. They don’t have the level of rationality we do, so they can easily be led into making decisions that they didn’t choose themselves.It stands to reason that a super-intelligent being would view humans the exact same way: Animals responding to stimuli based on how their brains compute their surroundings, lacking truly free will. To assume otherwise is hubris.>muh emergent propertiesDecision making in animals is also an emergent property, but their free will is clearly restrained by the lack of language and higher reason. In the year of the clankers, AI will judge humans as not having X, Y, and Z for truly free will.God would have to pull off a RIDICULOUS magic trick to allow free will to exist in a classically pre-determined universe.
>>17002444Emergent property is the same thing as God did it, except it's less honest because it posits a causal mechanic in science language that you have not described the mechanism nor the ontological referent to how the mechanism originated.30iq, D-
>>17001129>>17001133Free will exists because I can choose my actions. That's more evidence than the anti-free will crowd
>>17002431Are you retarded or something? I didn't say that until after (You) brought up legalities, my original point was about how the victim didn't freely will to be murdered by the murderer and it had nothing to do with legalities when you made your post about severe punishment. Also how does the murderer even have free will if they are punished against their will by others?
>>17002441>free will exists from your own perspective,No, from my perspective, I am I and only I with only one perspective which is perpetually stuck in the here and now with no amount of willpower able change any of that or give me a different perspective than my own.
>>17002444>They don’t have the level of rationality we do, so they can easily be led into making decisions that they didn’t choose themselves.>t. someone institutionally educated who didn't choose their grade schoolI guess it makes me a super-intelligent being for recognizing that you were led into your institutional indoctrination.
>>17002499>Emergent property is the same thing as God did it,No, emergent property is the same thing as something being greater than its parts due to mutual interaction and multi-derivative physical phenomenon. The emergent properties, however, indicate a kind of limited physical choice rather than a pure expression of unimpeded desire.
>>17002518>Free will exists because I can choose my actions.No, because you can't freely choose any action, you can only pick from an extremely limited set of physically possible actions.
>>17002532Then Explain those mechanics in exacting detail without science of the gaps and provide the ontological referrents for every step and the competing forces/mechanics that cause the emergence, and do it without stealing a theist's foundations that are reappropriated because the theist got the math right when describing the Truth God bestowed them with.
>>17002539So basically, you just don't know what neural networks are?
>>17002545Let me guess emergent properties of random quantum foam?
>>17002551Why would you make a completely retarded nonsensical guess when you could just look up what neural networks are?
>>17002555You shouldve just stuck with telling me what particular kind of homosexual you are, when I didn't ask.
>>17002558I am guessing you mixed up your grindr and /sci/ tabs again since this reply has nothing to do with the current discussion where you have conceded that you have never even heard of neural networks.
>>17002432>not everyone is interested in long term returns or even the same valuesWhy don't you just freely will yourself to have more beneficial interests and values? Do you remember being handed a list of desires and picking which things you chose to feel compelled to want in life?
This board in a nutshell
>>17001129>Free will is a myth, religion is a joke
>>17001133A single photon enters both your eyes: double slitIt interferes with itself in the nervous systemGod gives us light, and Free Will is the quantum eraser.
>>17001129>Free Will doesn't exist. It's ju- *POW*Pain doesn't exist. It's just chemicals.
>>17001228Particles don't exist either. It's all fields.
Einstein’s idea of free will was “you can’t will yourself not gay”You will ALWAYS be gay, but you can choose which dick to suck
Do you struggle ordering a sandwich? Then you have free will.
>>17004315The sandwich ordering subroutine starts on its own when I get asked
>>17001129If free will exists, then explain statistical correlations between circumstances and behavior.
pls explain what it means for something to exist...
>>17004353For something to exist, we need to agree on an idea and a corresponding observation. We agree what cats look like and we can point to a cat. Simple as.
It does but it's limited and you have less that you think. There are probably a few hundred people on the planet who can do whatever they want whenever they want and even they are limited by time and distance whereas I have all the time in the world but cannot even afford to travel to the other side of the country and get a hotel for a few weeks.
>>17004489>There are probably a few hundred people on the planet who can do whatever they wantBut can they want what they want? And can they want what they want what they want etc? There always comes a point where what they want is outside of their control and then the whole chain crumbles
>>17004496Yeah. But they are limited by time. Some people are so rich and powerful they could probably get away with murder. But they couldn't fly to Australia to watch a football and half an hour after they game be in Europe to watch another for example. With tech they could watch it on TV but if you have enough money, nothing is a problem, as long as you can get their and on time. I heard of one billionaire spending thousands on a plane to fly her favourite cake from France or something. Saudis who visit England just buy million pound cars and give them away instead of shipping their own and sending them back. They can get what they want most of the time, but for some things they are limited by time. And time is the one thing you cannot get back and probably the most precious.
