A pointless question. There is no way to know, and either result has the same outcome.
Word games and arguments about word meaning aside, it is apparent in my day to day observations that "free will" exist. It is practical to believe it. And the arguments and evedence (mostly semantics and postmodernist/deconstructionist in nature) to the contrary aren't convincing to me.
The fad of determinism here is just a coping mechanism and convenient justification rather then a conclusion reached from a sincere search for truth.
Humans are machines that shaped into what they are by genetics and environment
your framework is bad and that's why you get confused by an unsolvable problem. words and symbols capture very little when direct experience is on the table. philosophy is at best a tool to destroy bad ideas, not even good enough to be an enjoyable game.
Normalfags and their opinions are not welcomed here.
Claiming that determinism is fad here is just a coping mechanism and convenient justification rather then a conclusion reached from a sincere search for truth.
In the end your choises are heavily infuenced by such things as genetics or environment.
genetics only gets you a baseline of functionality. environment only fucks you over until you can use the internet, then you're on the same level as everyone else in terms of exposure.
"Free" is only a euphemism for skill or ability. You can always substitute the word with "can" or "able to do xy". Obviously there are limitations to what you can do.
"Will" is only a synonym for preference. Obviously you cannot choose your preferences. For example: you can either eat sausages with mustard or with ketchup. And and first sight it seems that this is a typical case for free will, but some people don't like ketchup so they choose mustard. It was no really a free choice. You cannot choose your preferences. You simply have them.
Preferences are determined by genetics and environment. Abilities too. So does free will exist? In my opinion not. But as the concept was named "free will" many people think it to be true. Simple because the words seem to imply it. But the truth is you have no control over your preferences nor your abilities, because both highly depend on genetics and environment or in other words on randomness and pure coincidence. One mistake now is to think that everyhing is predetermined. It is not as coincidence makes perfect prediction impossible. But that has little to do with "free will".
it doesnt exist in the practical sense because you simply cant "will" things into existence, you are only "free" to think you do…which is an illusion
I broadly agree with you. My current view is that we will always act in accordance with preferences that we do not consciously control, and so for any situation in the past we could not have acted differently to the way in which we did. This doesn't require that nature is deterministic - randomness or unpredictability aren't enough to give rise to that kind of agency.
Character is genetics too and in turn heavily infiuenced by environment unless you happened to be some legit chad.
I feel the same way that "free" and "able to" match, however I respectfully disagree with what you said after.
While it is true that you aren't free to do literally anthing (otherwise you'd be a god). As an individual, you are still strictly governed by the laws of the universe and by societial rulings as well, however, I think it should be noted that such limiting aspects are above a certain treshold of existence that far reach beyond what free will as an individual might contain. For an example: You cannot really will yourself to be weightless and fly away wherever you want to by your lonesome, because the laws of physics do not allow you to. It really has nothing to do with "free will" on an the level of the individual.
I would also disagree with will equating preferences. Preferences are part of your character or personality, but will is disctinct.
Think of the word will. "I will". I will go. I will do.
Will is, in my understanding is both a promise and an action. It is dedication towards achieving a particular result. "The power of will" is just the power to keep to such an action.
As such, I believe that intrinsically, Will is seperate from preference (preference falling more under Desire - as you prefer ketchup, you desire the ketchup over mustard), and is rather an action that something you possess passively that you defer to. You "execrise" will/willpower, but you don't really "exercise" preferences.
Given proper willpower and discipline, someone can willingly choose to do something that goes contrary to their desires (or preferance). Of course such action must usually be wholly conscious and deliberate, because humans by nature, just as animals seek pleasure and avoid pain. In that regard it is I believe it to be understandable that not everyone will go out of their way to do something which they've no want or desire to do, say eat it with mustard instead of ketchup.
Ultimately, as you might have guessed, I do believe that free will exists, or rather, the power to keep to the promise of will exists, albeit I also realize that it isn't something that is by default there, and instead is something that has to be trained and reached for. An individual is aught to rise above the animalistic nature were he to desire to pluck the fruit of free will.
*As such I believe Will is rather an action than something you passively possess that you defer to (preferences).
Sorry for all the typos.
