>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.