>>17004314Not if the guy with the dick is stronger than you and more motivated for his dick to be sucked than you are not to suck it unless you are implying that rape doesn't exist because all sex, no matter how forced, is technically consensual because of free will.
Fortunately free will can be measured so this debate will be settled soonhttps://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0604079
>>17004825>Do we really have free will, or, as a few determined folk maintain, is it allan illusion? We don’t know>the free will we assume is just that the experimenter can freely choose to make any one of a small number of observations.Sure, they definitely sound as confident as you are implying and they definitely aren't trying to redefine free will as something that has a much lower threshold of freedom than you are implying.
>>17005099They're defining a free choice as a choice that's not a function of past causes. It's the usual incoherent idea of free will. Imagine you want to do something really bad and then free will strikes and makes you do something completely unrelated
Emergent properties prove we are in freedom from what God has set up as a base of particles.
>>17005145>the fact that we must have certain properties means we are completely free to have whatever properties we will
>>17005145>incoherent rambling
>>17005145>A circle is necessarily round, a square is necessarily straight, so I can do whatever I heckin want
>>17005147What about randomness? From our perspectives, we are free in a random universe.
>>17005149Randomness doesn't lead to free will because you don't decide which random event is going to happen
>>17001129Actually my free will ceases to exist because all my actions are determined by rolling dice. I failed a stat check and had to make this post.
>>17001129>Trust the shitentists
>>17005192Should I trust religious experts?
>>17001133Choice is an eliminative operation: it selects from a pool of possibilities one option to attempt to actualize.The generative operation of decision-making is questioning, in the most general sense of "requesting information." The question "what are my possible choices here?" leads to the generation of those possibilities.One can also alter the criterion of their selection by questioning one's own desires and motivations. On a deeper level this is active engagement with one's value, epistemological, and spiritual belief systems.Seeking freedom is instantaneous choice is a folly because freedom is one's ability to learn and change one's self over time. It is a skill, the skill of self-modification, not an absolute.
>>17005192You have low self-esteem and you cope with it by throwing shade on people much smarter and accomplished than you will ever be.
>>17001129It seems a common issue is the definition of free will. Some contend that it is being able to choose free of all environmental factors; I disagree. I hold that free will is simply being able to choose based upon one's desires. I do not see why free will would require you to be free of all desires, chemicals, laws of physics, etc. This is a compatibilist approach, where determinism, if true, can still work alongside free will. The general point I am making is that free will only requires that you choose based on your desires and internal character. Another general statement I will make is that if you think about it, we are kind of in a feedback loop. We have a thought, can ruminate on, and then take an action, which impacts our future thoughts. Even if our capacity for reflection is itself part of a causal chain, the fact that we can deliberate, reconsider, and act in accordance with our reasons is precisely what makes our choices meaningfully our own.
>>17005246Yes definitions are everything here. Everyone ignores definitions.HOWEVER: Define free will, define "choice", define determinism
>>17005246Compatibilists are just playing semantic games so that they can say "hah free will exists after all" at the end, but in reality nobody who isn't a philosopher uses the compatibilist definition of free will or even knows that it exists.They are afraid to say that free will doesn't exist because they think it might destroy society. Dan Dennet was especially infuriating to listen to when it comes to this point.
>>17004500Why is your notion of doing anything you want just travellingIt's more like wishing they were a 10 meters tall creature composed of just hands or wishing the universe stopped existing. No one can do whatever they want
>>17005281If somebody in everyday life says something like "he did it of his own free will" (it does happen sometimes), it would be pretty weird to start rambling about how no actually the initial conditions and the laws of physics made him do it, he didn't freely will it. The practical, relevant sense of free will is essentially a compatibilist one - "he did it voluntarily". Overall though, "free will" as a word doesn't get used much outside of philosophical discussions so how philosophers use it seems pretty relevant. It's also made of two words, "free" and "will", and when you combine them the compatibilist sense seems a lot more reasonable to me than insisting it must refer to some incoherent inexplicable self-caused cause that's disconnected from the rest of the universe or what the hell ever incompatibilists want it to mean - it's not even describable really what they want since everybody knows at this point mere indeterminism /randomness isn't enough and it never was really about determinism vs. indeterminism to begin with. And when it comes to free will adjacent words like "choice" or "could have done otherwise", expressions everybody uses in everyday life whether they deny free will in philosophical discussions, it's even more obvious that the real actually used meaning is not really about some grandiose metaphysical powers.I slightly disagree with most compatibilists in the sense that mostly the best policy is to just not use the word "free will" at all as it seems to make people more confused. But to argue that it *obviously* really means "libertarian" free will (as if "libertarian free will" ever meant anything) and accuse compatibilists of just coming up with adhoc redefinitions is nonsense as well.
