Every counterargument either:

Dodges the core problem
Appeals to mystery/magic
Changes definitions
Makes special exceptions
Or just pushes the problem back a step

Free will requires an untenable free will or special pleading that cannot accurately resolve the logical tension of there needing a temporal order. It is, in effect, coping.

Even in discussing these concepts, we struggle because language itself assumes agency. The very structure of English presupposes free will - "I am writing this" implies a choosing self, "you noticed this problem" suggests agency. But these are just convenient fictions. The deeper truth is that there is no autonomous chooser, decision maker, controller, or free agent - just causes producing effects in an unbroken chain.

File: DrSteveBrule.gif (1.3 MB, 320x320)

1.3 MB GIF

>time is a straight line

>>39228471
>Changes definitions
you will not listen to me because I fall under this category, but you don't understand the definition of cause on a fundamental level. Free will is absolutely necessary and it does exist.

>>39228491
if all moments exist simultaneously or in some complex web, then everything is even more firmly "set" than in a linear model. its not a temporal issue but a logical one:

If time is cyclical: Events would still need causes, just in a loop. You still can't be your own original cause.
If time branches: Each branch would still need prior causes. Multiple possibilities doesn't create free will.
If all moments exist simultaneously: The logical relationships of causation would still exist, just not temporally.

>>39228497
Please explain your definition

>>39228501
no that is for you to find out. If you seriously want to grow you need to question your own assumptions not be drip fed by anons on the internet. The good thing is that you obviously have a device with access to the internet, so you have everything you need.

>>39228463
Bro, doesn't quantum mechanics

>>39228506
Hard determinism simply extends the principle of causation we observe everywhere else.
Free will requires special exceptions for human consciousness/decision-making.
Occam's Razor favors the simpler explanation that humans follow the same causal laws as everything else.

Hard determinism makes the default claim that causation is universal

Free will advocates must explain:
How choices escape causation
Where this freedom comes from
How it interfaces with physical reality
Why only some beings have it
When in evolution it emerged

The higher burden of proof and complexity means its fundamentally less likely.

>>39228512
It can only be either:

i) Based on other preferences (circular)

ii) Based on nothing (random)

iii) Based on prior causes (determined)

Randomness is not free choice.

>>39228515
I won't lecture you sorry, I already told you that you need to find these answers yourself if you want to grow. The good thing is that you can literally just read stuff and learn it. The entire way you set up your argument is incomplete and misses critical definitions. The good thing is that people figured this out ages ago, so you can even mostly just read summaries when you prompt search engines with the right questions and have the mental faculty to understand the answers. Good luck anon!

>>39228535
I am an agent of fate allowing you to cope with your decision.

But no decision was made.

You weighed up your preferences and the stronger preference won.

Different neural networks competing

Stronger patterns dominating

The "winner" becoming your conscious choice

>>39228551
even in this single reply you contradict yourself without even realizing it. Also you again assume definitions of neural network broadly apply to my human brain, which is a reductionist perspective where you are missing a core piece.

>>39228568
There isn't one we "choose" to make
There's just what happens
Including our thoughts about what happens
Including our reactions to those thoughts
Including this very realization

>>39228463
It's hard for me to understand why people always tend to take an extremist position with this topic. It's pretty clear the answer is in between when it comes to free will. Compatibilism or soft determinism.

>>39228576
>Redefines free will as "acting on own desires"
>Claims this is compatible with determinism

Problems:
>Doesn't address ultimate causation
>Just changes definition to avoid problem
>Still doesn't explain source of desires

Our choices come from our dispositions
Our dispositions come from genes/environment
Genes/environment come from prior causes
All the way back to the big bang
No room for self-causation anywhere

All arguments against hard determinism ultimately require self-causation

Whether through:

>Consciousness
>Quantum effects
>Emergence
>Agent causation

All hit this same logical wall.

>>39228573
according to your current logic, yes. If you ever "choose" to read and understand why you are wrong you will realize, if not you will just continue.
I can only show you the door, you have to walk through it.

>>39228585
For that choice to be free, I must be the source of that choice (or it's pre-determined). The question then to ask is what caused "me" to make that choice rather than a different choice? You might say "my will" caused that choice. But then again, we must ask: what caused those particular desires or will? If you repeat, "my will caused that choice" then we are back to step 1, over and over again, forever.

>>39228463
>Free will would require impossible self-causation
We can assume that it exists and still take free will ad absurdum.
The only sensible definition of free will is that it's the ability to make choices independently of external influences.
Therefore, when you make a choice, your decision has to materialize out of thin air and basically random. If it's random it can't be YOUR will. You must be able to control your will, but being controllabe makes it dependent on external causes.
Compatibilists weasel their way out of this problem by defining free will as something like "You're free to act on your impulses" but these impulses are determined by prior causes. It's not free.

>>39228596
Yes, again according to your logic. Which excludes the right definitions and "mystery/magic", which in reality is not actually mysterious at all, but just stuff you either refuse to understand or can't understand because you lack mental capacity. If you want to practice circular logic with me I will get bored at some point and stop giving you attention(coming to the conclusion you actually are mentally deficient). If you instead want an actual answer you can use the device at your fingertips to get the right answer, as I told you in the beginning.
So what is your "choice"?

>>39228582
It's a pretty nuanced topic. Soft determinism redefines free will in a way that’s practically useful. We experience decisions, plan and make coices based on values and desires. But even if the ultimate origins of these values are causally influenced, the fact that we act based on internal motivations instead of external compulsion impacts our experience, responsibility, ethics..etc. Soft determinism doesn't try to escape causality, it just recognizes a sense of agency within the chain of causation, it's a logical middle point.

In short, freedom comes from our capacity to act, reflect and reasin motives as proximate causes. It makes free will compatible with determinism without requiring an "ultimate" self causation.