To be fair, I think it could also be reasonably argued that "rising above your preferences" might be a preference unto itself. I could see reason in such statements.
Can't the things that you're describing as being willed (and distinguishing from base "preferences") be explained as the result of other preferences?
For example, my base preference might be to spend the evening at home playing video games rather than at the gym, since the latter involves physical discomfort, exhaustion, etc. However, I may reason to myself that exercise has long-term benefits and conclude that my "preference" is to forgo the immediate pleasure of sitting at home playing games in pursuit of a delayed reward, i.e. a greater feeling of wellbeing, fitness etc.
This gives the illusion of choice since I have had to compare two dissimilar outcomes (instant gratification v a delayed benefit), but at the end of the day of I had no control over where my preference would lie.
I believe in a sort of soft determinism. I think we have free will but that we are simply limited by our biological nature. This firstly means that we are limited by the laws of physics and our evolutionary history. We are forced/compelled to feed ourselves, avoid pain, procreate and so on, our mind is contained within a physical organ called the brain which for evolutionary reasons acts in automatic ways so what modicum of free will you have is always influenced by your past and your embodied nature.
It's also "soft" because I believe it can be transcended through technology and human evolution eventually. Until then however, we're mostly limited to finding "tricks" to deal with our automatic nature, reverse engineering our minds to gain more control.
You cant even control your own thoughts. We are all one small brain injury away from thinking completely differently and making completely different actions. Or maybe it just happens that people choose to act like drooling retards every time they are kicked in the head by a horse.
As I see it will is connected to the words "want", "wish" and/or "desire". Example: It is my will → It is my wish. I subsummed these words under the word "preferences". It is clear that no one is able to will anything what he can think of.
I want to give a few other examples as the "ketchup or mustard" example was not the best one.
Example sexuality: It is not possible for someone to will himself in any arbitrary sexuality. If someone is heterosexual he will not be able to change his sexual preference to lets say homosexual.
Example wizards: Most people on this imageboard are superintroverts. So they have the clear preference to be alone. This means that being a wizard is not really a choice, it is not an act of free will, it is by and larged predetermined.
Example racism: If someone is white and dislikes blacks then it will not be possible for that person to give up his racism. Racism is not really a choice. Again this is a preference and this preference will not change simply because he wants it.
And many other examples but I think you all get the point. Most things are no free choices. If you really hate it to communicate with people then the chances are obvioulsy much higher of becoming a wizard. Ultimately all boils down to genetics and influences of the environment.
>Ultimately, as you might have guessed, I do believe that free will exists
If someone observes people who tend to believe in free will and people who do not, then people who do believe are better off. Believers think they can influence things and take responsibility for it. So they have stronger preferences to endeavor. Non-believers tend to be disheartend and give up faster. So maybe it is good for you when you disagree with me.
That is a solid point to make, albeit I would like to note that in such a case, there are several factors which should be brought to light.
The first would be that if you are able to think a preference through, or judge it and act accordingly and go against it to establish a new preferance that is contradictory to the first one, you already did ascertain *some* level of control over your preferance. If a preferance were to be hard coded, going against it (I think) eould be much more harder and involved than just thinking it through.
Ultimately 2 opposites rarely do work at the same time in 1 individual (you cannot be lazy but work out at the same time - on a grander level, as one could be lazy in one thing and involved in another, but in general, you wouldn't exactly call someone who works out lazy). If we think of that idea, possessing the ability to think through a preferance and modify it or reverse it even (from lazing to going to the gym), is that not already excercising your ability to overcome a preference you have? Surely you could say that it is just switching one preferance to another, but the fact that you *can* change one to another is already, in my opinion a testament that you do have some control or freedom over it. If you'll allow me to say, I think you treat preference more akin to desire whereas given proper stimuli it might very well change. The example which you brought up I think is more of a battle between the desire to take it easy and the desire to not be out of shape or lazy. Without a question, these desires do exist, but I would disagree about calling them a preferance in specific.
A preference is something you "autodefault" or defer to. For an example, if somebody likes ketchup over mustard (to borrow the previous example from a wizard), if your preference is ketchup, you will just go with ketchup unless you forcibly not. You could bring up the point that this ketchup loving individual desires ketchup every time, but considering the conditions under which these choices are made, I wouldn't completely agree.