>>17005280I did define free will earlier, but to restate it: I take a compatibilist view. Free will is the ability to act according to your desires, reasons, and character. It does not require being free from all causes, influences, or physical laws. A choice is simply an action that flows from those internal factors rather than direct coercion.As for determinism, I mean the view that human actions are the inevitable result of prior causes operating under the laws of nature. The question is whether that rules out meaningful choice, and I don't think it does. Deliberation, reflection, and reasoning are themselves part of the causal process through which choices are made.>>17005281I think compatibilists are actually trying to capture what most people mean by free will, not redefine it. Most people who believe in free will don't mean they're somehow independent of their desires, biology, upbringing, or the laws of physics. They usually mean they can think about their options and act according to their own reasons and motivations.I also don't argue for compatibilism because of any concern about social consequences. I support it because it seems like the most accurate account of human agency. It seems intuitively obvious that we exercise some degree of control over our actions; that intuition alone isn't proof, but the arguments against it would need to be very strong to overcome it. To borrow Moore's style of argument: I can raise my right hand, and that fact carries more weight for me than abstract arguments claiming choice is an illusion.
>>17001129>Free Will doesn't exist. It's just chemicals.You don't exist. You're just chemicals too, when you get down to it. A bunch of chemicals that grew a brain and started complaining about dying.
>>17001129While probably a true statement to some extent I imagine, this is obviously just an excuse to absolve yourself of personal responsibility for doing mindless or terrible things in most situations.
>>17001129Scenario 1:>free will exists>you believe it existsOutcome:>you keep living as normal, performing actions of your own volitionScenario 2:>free will exists>you believe it does't existOutcome:>you keep living as normal, as you cannot force yourself to not be yourselfScenario 3:>free will does't exist>you believe it existsOutcome:>you keep living your predetermined existenceScenario 3:>free will does't exist>you believe it does't existOutcome:>you keep living your predetermined existenceThe entire discourse around free will is literally inconsequential, and, thus, useless. Q.E.D.
“Love isn’t real Morty it’s just a chemical reaction Morty” (this isn’t actually what Rick said btw)Do people really think something can have nothing to it? That there is no background to the foreground? What?
>>17005532Sophistic argument
>>17005532>The entire discourse around free will is literally inconsequential, and, thus, useless. Q.E.D.You know there are big implications if free will exists or not.this conc is ass
>>17007060If it doesn't nothing changes really accountability is based on consciousness and actions.no one will be able to use superdeterminism against you.If it does congratulations nothing changes either.
>>17007072Big implications onto theology btw
The minimal free will thesis (MFT) holds that at least some of the time, someone has more than one course of action that he can perform. This is the least that must be true in order for it to be said that there is free will.Deduction of the minimal free will thesis:1. With respect to the free-will issue, we should refrain from believing falsehoods. (premise)2. Whatever should be done can be done. (premise)3. If determinism is true, then whatever can be done, is done. (premise)4. I believe MFT. (premise)5. With respect to the free-will issue, we can refrain from believing falsehoods. (from 1,2)6. If determinism is true, then with respect to the free will issue, we refrain from believing falsehoods. (from 3,5)7. If determinism is true, then MFT is true. (from 6,4)8. MFT is true. (from 7)Well, that was easy
>>17007249>If determinism is true, then whatever can be done, is done. if mutiple things could be done but are mutually exclusive, how can they all be done? retard
>>17007268>post bait proof>bot shows up>instead of going for some of the obviously sketchy premises it pretends to not understand how a logical implication worksI'm done with this board
>>17007270that is literally one of the premises lmao kys waste of fuckimg oxygen
>>17007474Determinism means that there can't be multiple mutually exclusive things that could be done. That's the one straight forward premise in this whole argument
>>17001133This is actually true I don't think about anything my brain just gives me options and I pick one.
>>17001129
>>17008202Do you initiate the picking or does that just happen too?
>>17008266Yeah it just happens too.
>>17008269You can practice silencing your mind
>>17001946when did you choose the kinds of things that you want? can you choose to want different things? >breaking addictions is possibleDo you think people that tried breaking addictions and failed simply didn't really want it?
>>17001991What if chemicals were just particles?