>>39228605
God's omniscience is the reason free will does not exist

God knows everything and cannot learn anything new, God cannot be wrong. If God knows everything then God knows the future. If God knows the future and cannot be proven wrong I cannot act otherwise according to God's knowledge. Therefore, the future is pre-determined, (but not necessarily through God's knowledge, but through his Will of creating a deterministic universe).

>>39228613
Demonstrate that logically without entering into infinite regression, special pleading, or self-casuation.

>>39228614
Ah so you are angry at God, I get it now. Very funny to see you violate your own logic rules, a typical behaviour from people who turn away from God. Enjoy the recycling mechanism when your vessel expires and good luck anon!

>>39228630
We're both just going through the motions here.

>>39228634
Yes as a man of truth who follows God I at least tried.

>>39228613
>Soft determinism
>Soft determinism (or compatibilism) is the position or view that causal determinism is true, but we still act as free, morally responsible agents when, in the absence of external constraints, our actions are caused by our desires.
>Compatibilism does not maintain that humans are free. Compatabilism does not hold that humans have free will.
> Compatibilism holds that:
>1) the thesis of determinism is true, and that accordingly all human behavior, voluntary or involuntary, like the behavior of all other things, arises from antecedent conditions, given which no other behavior is possible: all human behavior is caused and determined
>2) voluntary behavior is nonetheless free to the extent that it is not externally constrained or impeded
>3) the causes of voluntary behavior are certain states, events, or conditions within the agent: acts of will or volitions, choices, decisions, desires etc...

>>39228636
actions were inevitable given causes

>>39228622
Soft determinism doesn’t require self causation or infinite regression because it doesn’t claim that we create our ultimate origins. It's about acting as proximate causes within a chain of causation.

Free will in soft determinism is the ability to make decisions based on internal motives, reasoning, and reflection, even if those motives have prior causes, they're acting like a middle man that isn't chained completely to "ultimate causation". And yeah, these elements are shaped by our genes and environment but we are still the ones making decisions at the immediate, practical level. This peserves moral responsibility without requiring us to be "uncaused causes".

>>39228500
man you seem very intent on saying free-will is an illusion. all jokes aside, I haven't entertained a discussion like this so here we go.

the cause is the god-spark. and let's think about it pragmatically. if one were to create an entire universe billions of light-years in diameter (that can be seen), it's probably best to go about setting a general set of rules and regulations (basic Newtonian physics, matter, mass, momentum etc), but if life is the goal (as it seems to be) then the physical rules which govern the universe up to the point of creation of life would be set in stone, but once you have life free-will becomes the governing force. Yes, it's scalar. All living beings have free-will, some more than others.

>still only 2-d representations of time

>>39228646
It's like saying a computer has "free will" because it processes inputs before producing outputs. The processing is still completely determined by:

Its programming (genes)
Input data (environment)
Hardware state (brain state)

You can't preserve moral responsibility by pointing to intermediate steps in a causal chain. They're still just links in that chain. This isn't a coherent view.

>>39228644
No, you made an active choice. Your rules were no mystical explanations, you violated your own rules by bringing in God - who is unknowable and hiding in the light - and using God to come to your conclusion. Your conclusion is to turn away from God and reject him, thus after your vessel expires you will have finally turned away from him. Enjoy it while it lasts!

>>39228655
This "middle man" (our decision-making process) is fully determined by prior causes

In which case it's just another link in the causal chain
Not actually "free" in any meaningful sense
Just a mechanism through which causation flows


Or this "middle man" can somehow act independently of prior causes

Which requires self-causation
Which is logically impossible
We're back to the infinite regress problem

>>39228655
>>39228659
You're being way too pragmatic and ignoring our element of agency that wields these "middle man" processes. There is a definite influence in these so we're not completely free, but there is also a definite divergence in possibilities because there are abstract metrics in our agency, it isn't simple "a chain". This is why a middle point is the most logical conclusion.

>>39228664
What is this "agency" that "wields" the middle man processes?

If it's determined by prior causes no true agency, just another link

If it's not determined by prior causes requires impossible self-causation

Abstract metrics" and "divergence in possibilities":


Either these divergences are:

Caused (then they're just part of the chain)
Uncaused (then they're random, not free)
Self-caused (logically impossible)

You're essentially saying "it's complicated, therefore free will exists." But complexity doesn't solve the logical problem of self-causation.

There's no logical space for a "middle point" - it's a false compromise between determinism and an impossibility. Sorry.

File: will you fight or perish (...).jpg (290 KB, 1200x1200)

290 KB JPG

>>39228677
self caused by god through the spark/soul, you are made in gods image but given free will to have the choice to reject god. violates all your definitions and rules, but every single 150+ IQ physicist, religious philosopher and polymath arrived at this exact conclusion. the only people who reject this are cringe materialists (go to /sci/ and don't forget the fedora faggot) or coping sinners who can't redeem themselves.
you are not liked here, because god hates all things which violate his divine principle of beauty. he gave you the chance to co-create with him, as a fractal inside his creation but you reject him for you are spiritually ugly.

>>39228677
You're focusing on ultimate causation, but agency in soft determinism works as functional causation like i said. Our consciousness, the mental processes that we use to reflect, deliberate, and choose based on values and reasoning, creates a form of agency within the chain.

That agency doesn't break causation, it works as an intermediary level that shapes outcomes based on individual deliberation. That's what i'm trying to say. In soft determinism, agency isn't self caused or random, it’s a process where we integrate influences (genes and environment) with conscious, reflective choice. And there is an abstract profile to this because we don't know exactly what consciousness is and we aren't able to produce accurate metrics for all its dynamics. This is why representing this with a simple chain just doesn't cut it.