The thing about desires is that they function similiarly like a fire. Something sparks them, the fire (desire) then grows. It is either fed or not, then once it's burned out (fulfilled or unfulfilled), it dies down and a new fire takes it's place that is different. Ultimately, these desires could also be boiled down to cravings. Cravings are either satisfied or not, but they are individual and active. If you get a craving for a certain food for example, it's usually isn't something that you have lying around in your fridge at the moment, but something you do not have. It does, I think only possesses a temporal and singular goal, and that is to satisfy itself (I wanna eat pizza - so I order it). It is something that expands outwards towards something in specific.
A preference is something more permanent. It's not like you get that kinda craving for ketchup every time you use it, but you still prefer it over mustard. In this case, it isn't necessarily only desire to eat ketchup, but also a desire to not eat mustard. If I had to compare more concentrated what I mean, desire is more like a craving, and preferances are more like habits.
You did also say that it is an illusion of choice that this leads onto, so I'd like to pose this idea. If such illusions are capable of moving you in different directions as an individual, and they are indeed just illusions, who is it to say that you cannot fight fire with fire and co-opt the illusionary process of self to nudge yourself towards where you wish to be? Y'know, "If it looks like a dog, walks like a dog and barks like a dog…". If you imagine yourself as a garden, having a gardener isn't that far fetched, and who better to tend to it than your very own self? Ah, but I am spouting. In any case, I implore you to do consider such an idea and think about it. I think since our views are pretty different, you should have sight on things that I myself do not see.
yeah it exists, and youre a fucking cuck if you think it doesnt. as i understand, most of you think that nobody will ever do something that they dont want to, but what about like every fucking hero ever? as an example let me use terry fox, he had cancer so to raise money for cancer research he ran halfway across Canada and died in the process. he could have sat in a hospital bed and tried to recover but instead he tried to help people he had never met before. there are probably thousands more people like him that didnt have to do something but they did.
another thing is that i believe a lack of belief in free will is why there are so many mentally ill faggots today. if someone is diagnosed with ADHD by some jew, they will accept it as how they are. is that not completely fucked up? what happened to virtues and vices? trying to improve yourself? thats not what happens anymore, they will just think their brain is broken and they cant fix it. everyone has control over their brain, and how they feel, most people are to lazy to exercise that control.
>>160795>had cancer → didn't have to do something.
Is this even an serious example? Of course he was forced to do something. Heroes only help others to help themselves. Altruism does not exist. They do it to impress succubi and to reproduce, because succubi like men with a high social prestige.
>diagnosed with ADHD
Diseases are not really the best counter examples that free will does exist. If you are diagnosed with ADHD your attention span is weak. A few sentences later you talk about to lazy to control their mind. All buddhism is based on meditation and concentration but if you have ADHD you have huge problems in staying focused. Without focus it looks very bad.
You have solid points. But I would say that changes in preferences are "predetermined" or lets say forced to some extent. All this decisions are in the brain. As I see it, it is all about neuroplasticity. The structure of the brain is changing continuously. Therefore preferences change over time. Example: Most young people like ice cream, burgers, french fries, etc. but when they get older most of them switch to a more digestible nutrition. The body changed and therefore they preferences changed too.
So I think changes in preferences do not imply that free will exists. I believe in genetics and influences of the environment. So if you have a positive experience from switching from ketchup to mustard, then this might result in a change of preferences. Some also brought up the example of the gym. It is more comfortable to stay at home than to train. But if you go to the gym and you felt good afterwards then you have made a positive experience. Meaning that your brain structure might change and that now you prefer the gym over staying at home. So it is about neurochemical processes.
tl;dr >A preference is something you "autodefault"
True about several things, but experiences might build new preferences.