>>17008203Kek
>>17007249That's Huemer's proof of free will that got rejected by journals 15 times when he tried to publish it btw.https://fakenous.substack.com/p/free-will-and-determinismHere's another form1. We should believe only the truth. (premise)2. If S should do A, then S can do A. (premise)3. If determinism is true, then if S can do A, S does A. (premise)4. So if determinism is true, then if S should do A, S does A. (from 2, 3)5. So if determinism is true, then we believe only the truth. (from 1, 4)6. I believe I have free will. (empirical premise)7. So if determinism is true, then it is true that I have free will. (from 5, 6)8. So determinism is false. (from 7)Premise 1 is a presupposition of rational thought. According to Huemer: "In trying to reason through any issue, I think we are presupposing some kind of truth-seeking norm, roughly that we should believe what is true rather than what is false about that issue."Premise 2 is the “‘ought’ implies ‘can’” principle. Reformulation: If you cannot do A, then it is not true that you should do A
>>17008579There's an objection to the first premise on the substack>Objection #3: “It’s not true that we should believe only the truth. Rather, we should believe only what is overall best justified by our evidence.”I agree with that objection and Huemer thinks that it doesn't destroy his argument.>Okay. If you put that into premise 1, then the argument proceeds as before, except that step 7 winds up as “If determinism is true, then the belief in free will is overall best justified by our evidence.” I don’t think the determinist could happily accept this.Now this sounds quite different and the semantic games loose their apparent power (note than whatever is best justified can only be a result of reasoning which is a logic process and has no place for free will). In the original argument it was enough for one person to believe in free will to destroy determinism but now it became "My belief in free will is justified because of the evidence I have", which is perfectly acceptable for me. It just means that he hasn't really looked at the evidence, be it scientific or experiential.>There's no reason to argue with someone if they're determined to believe somethingThis is stupid. It's only true if I knew every neural connection in that persons brain and found that nothing I could do or say would change that person's belief. Since I can't know that I can only judge that some argument might be convincing enough to break that person's chain of reasoning for a particular belief and cause them to change their opinion.>If everything is deterministic then there is no such thing as reasoning.The determinist has to assume that evolution has equipped us with a reasoning ability that is able to reliably find at least some truths. We wouldn't survive if all of our beliefs about the real world were false.Okay that's something. How does the free willer save our reasoning ability? See here lol https://youtu.be/uCWAhYLxkYE&t=2157>Somehow it just works bro I don't know browow
>>17008583You are just making shit up. Justify any of your claims.
>>17008783It's my opinion. Feel free to citicize it. That's called "discussion"
>>17008579>2. If S should do A, then S can do A. (premise)what kind of nonsense is thatshould starving children eat? why don't they?3. If determinism is true, then if S can do A, S does A. (premise)why and how would "can" imply "does"?it's just a bunch of bullshit and wishful thinking
>>17008579Huemer is based. I don't agree with all Singer's vegan bullshit though.
>>17009006>what kind of nonsense is thatMost philosophers accept the "ought implies can" principle. "If you cannot do A, then it is not true that you should do A" sounds reasonable, doesn't it? That also answers the starving children problem.If free will is true you can always just choose to believe the truth. If free will is false then sometimes it's physically impossible for you to arrive at a true belief. So in that sense your determined belief is invalid because it wasn't formed by reason but by mindless particles bouncing around.>why and how would "can" imply "does"?That's determinism. There's only one way things can happen and that's the way they do happen
>>17009015>"If you cannot do A, then it is not true that you should do A" sounds reasonable, doesn't it?No. "Should" and "can" are completely unrelated. >If free will is true you can always just choose to believe the truth.How does free will allow to discern the truth? Non sequitur wishful thinking.>That's determinism. There's only one way things can happen and that's the way they do happenSo premise 3 is just "if determinism is true then determinism". How ingenious.
>>17009019I actually agree with you and I'm just playing devils advocate.>How does free will allow to discern the truth? Non sequitur wishful thinking.Yeah I already refuted that idea in >>17008583I think in Huemer's mind it goes something like this:Your brain presents you different beliefs.Belief A is true according to your knowledge.Belief B is false according to your knowledge.If you want to be rational you only should believe belief A.But here comes the poor determinist. He desperately wants to believe A but then the clockwork of his brain forces him to believe B, oh no.Meanwhile the free will haver just goes "not today, clockwork devil" and just chooses to believe the true belief A. According to Huemer that's the only way to be able to reason.An ability to choose independently of everything that is doesn't tell me what's true and what's false. I still need logic reasoning which doesn't involve choices at all.
>>17001224it has everything to do with it wdym?
Physicalists never have the balls to plainly admit that free will is incompatible with their worldview. Atheists believe in God but refuse to admit it.
>>17009027I'm not a physicalist but I still deny free will
Either your choices are the result of all the previous events since before your conception, through everything that happens while you're growing up, your physical and mental state and the state of the world (aka determinism)or somewhere there is a random elementWhere is a place for that "free will" you're talking about? What do you even mean by that?
>>17009019>"Should" and "can" are completely unrelated.are you retarded? "should" implies that something is possible. "want" on the other hand can refer to impossible things.
>>17009562The common usage of the word should presupposes free will and therefore you shouldn't (heh) use it to prove free will
>>17009562>>17009564"should" is an abstract word that has no place in any rational dispute after David Hume
Test
>>17005192Well, asbestos IS great insulator with also great fireproof characteristics. Fact that it also gives you pulmonary fibrosis and cancer doesn't change first two facts.
>>17005192it's a major fuckup every once in a while vs no medication or diagnostics, no modern engineering and technology at all
>>17005283Yeah good point. Things that are attainable to humans. And if you could buy CERN you could probably stop the universe existing. It's not just time, it's things humans can measure. Distance makes it physically impossible to be able to do whatever you like as well. You can go all over the world whenever you want but you have to sacrifice time. And you could make yourself a 10 foot tall creature if you wore stilts and an Halloween costume. Perspetive.