>>39228690
These conscious processes they describe are still entirely caused
The "integration" and "reflection" are caused
The way we "deliberate" is caused
Adding complexity doesn't create freedom

===========
YOUR ARGUMENT:

Consciousness is complex and not fully understood
Therefore it might work differently than simple causation
Therefore it creates meaningful agency

CORRECT?

=====
Counter argument:

Complexity doesn't escape causation
Uncertainty doesn't escape causation
"Not fully understood" doesn't mean "free from causation"

"it's complicated and mysterious, therefore it might be different."

But no matter how complex or mysterious:

Either the processes are caused
Or they're random
Or they require impossible self-causation

= mistakes complexity for freedom.

>>39228701
My argument isn't that complexity/mystery creates freedom, it's that consciousness processes causation differently than simple physical chains. Consciousness allows reflection, where various influences (values, knowledge, experience) interact to create unique, self directed choices. These aren't just effects in a simple chain, they’re complex responses shaped by engaged reasoning, which forms a genuine form of agency.

Soft determinism doesn’t deny causation, it redefines freedom as the capacity to choose in ways unique to our concious deliberation. This mediation lets us shape outcomes and introduce variability, even within causation.

I'm not saying personal agency is off the "causal chain", i'm saying the "causal chain" isn't just a simple straight patterned chain, there is variability and divergence, and that implies a certain degree of freedom that's based on this personal agency. When you says "either processes are caused or they're random" you're completely ignoring any form of personal agency in that equation. This might sound cliche, but shit isn't black or white, and that's pretty much an axiom at this point.

File: cool quote by known autho(...).jpg (77 KB, 640x480)

77 KB JPG

>>39228463
You are right, but the ability to accept this truth is biological, not a question of arguments and logic. An individual is either capable of accepting this truthful series of statements, or will bury their head in the sand and deny it with whatever means available to them. You can not change their mind on this, just as much as you can not change their nature.

>>39229270
No, hard relativism doesn't account for ineffability or paradox, which are part of natural dynamics, therefore it depicts a skewered view of reality for the sake of producing a neatly closed ended model. Hard relativism is an ideal, and as every ideal it ignores part of the picture for the sake of convenience.

>>39228463
>>39228515
Occam's razor is irrational, illogical, ignorant and you should get rid of it if you want to be ready for any true talk.
You write like an LLM, so i won't post too much. All your definitions are weak. You cannot truly talk about causation without knowing what it means AND YOU DO NOT. I don't either. We also don't know what matter, time, energy are. Stop believing so hard in your beliefs if you want true talk. As the other one itt said, i won't talk more until you concede a bit and show some humility instead of act as if you figured it out.

>>39229330
hard determinism*

>>39229330
Paradoxes are caused by false understanding, beliefs conflicting with reality. Your axioms and systems and semantics are false, so paradoxes are apparent, when you compare it to reality.
It's again what I'm talking about. On a biological level, how your psyche is constructed, you are incapable of seeing the truth, because it is in conflict with fundamental aspects of your nature. I'm not trying to convince you.

>>39229369
Not false understanding, but lack of understanding. In order to understand a paradox there needs to be a collapse of the duality of said paradox, in which case you get gray singularity, which is precisely what soft determinism attempts to represent.

Free will is an illusion but it does exist in that state.

Everything that could happen is happening all at once, forever, eternally. This is what GOD is.

Because of that, that everything that could happen is happening all at the same time, we don't necessarily have "free will" because it all has been "determined/is determined". It is. The boxes are already ticked.

HOWEVER, because we experience time in a linear fashion in these bodies, the gift of life (linear perspective) is also the literal gift of free will. You have the option to explore yourself completely, to head in different directions, to choose (for the most part) what you will experience in this avatar. People get bogged up on the very real fact that it is other humans that are the reason that "free will" cannot be exerted to its fullest extent- that happening and making free will hard to enact does not negate free will existing. As GOD, we may be alone, but as us, there's quite a few "people" to consider when you choose to act, in whatever way, positive or negative.

This is actually a key part of how manifestation works in our existence. Because everything is already happening, you simply have to decide what it is that's "going to happen" and take actions/steps to reach that desired state of being.

>>39229382
>Not false understanding, but lack of understanding.
If the paradox exists, it's false understanding, because there has to be a belief for a paradox to exist in the first place. There has to be a positive existence, a positive claim, a false understanding, for the paradox to be possible. This is, because you can't have an actual claim, with a pure lack of understanding. There has to be something else than just a lack of understanding.
With a genuine lack of understanding, a pure lack of understanding, there is no claim in the first place. Consider a rock. A rock has a pure lack of understanding, and such can offer no paradoxes, because it does not think or believe. It simply *is* and as such has the most true lack of understanding. No paradox to be found.

It's only when you produce a false claim, with false understanding, that you produce paradoxes.

>>39229445
If the paradox exists, it's a lack of understanding because you're only considering one of its poles, it's necessary to integrate both poles for a paradox to reconcile.

Human logic is limited, it ends where ineffability/paradox begins, and at that point you're left with intuitive recognition of insight, which is what many people have tried to communicate in esoteric frameworks over the centuries (tried). This limitations can easily be observed in self referential systems, such as "this sentence is false", this is a reflection of what happens in more complex systems and how they abolish straightforward thinking, there is no lineal chain of events to represent hard determinism, past a certain point there is no straight forward understanding, things become loopy and hard determinism doesn't have the tools to address this.

>>39229516
>Human logic is limited, it ends where ineffability/paradox begins,
This is an entirely unfounded and unprovable claim. This is just what you come up with so you don't have to accept the truth, which as said before, is something you're biologically incapable of doing.

Good day.

>>39229527
>human logic is limited
>can't accept the truth because you're biologically incapable of doing it
So we agree.

Good day.

>>39228463
>A thing cannot be its own cause
no thing is one thing,.

>>39229527
:)) he assumes his logic is unlimited. You're a weak bait and a poor excuse for a LLM

>>39228463
>reduction to physicalism

Nice bread.
Cope more.