I think 4chan is more suited for you
everything that makes up your brain is subject to natural laws, so no, there is no free will in that sense
consciousness isn't a product of your brain's functions, in my view, it's a fundamental property of matter and energy
what I'm trying to say in so many words is that the atoms of a chair, matter in the center of the sun and atoms that make up your brain are all equally conscious
you are everything you think isn't you
How we make choices is determined by our genes (personality type, IQ, etc) and upbringing. We can’t choose those freely. Therefore, free will does not exist
Free will definitely exists. Only cowards and stupid people deny its existence. Sure, it is certainly easier to blame your failures on genetics and environment and whatever but not realizing your power - that is your freedom at how you react to things and how you can influence your environment - is the same as turning away from the truth. Certainly, in the minds of these sick people free will "doesn't exist" but only because they CHOSE not to believe in it. With this deterministic attitude indeed, if everyone thought like this during history, we would still be living like savages. "What does it matter to TRY, I'm genetically a failure boo-hoo" - imagine if kings, generals, saints, artists, researchers and other noble people of mankind thought like that! We would be NOWHERE! Do you understand this in your rotten brains, O you fatalists? No comfy laptop, no heating, no toilet paper to wipe your behinds with! "What is self-control, I'm a rapist and this is determined by genes and environment so I will go and rape people!" - who the hell would think like that? "What do CHOICES matter, it had to be this way and couldn't have happened otherwise!" - thinks the fool who is too afraid to realize the truth: it could have happened otherwise.
Your points are far from wrong, although I would still disagree on some aspects.
Firstly, that preferences can change according to the changing individual is true in my eyes as well. So, as such, I feel the need to bring up a certain point to consider. Human existence is intrinsically finite. There is only so much you can do or experience in a lifetime, even accounting for all the possible variables. To be completely free from such finity, your existence would need to equal that of a god. A god's existence (or rather an all encompassing god's existence) would be the only infinite existence, and as a continuation, the only existence that is truly free from any and all limitations imposed by the "fact of existence".
I feel like (and please correct me if I am wrong) what you would call "freedom" or "free will" lies in the area where neither your body, neither your mind and personality or self imposed any limitations on you. If such is the case, I think the scope at which you look at existence isn't the same with which I look through. An interesting question to seek an answer to would be if this diverging in scope is what creates (or aids in the creation) of the opinion of free will in a human.
I would also definitely agree that experience is required to create a preferance. You cannot prefer something that you do not have a prior experience with - or if given a choice, a negative experience with the other choice, albeit an arguement vould be made that not prefering something is a preferance onto itself.
Now, if you'd allow me a question. If we accept that preferances can change, and that experience is needed to develope a preferance, then what would you refer to the state that is inbetween the first experience to start the developement of a preferance, and the moment you decide to have your first experience?
In my opinion it would be Desire, for you can desire that which you do not have or have not experienced. Since one cannot develop a preferance towards something without experience first, but to have your first experience, you need to actively seek it out.
Now, a counterpoint that you might bring up is that when given choice between multiple questions, someone can choose not just because of attraction to an option (say A) but repellance from another option (Say B), which would be a very fair arguement to make, albeit when given the choice such as that is when our own ideas on free will would ultimately contrast eachothers. For clarification, in my opinion, nobody just "has" or "has not" free will. It isn't just an on off switch. On top of that, by being mindful and getting to know one's habits and preferences, I do believe one can have an active mediator role and go against his own preferances.
Did you perchance ever read about Freud's idea of Id, Ego and Superego? I don't wish to appear a smartass by writing what it means, so in case you are not familiar, please forgive me for not describing it.
Freud also insinuated that the Ego's job is to please both the Superego and Id's "whims" so to speak, and balance them in such a way that neither receives too much or too little. I think this idea is similair to the one that you yourself are the overseer/balancer of your own material and immaterial (or spiritual) self. To me, what you are describing isn't the end product that defies me, but rather, something which I must account for. I personally see preferances akin to guidelines of who I am that I can, and need to navigate through life.
In the grand scheme of things, I do actually believe that this topic is much deeper than what we have talked about, and without a shadow of a doubt I have but my points to offer, so please do express your views as well.
not an argument. Also b8
This is probably bait but many low iq people actually think this
'I won't argue with you because I can't.' Nice, the quality of this site is really going down.
You seem to confuse no free will with determinism. Look at OPs posted picture. There is also hard indeterminsim.
You have some very interesting points and I will try to share my opinions in the most accurat way that is possible.