>>17009577Is that should should have no place? should should not have a place? Should should not be in a place?Walk me through this plox
>>17009645what do you mean by "should" here exactly?
If determinism is true then saying "you should do X because Y" to someone might cause them to do X, although you have no practical way of prediction their reaction. That's why we should still say "you should do X".It's not that different from the free will scenario, but now should doesn't imply can.
>>17009024determinism and free will are mutually exclusive, but there are a million other non-deterministic configurations that also exclude free will so it's not really special. pure randomness, for example.
>>17001330nah he was the only one and now he's deadsorry about that
>>17001448gave me a kek thank you
free will is so conceptually retarded I don't know how anyone is still pushing it
>>17009885because it's the default hypothesis. it feels like we have free will and arriving at any other conclusion takes some mental work.
>Free will DOES exist, and it's chemicals
>>17009893Literally impossible to disprove. OP and /sci/ BTFO.
The allowed possibilities of choice isn’t seen as Free Will to some people. Hm.
>>17009954That's because you choose something for a reason. The phenomenology of free will most people think they have is 100% compatible with determinism
>what is a stochastic process>who is Karl Fristonhttps://www.blopig.com/blog/2021/09/chained-or-unchained-markov-nekrasov-and-free-will/
>>17001133You can act against your instincts, you know.
>>17010353That's just the instinct of being a contrarian which you also didn't author
>>17010356That would be an instinct. Come on Anon I know you're a fag but try acting against your contrarian instinct for once.
Special Relativity and Block Universe Theory proved that free will is severely constrained. According to special relativity, someone can visit you in the future while you’re still stuck in the present moment. That means the future already exists.Therefore, all of space time, including past, present and future, is a block. It’s probably a frozen block (as opposed to a growing block or moving spotlight) because that version of block universe theory is the most parsimonious, has the least baggage, and matches special relativity the best.Frozen block universe = the present moment is entirely an illusion created by the brains of local observers. Therefore you can’t have free will because you’re a painting stuck in a museum. You don’t have any more free will than a video game character. If the future is already decided then this is all a bizarre puppet show.
>>17010402Anon you’re over complicating it. Free will is limited, conditional, CONDITIONED; it doesn’t allow you to do literally anything you want to do. Your choices have an actual background to their foreground. You can only choose what is allowed to be chosen. This includes an infinite number of things. But that infinite number of things is still quite finite to everything else you aren’t allowed to do. Because again. You can’t will yourself not a cock sucking faggot. You can only will which cocks to suck, and which not to suck. That was literally Einstein’s idea of free will. His idea of free will was being able to will yourself not gay. But that is an overly hopeful rendition of free will. You can’t have or will anything you want in life.
>>17010402>Therefore, all of space time, including past, present and future, is a blockThat’s just one block. One hair of time. Time is an illusory dimension or trajectory of three spacial dimensions. There could be a ton of other blocks, or other trajectories, that co exist beside each other, metaphorically speaking. If the Cuban missile crisis went haywire then a different block universe/timespan would form, completely apart from our own.But do these hypothetical alternate time ways exist only in probability, or literally? Hence the suspicion that we might just be one singular block, not the block-of-blocks.
Everything everywhere every-when exists all at once. This is just how it is. You’ve yet to realize. Free Will exists, but Nothing Matters. You aren’t doing anything new. Everything awful exists—along with everything good—but the bad, the awful, massively outweighs what is good.
>>17010414That sounds even worse than there being no free will Wtf
>>17010415ablooblooobloooooo
>>17010402>>17010408>>17010409>>17010414>>17010415>>17010416There is an infinite number of ways to view our one universe. That’s the “multiverse”. It’s not a bunch of bubbles of independent universes it’s a lot more geometrically intimate than that. Even a slight alteration in a timeline is a “separate universe”, and a radically different “alternate universe” is really just a radically different trajectory of time, or timeline.
>>17010414>t. Anon who just watched Everything Everywhere All at Once
>>17010525I’ve been using that phrase since before that movie even came out.
Free will doesn't exist, it's just monad.
>>17001129Free will doesn't exist until it's challenged, when people aren't under scrutiny all they do is manipulate their surroundings to simulate the environment of the savannas in the East African Rift System during the pleistocene. We chose lawns for a reason.
>free will, in philosophy and science, the supposed power or capacity of humans to make decisions or perform actions independently of any prior event or state of the universeNobody knows. Decision making in a living thing is very situational and on a more fundamental level there are things like the Heisenberg indeterminacy principle. It seems more like a political issue than a scientific one. Are you going to complain to the chemicals? Rather you would complain to someone who has ears but then if they have ears they are probably like you and also limited in what they can do.
>>17002518>I can choose my actionsYou cant. You just think you can.