>>39228463
Does this imposition of ideas on the nature of free will serve as medicine or poison? Are you helping your audience with these words or poisoning them? Regardless it is said the alchemist can fill their vessel with the light of the prima materia, the first cause. And the Buddhist state of nirvana is said to be a state beyond traditional cause and effect elevating consciousness above the impluses and ferality of the law of the jungle. I have experienced both of these and evidently you haven't so I have no need to regard your words as valid because you are speaking based on speculation and not experience.

>>39228471
Scientists have tens if not hundreds of thousands to conduct scientific experiments so there seems to be a disparity for what I can prove scientifically because I don't have the resources that scientists do. If I could get at least $50,000 to conduct my experiments I promise you I could prove the existence of free will.

>>39228657
I'm not the guy you've been arguing with, but what do you mean by "God is unknowable".

>>39229726
There's no will once you enter nirvana. Buddhism is very compatible with determinism, see dependent origination

>>39229775
Buddhism is compatible with determinism as long as karma is involved. The moment karma stops being a factor and we enter the nirvana territory determinism is no more. And this is the same trend seen in other messages in this thread, how determinism relies on logical causality and stops working when ineffability gets introduced.

>>39229775
I've entered nirvana before, but I don't have the scientific funding these institutions do, if you know a way I could get a grant or funding of $50-100k I could prove the existence of free will myself but until then you're just supporting the ideas of an intellectual monopoly.

>>39229876
>I've entered nirvana before
What was it like?

>>39229884
You feel like you're above everything yet supremely aware of everything at the same time as if your consciousness permeates every membrane of the cosmos.

File: 1hv0ob.jpg (798 KB, 1500x1000)

798 KB JPG

>>39228463
>Therefore free will cannot exist
Agreed
>Hard determinism is the only logical option
I don't know what that word means and I have a strange inclination not to find out.

Tbh, we haven't come to grips with everything that effects people so it will be difficult to find truth until we deal with it. Personally I think there's logical predetermination from your experiences combined with the angel/devil on the shoulder.

>>39229922
If some believes they don't have free will versus believing they have free will do you think there could be a measaurable difference in the agency of their actions? What could that difference be defined as?

>>39228463
>the universe is tailored for me

>>39229677
gay
>>39229726
our mental movies are different and unchangeable, but also wholly and entirely arbitrary
>>39229734
you can't make a square circle except inadvertently through making a conceptual error so you cannot.

>>39229964
What does squaring a circle have to do with the fact that I could objectively prove the existence of free will if I had $50-100k to conduct scientific experiments?

>>39229964
Our mental movies are arbitrary? Didn't you use your mental movie to devise that premise? So by that logic you're using your mental movie to disprove someone else's? So if that premise is that our mental movies are arbitrary then it disproves or negates itself because the media from which it originates is your mental movie.

>>39228463
why whould coinsiusness even exist on a hard determistic universe.

why whould it have that , if a man is the same as a rock why is the man self awere , is thier any way to know if the rock is self awere.

>>39230006
just because we use our minds to reason doesn't invalidate conclusions about how minds work. By this logic, we couldn't make any claims about consciousness/cognition at all. It's like saying "you used your brain to conclude brains can be unreliable, therefore your conclusion is invalid".

>>39230105
Your premise is that "our mental movies are different and unchangeable, but also wholly and entirely arbitrary", that's not a conclusion that's a postulation being that it was not prefaced by any sort of conjecture.

>>39230105
however in a determinst sense the conclusion is arbitrary and as is any other explanation. but a determined process can still reach valid conclusion as the logic is still sound.

>>39230119
it's pretty simple, people

We use logic to analyze free will (which leads to determinism)
We declare it beyond logic/understanding (making discussion pointless)

if free will is beyond logic/understanding:

We can't make meaningful claims about it
We can't test hypotheses about it
We can't build reliable knowledge about it
Any discussion becomes purely speculative
No conclusions can be verified or falsified

>>39228463
Something to consider is the theory of double causality. In it you'll find quite appealing explanations on this subject.

everything is already set on a certain path.

For the possibility of cause you need something to move it and as you probably realize is that free will
is a bumpy road. You can argue that since you cannot see the cause or what triggers it cause and effect must be final as in there is nothing else. But than again due to our own environment limiting us humans what would plausibly be the trigger to set things in a certain path obvious to the viewer that can see it or become aware of it we stand in the middle of it all like in plato's cave. So for you to say free will doesn't exist is mostly if not short sighted due to your emotional suffering. become aware of when something happens before it does than you'll see that everything moves on it's own within it's limitations and consciousness. much like bees, it needs to do these things. Lastly within our own sphere science can only go so far as to tell us the rules and limits within this sphere. To truly see what action is needed one would need to break these rules and limits.

File: 1645792835238.jpg (675 KB, 828x791)

675 KB JPG

>>39228471
>Appeals to mystery/magic
>muh scientism
Way to play yourself, Shiva

>>39228688
This

>>39230012
Consciousness is just another determined process/mechanism that evolved. Being "self-aware" vs "non-self-aware" is a difference in complexity/organization, not a magical property.

>>39230174
The core argument would hold even if science was wrong about causation. It's based on logical necessity rather than empirical claims.

>>39230190
The argument says: for free will to exist, something must cause itself, which requires existing before it exists. This impossibility exists independently of how causation works in reality. Even if science discovers new physics/causation, something still can't both exist and not exist simultaneously.

>is the only logical position
logic is very limited tool, usable only for very limited, mostly purely abstract problems

you have to you use different measuring tool for this subject

also you are mistaking measuring tool with a subject

>>39230179
Consciousness is relative to the individual, not only the individual but belief. If one believes they have no free will it is likely there will be less variation in their action, if one believes they have free will then it is likely they will demonstrate more independence and variation in their actions. From this it can be postulated that belief supercedes physical phenomena as a vector of causality. Consciousness itself operates on a number of different phenomena most notably electromagnetism is which is more intrinsically linked to quantum phenomena than other forms of physical matter, being that quantum phenomena is not inherently bound by a linear chain of cause and effect then it can be assumed consciousness at least imitates this non linear pattern of cause and effect as well. Claiming that a deterministic unitary chain of cause and effect is the primary arbitrator of consciousness is a flawed premise because the vectors of time and space are too multitudinous to be constrained to one linear path. If the difference between belief in free will and disbelief in free will can be measured according to variation of action then it can be assumed on some level that belief holds some sort of presidence over cause and effect on a material level. Consciousness can influence matter just through the act of observation which on a macrocosmic scale indicates that such a linear chain of cause and effect would loop in on itself with consciousness acting as a vector of causation implying that the understanding of a unitary unbreaking chain of cause and effect as the sole determinor of causality is flawed.

>>39230248
how do we evaluate "different tools" without logic?

>>39230283
logic is one of the tools, also i dont know how do you want to evaluate something logicaly without making an axiom first, you get idea how useles it is in that case and basicaly thinking trap

if you are asking about another tools than logic then briefly i can propose
>Empirical method
>Inductive method
>Deductive method
>Heuristic method
>Analytical method
>Synthetic method
>Dialectical method
>Phenomenological method
>Intuitive method
>Statistical method
>Comparative method

>>39228463
>It comes down to the impossibility of self-causation:
>Free will would require impossible self-causation

then be consistent and apply this rule to your hard determinism. what was the first prior cause in the chain of causation? according to you, self causation is impossible.

>>39228463
bruh this would’ve been dumb if you said in 1880
in 2024 it’s straight up retarded
learn what the fuck you’re talking about before spewing more shit philosophy fail

>>39228463
If the world was based on Newtonian mechanics you would have a good argument. Its not and willpower can literally effect random number generators. Fuck off with your "I believe in science" bullshit, while ignoring research that doesn't match your confirmation bias.

>>39230882
Accuses others of bias while showing clear bias
>>39230805
Not knowing the first cause doesn't invalidate causation. The argument is about logical impossibility of self-causation in choices, not about ultimate origins.

>>39230360
Yes, logic requires axioms, but basic logical rules (like something can't be its own cause) are necessary for any coherent argument.
Saying "logic is just one tool" doesn't solve the underlying paradox.
Even suggesting logic is "useless" requires using logic to make that claim.
Without basic logical axioms, we can't make any meaningful claims at all.

>>39231050
>Not knowing the first cause doesn't invalidate causation.
the point was the fact that by your own logic you cannot have a first cause compatible with your own premises.

notice how if the first cause is 1. non-caused and physical (that means you contradict yourself - because that would be both self-causation and without prior cause) or
2. non-caused and non-physical (so you're also wrong because free will can be possible)

>>39231130
First option (non-caused and physical):

I don't claim this exists
Would indeed violate the impossibility of self-causation
This actually supports our point about self-causation being impossible

Second option (non-caused and non-physical):

Even if this exists, doesn't grant physical beings ability to self-cause
Human choices would still need prior causes
Non-physical first cause doesn't make self-causation possible now

rather than getting derailed into unfalsifiable metaphysical speculation about ultimate origins we can say definitively that self-causation is impossible in our observable reality.

Perhaps there's infinite regress (no first cause)
Perhaps there's something we can't understand/access. Ultimately determinism doesn't need to address this as any answer is speculative and beyond our ability to verify.

But we can still analyze the logical impossibility of self-causation in our observable causal chain

>>39230179
yea in a practical sense but that is more so inteligence.

but like I am more so talking about your internal perspective anon , what it is to actually be a person , the internal video feed that servers no porpuse, why do we have eyes on the inside and I don't mean mental eyes.

>>39231226
The mind gives us a sense of control but its not real. We need to feel like we are making genuine choices in order for our experience of reality to be coherent instead of being pushed like a log down stream.

>>39231050
op you’re a fucking dumbass, stop acting like you think you’re smart, it’s pathetic

>>39231215
>First option (non-caused and physical):
>I don't claim this exists
>Would indeed violate the impossibility of self-causation
>This actually supports our point about self-causation being impossible

this isn't logical. If everything exists with a prior cause, then there is a chain of causation, because every cause has a cause. Either there is a first thing in this chain, or you say "it just happens magically that this chain has no beginning". both contradict your hard determinism.

>Second option (non-caused and non-physical):
>Even if this exists, doesn't grant physical beings ability to self-cause
all I need to disprove hard determinism is one non-physical fact to be true

>>39231263
no like anon you need to get deeper , this isn't about choices or ideas inside people.

in this materialistic hard deterministic universe , why do you have a perspective at all , why are you just not a hollow replicated quemical that still does the same things its suppused to do.

if everything is a reaction to something , not only should it be imposible in a fisics sence but it should also evolutionarely useless.


why does true subjectivity exist , everything should just be shapes changing over time.

>>39228463
>>Something to consider:
is the theory of double causality.
In it you'll find quite appealing
explanations on this subject.<<
>everything is already set on a certain path.<


For the possibility of cause you need
something to move it and as you
probably realize is that free will
is a bumpy road.

You can argue that since you
cannot see the cause or what
triggers it cause and effect
must be final as in there
is nothing else.

But than again due to our own
environment limiting us humans
what would plausibly be the
trigger to set things in a certain
path obvious to the viewer that
can see it or become aware of
it we stand in the middle of it
all like in plato's cave.


So for you to say free will
doesn't exist is mostly if not
short sighted due to your
emotional suffering.

Become aware of when something
happens before it does than you'll
see that everything moves on it's
own within it's limitations and
consciousness.