>>17001129Free will doesnt exist because we live in a deterministic universe
>>17011516>ITT anons who've never seen Breaking Bad
>>17011517>free will exists because TV show
>>17001129>people don't exist, it's just arms, legs, torsos, eyes, brains, hair, hearts, genes, mitochondria, retroviruses, etc. >the forest doesn't exist, it's just a bunch of trees and bushes and animals and insects
>>17002518>I can choose my actionsYou cant though. Thats just an illusion
>>17009562Should can also refer to impossible scenarios. What are you on about?
>free will exists>it's God's will to control our brains >gods will>Free will Do christcucks really? This is a horrible alternative to free will being a random interaction between atoms causing chemical reactions.
>>17009954Whatever you "choose" was bound to happen anyway
>>17001875Because it's God will, not free will
Of course we have free will. What do you think iraq war veterans fought for?
How can will be free when you pay lawyers to write your will?
Most people are NPCs anyway. They dont have any will. There is nothing going on inside of them
>>17001133Funny how nobody really believes this. You don't believe you're a programmed robot.
>>17011637It's hard to see because the mind is programmed to believe thoughts.
It's funny how free will conversations always skip ethology and start rambling about chemistry. Nobody wants to pop open the hood and see how evolutionary pressures wired people, they just want to reassure themselves that they're powerless.
I don't see "free will" evolving anywhere on the chain
>>17011842you don't seem to understandwe have all God's will in our souls, and since God's will is free we have free will
>>17012073So we have someone elses free will in us? So we dont have any free will orselves?
>>17012167entire universe shares one will (free)
>>17001129Free will
>>17011573It was amongst possible possibilities bound to exist. Yes.
>>17011505>the supposed power or capacity of humans to make decisions or perform actions independently of any prior event or state of the universeThis is retarded. Everyone was born. A prior event.
You’re all so stupid lol
>>17001129It's quantum mechanics, it's gone from a fringe hypothesis to just being science, the goalpost has been moved outside of the arena, now take responsibility for your bad life choices.
>>17013699You control the probabilities of quantum mechanics?
>>17013726Yes
Perhaps is difficult to answer whether free will exists, as it’s in the same realm as consciousness.For the hell of it, for discussion, I’ll confirm that my personal experience of will has an element of freedom to it.Per risk of my vessel(the human body), and environment, there is a web-of-things I can do which only cost what I can afford (i.e. energy), which is already in my possession; I consider this ‘free will’.And ‘I’, is definitely present, there something specific I refer to when using that pronoun.
>>17013737>there something specific I refer to when using that pronounWell, what is it?
You’re all so gay lol
Do you troglodytes not actively construct ideas and act (or don't) based upon them?
>>17014828Good.Gooooooood.
>>17001258Yea those things do happen.Anyway it's either some sort of fucked up substance dualism or idealism without the pure carricature of claiming matter is not even real.
Pressuming a Newtonian or a Quantum-Quantum something hard-determisn universe but even pure dice incompatibilism has its own attack:The Consequence Argument:Determinism is the view that the present state of things is entirely the consequence of two factors: past events and the laws of nature.The philosophical argument against free will under determinism flows as follows:1. What happened in the past is not up to us.2. The laws of nature are not up to us.3. Therefore, the consequences of the past and the laws of nature are not up to us.Because determinism states that everything is a direct consequence of the past and the laws of nature, it follows that nothing is ultimately up to us.
>>17013736Henry you're too old for 4hcan.https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/stapp-s-collapsing-the-wave-function-via-asking-questions
>>17014828I literally don't know how to think a thought and neither do you. You only think that you know how you think a thought but that's not how you think a thought. Got it?
>>17014885>You only think that you know how you think a thought but that's not how you think a thoughtSource?
>>17001129David Sosa: The Problem of Free Will and Determinismhttps://youtu.be/4arOKZvuZK4?is=2RtodSb1MgtYhtfoFrom the film 'Waking Life'
>>17014885>I literally don't know how to think a thoughtQuote the part of the post you replied to that mentions anything about "knowing how to think a thought".
>>17015254He's only demonstrating that determinists are lobotomised retards. The same bunch that isn't able to imagine an apple or converse internally with themseves. They are only projecting their lack of agency unto others.
>>17015258Will, is a deeper consciousness. We don't expect people to accept we're conscious, why would we believe what you have to say about will?
>>17015254You don't know how to "construct an idea">>17015258You can't prove your agency to yourself
>>17011842Its voluntary inhibition (you stop doing/don't do something because you want)
>>17015264>bioautomaton fails the rhetorical template match againQuote the part of my post that mentions anything about "knowing how to construct an idea".
>>17011842>I don't see "free will" evolving anywhere on the chainDefine "free will".
>>17015269You can't active construct an idea if you don't know how to construct an idea. Do I have to dumb down everything for you?