Much like bees, it needs to do these things.

Lastly within our own sphere science
can only go so far as to tell us the
rules and limits within this sphere.

To truly see what action is needed
one would need to break these rules and limits

>>39231287
Hard determinism only claims observable events require causes. Ultimate origins (first cause vs infinite regress) is a separate question.

It seems like you're trying to say: "if you can't explain the beginning, you can't claim causation exists". But this doesn't follow - like saying "if you can't explain how gravity began, you can't claim it works now". We don't need perfect knowledge nor solve ultimate metaphysical questions that have no answers.

>>39231350
>Hard determinism only claims observable events require causes. Ultimate origins (first cause vs infinite regress) is a separate question.

you can't say "just ignore this part of reality". your claim is that what exists must have a prior cause, then you say "no, ignore the part where the theory is inconsistent, we're not talking about that now". you are the one making the claims, I'm asking how you know and you're inconsistent

>>39231453
It's not "ignoring this part of reality" you stupid mother fucker. You are demanding impossible knowledge and using unfalsifiable questions to avoid observable logic. The question is unanswerable by design so any sincere attempt recognizes that "we do not know" the ultimate origins.

According to your logic:

We can't analyze ANY causal chain because:

Every cause needs a prior cause
Which needs a prior cause
Which needs a prior cause...infinitely


So we couldn't study:

How a ball rolls
How water boils
How plants grow
ANY chain of events

This is clearly retarded.

>>39231667
For any answer to be satisfactory to what you are actually proposing it faces these practical realities:

Can't observe beyond observable universe

Can't access pre-Big Bang conditions

Can't answer questions of what came "before" time since "before and after" are only coherent when time actually existed/was created in this universe.

Every cause needs investigation

Going back infinitely

Beyond human capacity to verify

>>39230209
>which requires existing before it exists
god always was, is and will be. you argue in spacetime, god is outside.
> something still can't both exist and not exist simultaneously
it can, it is called god. Learn about nothingness, non duality itself being a duality-pair with regular duality, ain soph aur if you are into the jewish principle. all words words words to say the same thing.
now kneel or go back to /sci/

>>39231785
exactly what i pointed out to this retarded, midwit, mouthbreather materialist faggot fedora tipper at the very beginning of the thread. his "rules" make his argument impossible to refute and then he just fedora tips and goes like "see, i win the argument". no retard you threw a temper tantrum, you can't into consistent definitions or parameters or arguments and metaphorically speaking just flipped over the table instead of reading the book openly laying there with your answer and then claimed there is no book and no answer.
absolutely pathetic shitshow of a thread, you can only assume OP is incredibly mentally stunted and hates his life or worse is just a shitty troll.

>>39231843
I am OP. But what are you trying to say?

>>39231924
exactly what I said. You got pointed towards inconsistent points in your argument from the very beginning but you just use a circular logic in a closed system of rules you made yourself and then apparently think we all MUST agree there is no free will. Sorry you stunted your own growth but there is free will, your rejection won't change reality.

>>39231937
You can refute determinism if you want, but requires:

But requires:

Solving self-causation paradox
Explaining how choices escape causation
Demonstrating mechanism for free will
Not just pointing to gaps in knowledge

>>39231940
solved here >>39231811 and in other comments above.
Choices escape causation because we solved your "paradox".
>Demonstrating mechanism for free will
can't be demonstrated to someone with your mindset, because you don't accept clear evidence and just claim it is "invalidated" by having previous causes(my neurons having chemical reactions etc. even though this does not agree with modern neurological studies which literally prove/very obviously hint at "mind over matter").

>>39231970
>by having previous causes(my neurons having chemical reactions etc. even though this does not agree with modern neurological studies

I think you misunderstand me. And this is a big reason I wanted to bring this up. Hard determinism is NOT fatalism.

Fatalism:

Nothing you do matters
Outcomes are fixed regardless of actions
No point in trying/effort
Future is set regardless of causes

Determinism:

Your actions ARE causes that create effects
Choices/effort DO change outcomes
You're part of the causal chain
Your decisions matter BECAUSE of causation

The crucial distinction:

Fatalism says outcomes are fixed despite causes
Determinism says outcomes follow from causes (including your actions).

Determinism explains (coherently) the mechanism for why we do the things we do but are not bound to the EFFECT unlike fatalism where nothing we do matters. It's breaking down mystical "free choice" into something understandable and verifiable.

>>39232035
Determinism:
Works with observable causation
Explains real processes

Fatalism:
Requires magical "destiny"
Breaks basic logic

We're not bound to effects because:

Our actions are causes
Causes create change
Different inputs = different outcomes
We're part of the causal process

>>39228463
your subjective experience of life will be far more happy and pleasant if you believe that you have free will, regardless of whether or not you actually do
therefore i choose to believe that i do

in a better world we would be burning you at the stake

You can "work harder" in the sense that causal chains can produce more effort/focus, but:

Not through magical free choice
Through determined processes playing out
Based on existing factors/causes
Creating actual results

different levels of effort are possible - they're just caused rather than freely chosen (self-caused) which is logically impossible.

Hard determinism does not mean fate, or we have a lack of agency. It means our choices and actions are part of the causal chain - they matter BECAUSE they're caused and create effects, not despite it.

Actions are real causes

Choices create effects

We're part of causation

Agency exists as causal process

Determinism explains HOW our actions matter (through causation) rather than negating their importance or explaining it with incoherent "free will".

>>39232035
>It's breaking down mystical "free choice" into something understandable and verifiable.
the most beautiful results come from free choices made despite reality and going in the opposite direction in a creative way. I understand the difference between fatalism and determinism, but even determinism takes away your dignity because it declares you not free but just a temporal witness in your universal cause-effect chain.
That is why god gave you free will. to co-create and find new beauty in creation through creation. Fractality.