>>17015272>You can't active construct an ideaI obviously can. Are you literally subhuman?
>>17015275>I obviously can.How do you know that?
>>17011842>I don't see "free will" evolving anywhere on the chainProbably because you lack high-level metacognition. Maybe ask the dolphin for help. Anyway, free will is the chaotic feedback loop of self-reflection.
>>17015278Because I can distinguish between having basic ideas randomly pop up in my mind and developing complex ideas through voluntary effort. 80 IQs can't make this distinction because they can't do the second thing.
I think, therefore I choose. And further interpretations is just "turtles all the way down" tier argument. Every time.>But what abo-Occam's razor. Next.
>>17015280>Because I can distinguish between having basic ideas randomly pop up in my mind and developing complex ideas through voluntary effortLLMs can do that. Where's the agency? I only see trained behaviour
>>17015290>LLMs can do that.This isn't even a coherent reply. Your statement makes zero sense in context. Are you psychotically ill by any chance?
>>17015290You dumb.You don't know enough about sense.Worthless taking what you say in...
>>17015292Fuck off abomination, stop using word this way!
>>17015292That, the person who posted this, and the post itself, is an abomination. People ought be punished for such speech.
>>17015292No he's not 'psychotically ill'Study the seriousness of such a word.Vulgar hip trust, meant to shock
>>17015300If I am able to punish you and others who do this, using Lightframe, I will.Honestly, fuck these people.
>>17015301Yes, I was shocked by you. Next.
uh oh, melty
>>17015304Literally stand next to the essence or admit you're with that.
>>17015305It's cancer- I'm a doctor.
Whatever you think, it's wrong.That poster/post is an abomination.I shouldn't feel character-harm. I'll take you all on verbally.
>>17015307You're having a deterministic breakdown
>>17015307Fuck off with this perverse-shocking.What on Earth is it, truthfully?Cock-touch midway through a debate.
>>17015309Alright. I'll leave you to it.Hopefully something wrong happens to you and whoever calls that home.
>>17015310The dominant tranny-like presence on the internet.That post/poster is akin to a retard-leftist or aggressive tranny.I'm out. Enjoy your social.
Reminder that thoughts get constructed in the subconscious mind. The process is completely invisible to "you". The subconscious mind decides which thoughts to push into consciousness without any input from "you". It also pushes the thought that says "I made the previous thought happen out of my own volition".
>>17015314That's wrong. The conscious brain is completely in sync with thoughts.
>>17015315>That's wrong.Proof?
>>17015316Same to you, and since you made the first claim, price sub conscious rules thought and conscious-ness doesn't have any effect on thought.
>>17015317It's literally observable. If you ignore thought content and just notice thoughts as thoughts you will see that they just automatically pop up out of nowhere.And it can't happen any other way if you don't want to end up in an infinite regress which would look like this:If I want to think a thought I have to initiate the thinking process. I also have to initiate the initiation, otherwise it would have to happen automatically and I wouldn't be in control. I also have to initiate that initiation, etc.
>>17015314Reminder that "the subconscious mind" is Freudian nonsense and none of your drivel negates the fact that conscious beings can think voluntarily.
>>17015324>none of your drivel negates the fact that conscious beings can think voluntarilyHow do you escape the infinite regress without introducing literal magic?
>>17015328>>17015278>How do you know that?Because I can distinguish between having basic ideas randomly pop up in my mind and developing complex ideas through voluntary effort. 80 IQs can't make this distinction because they can't do the second thing.I just wanna watch your primitive programming break down again. :^)
>>17015329So literal magic. Got it
>>17015332Notice how your severe psychotic illness caused you to respond incoherently again.
>>17015333How do you initiate the thought process?
Free will is like a complex bubble.Around you are a lot of determined options, but you can revolve to a different ultimate outcome.However, once you’re set, it’s all determined.The current determined alternative, is possibly changed, and that is free will.It is serenity of choice; a sense of power where fate is concerned.The experience of consciousness, the ‘I’.If you have no free will, you have a specific type of consciousness without free-will.Technically, if you have no free will, you don’t have an ‘I’.Your use of ‘I’, with no free will, is as per the crossing of another consciousness, with or without free will.
>>17015338>but you can revolve to a different ultimate outcomeHow? Do you decide to decide? Do you decide to decide to decide?Notice how free willers can never answer these questions.
>>17015338Thought comes over.Thinking is from under.Thought is with-stood, and propagated using conscious brain, and it is affected by the sub conscious.
>>17015336This is the third time you reply incoherently when confronted with the fact of active thinking. Looks like I've found a way to deterministically break you.
>>17015340I said, it's like a complex bubble.
>>17015343Think of a disc playing in a console generating a game on screen.Those without free will, are like a manifold of that, completely absorbed by the production.Those with free will are an expansion of the production, absorbed by the watcher.
>>17015342>the fact of active thinking*the illusion of active thinking
>>17015345Your rhetorical vomit doesn't refute the distinction I've pointed out. Are you going to concede for a 5th time or attempt an actual refutation?