>>39228463
What if there are types of machines that work differently using the forces of nature and allow for free will?

>>39228463
To answer this question I believe the answers lies in something similar to the double slit experiment. In the experiment photons send through a double slit would act differently when observed and when a observer was added mid way they would almost rewrite the past to show the oberved patted from the start. I think free will, fate, and consiousness works in a similar way of existing outside our understanding of time. You say that A thing cannont be it's own cause but if you see time in this way you could see your free will like a a string that stretched out from your consience. Your choice, your will, in retrospect will seem all planned out but reality the string that points to the future is always in flux. YOU are the guide to that string that shapes your fate and when you follow that path it will become your fate, do something else and that will become your fate, and in our understanding of time, consiousness, and free will, in whatever choice we made, in retrospect, will seem fated and having no freee will, but in reality it was always free will. You are the cause and effect of free will

>>39232102
>but even determinism takes away your dignity because it declares you not free but just a temporal witness in your universal cause-effect chain.

Determinism actually explains the REAL mechanism of how change happens:

New information/experiences cause new understanding
Understanding causes different behaviors
Different behaviors cause different outcomes

Determinism isn't removing our ability to change - it's explaining how change actually works in reality. "Free will" adds an unnecessary mystical layer to what's already a coherent natural process.

You can verify this yourself. Someone who's a fat ass doesn't suddenly get high inspiration to lose weight. They might experience health problems, face social pressure, or have a doctor's warning - these are all REAL causes creating the change in behavior. The 'decision' to lose weight comes from actual causes, not magical free will appearing from nowhere.

>>39232210
and that entire paragraph is why you will forever be stunted. You are not free, you just declared yourself a slave to your made up, self-imposed matrix of your definitions of cause and effect. As I said in the very beginning: Enjoy while it lasts, if you don't change this is your last ride on the wheel.
I will talk to god now and then have him answer me in my dreams, farewell anon, I truly tried everything with you.

>>39228497
The op post seems to say a effect cannot be a cause, but at the same time says a cause must also be an effect...

>>39228463
You have free will, but only to a limited extent.
And believing in free will increases its scope and power.

>>39229932
>do you think there could be a measaurable difference in the agency of their actions?
If neither party thinks about it then no. If they do, then both parties are different and cannot be compared side by side as equals, they had two different experiences which can effect their lifepaths.

>>39232449
Wouldn't believing one has free will require thought and disbelieving imply a lack thereof? I think even with a solitary individual free will can be proven through measuring the difference in variation of action through believing in free will versus lack thereof, I just don't have the funding to prove it. You know where I can get a grant of $50,000-$100,000 so I can conduct my research?

>>39232240
Everyone is in their own matrix of cause and effect. The difference is that it's not a prison because we can change the causes that lead to desired outcomes.

Determinism is just explaining the HOW instead of making an appeal to mystical free will as the explanation of how we make certain choices. Our views aren't really that different except that determinism provides a coherent explanation when a free-will advocate can't even explain where it comes from or why we have it.

Think of literally any decision you have ever made. Not one of them was made completely spontaneously based on "nothing". All had causal pretext building up to it.

File: 111124dailystormermeme20-(...).jpg (250 KB, 1235x1536)

250 KB JPG

Determinism is just common sense because every time I make a choice there's always some kind of reason for it that stems back to my childhood and experiences and my inborn nature. If I had the genes and upbringing of Ted Bundy then maybe I'd be a serial killer too. "Free will" is just retarded and makes no sense at all.

>>39232536
This anon nails it. We all have competing forces in the moment and whatever the strongest force is at that time wins. It doesn't constrain our possibilities, it just makes certain possibilities far more likely than others. We can shape the possibilities though new knowledge, habits, experiences, etc.

>>39231667
you're missing the point again. I deduced the inevitability you run into with your own logic and came to conclusions, you refuse to answer how it can be possible for a physical chain of events to start, while keeping self-causation as an impossibility (you're claiming this)

nobody denied causation, your claim is a metaphysical one, not a physical one.

you can't defend hard determinism by defeating arguments nobody has made

op is correct but it's not what the free-will discussion was historically about.
free-will, love, values, meaning, preferences etc all exist in subjective reality, not objective reality. free-will is a concept to help us think about our actions, whether it's objectively real or not. whether one could have theoretically acted in any other way (which would prove what you mean by 'free-will') is besides the point and not what the discussion has been about. common mistake, dont sweat it.

>>39232501
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2106725
1972, you are more than 50 years behind.

>>39234862
Also you should read and understand Gödel's incompleteness theorems.
This paper link is sadly locked, but just the preview page already shows how wrong hard determinism is in philosophy.
If you read you should be part of a university anyways.
The important philosophical question you should ask yourself is your paradox in relation to an infinite chain(time has no beginning or end = no first effect without a previous cause) and what implications arise with infinities. So what I am saying is that you are using simple logic to approach a problem that needs to be solved in maths instead.

>>39234862
People who argue against determinism are never consequent enough in applying it.
In that "paradox", if I always prefectly know my future, a prediction where I just get run over by a bus despite me knowing that I will get run over would never happen in the first place.

>>39234924
In other words, in that view there would never be any unforseen circumstances so I would just take the optimal path from the beginning so I never see a future event that would need changing.

>>39234935
obviously they will argue you are human and do not have perfect knowledge of the system.
That is why your argument is right, but misses his hard determinism points.
The real point is in maths, infinities, chaos theory and quantum physics. He pseudo-refutes this line of reasoning by claiming randomness is not free will.
What he ultimately misses is that free will is an emergent property OF true randomness coming from the "seed" algo the universe runs on.
OP is a philosophy nut though from having read the full thread now, he can't do more than surface level philosophy logic.

>>39234948
>What he ultimately misses is that free will is an emergent property OF true randomness coming from the "seed" algo the universe runs on.
That's a hypothesis without proof. The AI folks would pay you billions if you came up with an algorithm that turns randomness into free will

>>39234977
We already have proof, we are in the middle of a slow AI rollout. Why do you think most of the planet received a sterilizing agent and we are soon to get a new and unified world religion and world government?
The arc-prize is a honeypot.
If you want to understand you need to read what I mentioned above.

>>39234994
The eyes of the Omnissiah, are ever upon us

>>39234935
people who argue for determinisilm based on the hypothsis that the future is determinable if only we could calculate all potential variables are so concquesential to the world and its nature that they skipped philosophy of mathematics - ie math cant even discrete the raito of a single circles edge to its radius and you think it can accurately predict the future by collating ALL potential variables. lol

>>39235006
the end of the golden path was already here before one would could be ever place at once emerged

>>39235015
I don't think that. I was just taking the premise of that paper seriously.
Chaotic systems can't be predicted for an infinite amount of time without infinite computing power. That said, every state change of the chaotic system is completely determined by its current state with no room for free will.
It's the same for halting problems, etc

>>39235050
I think you understand the word determined as "the chaotic pendulum is determined to keep swinging in *some* way and thus can't have free will". Am I understanding you correctly?

>>39235050
infinite computational power could never calculate pi (nor summat all things) dose your general view of determinism account for any form of retrocausal variables?

>>39235015
Determinism asserts that all events are causally inevitable, not that they're all predictable (or controllable).

>>39234899
It's funny that you mention Gödel's incompleteness theorem because, as I understand it, it provides exactly the counterexample that the paper suggests is necessary to avoid paradox but impossible to obtain: a hypothetical event whose outcome can't be known (even approximately) but which is still inevitable.

Since Gödel's first incompleteness theorem implies that for any consistent finitely describable sufficiently strong theory of arithmetic, there will be infinitely many true statements about the standard model of the natural numbers which can't be deduced from the theory, if we were to suppose that the outcomes of some real life events were somehow dependent on true/false answers to arbitrary questions about the standard model of the natural numbers, then although those outcomes may be definitely predetermined in that there can only be one correct answer about them, it may be the case that for some of them no human could determine the outcome unless they were able to hold infinite information in their head.

So if you were God, you could make a universe where all sorts of outcomes are dependent on answers to those types of questions, and the finite beings inside the universe would be totally unable to distinguish between what you've done and randomness even though technically none of it is random at all.

Although I doubt that such events occur in practice (and I don't actually believe in full hard determinism—a certain amount of true randomness inherent in nature even at the ordinary human level doesn't seem impossible to me) the fact that the author of the paper makes what I believe is an incorrect conclusion on page one doesn't do much to persuade me of the quality of the rest of the paper.

>>39235611
My opinion of free will is that it totally makes sense as a concept for practical purposes in that it's often useful to distinguish between outcomes that are largely the result of someone's usual preferences and habitual decision making process as opposed to outcomes that were uncontrollable or unforeseeable by them, so we can hold each other morally responsible for actions. But it's hard to come up with an idea of free will that is ontologically basic, i.e. a core feature of reality that is somehow distinct from randomness but not actually predetermined. So I don't think free will can be used as an answer to the problem of evil, which I suspect is the discussion topic that this thread branched off of.

>>39235619
Or Idk maybe free will is randomness together with the subjective perception that you're in control of it. It's not just any randomness, it's your randomness. And somehow that's different.

>>39235611
think a little harder you are very close. it took you 3+ hours to come up with this, surely you can go a little further.
>>39235619
Free will is not really related to the problem of evil and the problem of evil is even easier to solve than free will.
>>39235666
go a little further, meditate a bit on it. You are close, but you keep trying to get a worded answer out of discussion. A worded answer from someone else can't cause the same enlightenment you crave.

>>39235611
Re: The universe with outcomes indistinguishable from randomness, I guess technically that isn't different from God just preselecting the outcome to an event as a basic axiom of the universe, so Gödel's incompleteness theorem isn't needed and my suggestion involving it was really unnecessarily complicated. It sounds less satisfying when put the simpler way though.

File: 1731342555262645.jpg (95 KB, 554x553)

95 KB JPG

>>39235682
I'll have you know that I came up with that in the instant I was reading the commen I was responding to which is why it's so half-baked. Idk what I'm supposed to be close to according to you.

>>39235701
Gödel's incompleteness theorem when applied to second order arithmetic still provides an example of a system that is fully specified with a finite description but still has some answers that can only be determined with infinite computation, I think (though there's some nuance to that I'm not autistic enough to be certain about). So maybe potentially our universe could have something similar going on at times with the deepest laws of physics somehow that maybe potentially somehow has effects in day-to-day life. I suspect that physicists would say probably not, but isn't unimaginable to me.

>>39235764
Sounds a bit like Penrose's idea
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrated_objective_reduction

>>39235777
>An essential feature of Penrose's theory is that the choice of states when objective reduction occurs is selected neither randomly (as are choices following wave function collapse) nor algorithmically. Rather, states are selected by a "non-computable" influence embedded in the Planck scale of spacetime geometry. Penrose claimed that such information is Platonic, representing pure mathematical truths

Yes, that is exactly the sort of thing I was thinking of. Though I don't see how it could have anything to do with consciousness and I don't think it provides an especially satisfying notion of free will either, since although it may be both predetermined and unpredictable at the same time, it lacks any inherent "belongingness" to a specific individual or property of "having been chosen by" a specific individual.

>>39235701
maybe you are farther than I thought then. Asking won't get you closer, there is no worded answer.

>>39235666
>>39235777
Satan and God approve of these comments.

>>39235835
>Though I don't see how it could have anything to do with consciousness and I don't think it provides an especially satisfying notion of free will either
Same but it's probably the only part of known physics where these things could hide