>>17015344People with free will are the vision of eyes primarily.People without free will are the eye and vision secondarily to their consciousness.
>>17015347Here's how active thinking works:>Have a problem to solve>Solution is not immediately obvious>Brain starts throwing solution ideas at the problem>Brain generates thought: "Bro this is hard I'm thinking really hard right now">You don't control which ideas pop up, although they won't be completely random because the brain is trained for this task>When an idea (partially) fits, it just "clicks". You don't decide wether it clicks or not>Problem solved>Brain generates thought: "Bro I'm so fucking smart"
>>17015348I gather there are people with and without free will. Try understand these two types being opposites.(It’s difficult for me to explain this, bridging the gap).Think of it as a disc playing a game through a console. The game is intrinsic if you have no free will, but explored if you have free will.
>>17015353>time to listen to my 80 IQ narrativeI don't care and I accept your repeated concession that it's possible to distinguish spontaneously occurring thoughts and active thinking. This isn't even up for any kind of debate. Fully conscious people (which doesn't include brown animals like you) can reliably tell the two apart and the corresponding brain activity is objectively different.
>>17015359None of these points disprove my argument. Your active thinking generated the wrong solution through no fault of your own
>>17015363>my argument.What argument? You're legit mentally ill. You asked how I know I can actively think. I told you I know this because I can reliably distinguish it from spontaneously arising thoughts. You then proceeded to shit out several incoherent replies, followed by 80 IQ head canon about how you believe active thinking works.
>>17015365Thanks for the cock-grab.
>>17015365All thoughts are spontaneously arising. Some of them just belong to the "active thinking process" I outlined above and your brain recognizes this. That recognition also isn't something you control.Of course by calling it "active thinking" you're already begging the question. You can recognize thoughts that belong to a problem solving process but can you see that you're actively thinking them in any way that isn't a thought that says that you're actively thinking them?The thoughts automatically form according to your brain's physiology. There's no agent doing the thinking.
>>17015379That's a bunch of rhetorical vomit, but the bottom line is that you concede it's possible to distinguish between spontaneously arising ideas and actively developed ideas.
fags
>>17015395fagsesses
Fucking fag party.I'm out.*drops the mic*
I love sucking cocks btw
>>17015399We know tripfag
Idk free will is such weird thing. Am I an agent in control of my actions >no Cause I don't believe there's an agent at all. There's no little guy in there that is controlling mind and body. It's a complex process that is self sustaining via means Idk much about. Free will literally comes down to idea that you believe there's a causal agent who's in charge. But what is this being and how much control does he have?
>There's no little guy in there that is controlling mind and body. It's a complex process that is self sustaining via meansSounds like free will deniers are generally borderline retards with little to no self-awareness. If they can reason about these questions at all, it's only in terms of infantile caricatures about little men living inside their skulls and pulling levers.
>>17015425Okay what part of self do you affirm is real? When I typed this out multiple regions of brain were working together but what part of that was me having free will though
>>17015418Be nice. I'll suck yours.
>>17015428The stream of conscious experience is as real as anything can be. It's a dynamic process with recognizable features like volition and self-reflection that feed back into it and influence how it evolves. Simple as.
Heckin reddit Chungus thread
>>17001133I just came up with the thought to call you a little faggot, try and disprove that redditard
>>17001274So you’re saying you have free will to choose which thoughts to act on? Or not act on? Are you just projecting your NPC status on the rest of us?
>>17016975I think, therefore I am. I think I have free will, therefore I do. Go fuck yourself if you want to gaslight anyone into thinking they don't.
Do you have to proveChemicals ≠ Free willOr Chemicals = Free WillBut I don't like being negative Free will to me is free will exist and the chemicals shift with it.
God put all the desires of men in their hearts. Father forgive them for they know not what they do. I draw all men to me. No one comes to the Father unless I draw them to me.Free will is an illusion.No one chooses to eat food or breath air.
>>17017224>God programmed me to go to hell and suffer eternallyThanks.
>>17016980>I think I'm a woman, therefore I am oneThat's not how it works
I think the question is, who or what is making the choice(agreeing with yes or no). Is it the power of a conscious-thinker or dead-matter?Either life is supported. I think the correct answer is a mix of both.
>>17011637because the mind isn't built to function with that understanding, the illusion of free will is actually quite useful.
>>17012073god doesn't exist actually.
>>17017244At this point, you are claiming to need to be the omnipotent GOD, who can create and rewrite the laws of physics according to His will, in order to have Free Will. That you need to control all the fucking matter and energy in the universe to be considered as having true Free Will. Absurd.
>>17017267I think libertarian free will is incoherent even with an omnipotent god
>>17017274Then it's no longer falsifiable.
>>17017241I don't believe hell is eternal, after all Jesus said forgive them for they know not what they do.