First of all I would like to clarify some points. The first thing I want to clarify is that my opinion can be summarized as indeterminism. And the next thing I have to say is that in my native language "will" means want. So the word "will" is synonymous to want.
You said that you felt like that free will implies no limitations for me. My argumentation suggested that and I argued in that way because it is the easiest way to show that absolute free will does not exist. However, that does not necessarily mean that free will does not exist. So I don't necessarily call free will all that has no limitations. From now on I will consider that.
How do I refer to the state inbetween and am I familiar with the ideas of Freud? Yes I know that theory and I try to answer both questions in one. I am not the biggest fan of psychoanalysis and as you already might have guessed I prefer behaviourism and neurobiology. I would refer to these states inbetween with the following names:
-This states can be reflexes. So we react to something (behaviourism).
-Genetics. There are situations where you yourself have not experienced something before, but your ancestors did. And the experience of your ancestors are in your genes.
-the brain is something that always commands your attention. The brain is always eager to learn something new. I mean that is the fundamental function of the brain to learn something. If you don't make new experiences that the potential of the brain is limited. I believe when this is the case desires pop out and then you want to experience something new.
Another point is chance/randomness/coincidence. I believe that chance produces many possible outcomes. I give one illustrative example. Take a (fair) die and roll it then the outcome will be 1,2,3,4,5,6. But no one would say that a die has a free will, altough the outcome is not predetermined. The only thing that is predetermined (if the die is fair) is the distribution. Now lets assume the die is not fair and you roll it then the outcomes are 1 and 6. I think that people behave just the same way as the dice. Some people are more open (openness is largly fixed. Also compare the big-five personality test) and other people have stronger inherent preferences and behave very predictable.
I think that logic is only a part of statistics. When you only consider probabilities where P = 1 or p = 0 you can call that logic. But the truth is that there are far more probabilites namley everything between 0 and 1. So I think that free will is an illusion. It appears like we have free will because the are so many options. Also chaos theory has to be considered. Even a small deviation can cause completely different results (butterlfy effect). This is also true for free will. Even small deviations in the everyday life can lead to different preferences.
My last point is AI and robotics. I think that there will be a point in time when AI and robotics are so advanced that it is possible to build a robot that is not distinguishable from a human. So this AI will pass every Turing test. Then it seems crystal clear to me that we can never assume that this robot has a free will, as the robot is programmed. The code of this robot will be based on statistical learning and other complex stochastic processes. But again how can we ever assume that this robot has a free will? Of course a robot is not a human, but then again what is the difference if the robot can pass every Turing test? The only differences in my opinion are materialistic. Organic vs anorganic or flesh vs metal or biological vs technological etc.
I mean it also depends on your other psychological and philosophical belief systems. If you are rather into psychoanalysis and immaterialism for example, then it is my feeling that we are talking about 2 sides of the same coin.
That are my points so far. I am looking forward to hear your points.
>>160805>Of course he was forced to do something
yeah he was forced to do SOMETHING. there were 2 choices, receive treatment for his cancer and potentially survive, or run halfway across canada to raise money. however, he was not forced into either one of these choices and despite one being a lot easier than the other, he chose the hard way.
>They do it to impress succubi and to reproduce
nigger what the fuck do you not understand, its a marathon, no time for fucking succubi on the way. he never had kids. it was very clear to him he would not survive his marathon, therefore what he was doing was altruistic because he would die before benefiting from his actions. he was not helping himself, he was hastening his death.
>if you have ADHD you have huge problems in staying focused
yes, and what im getting at is that people with ADHD arent consciously focusing on focusing, as a buddhist would. they need to learn how to focus at least at a level that a normal person can.
The thread is not framed as a determinism only circle jerk.
Wizards can choose to think differently from each other on this subject.
The only constant in life is change. People can't help but change over time.
>>160909>The thread is not framed as a determinism only circle jerk.
Unfortunately, it seems to be a determinist circlejerk. I blame /dep/ as the cause of determinism-fanatism present on this site.
No, we're the sum of our genetics and our experiences. When simple people attack determinism they usually build a strawman of some fat fuck on the couch eating potato chips, or some similar image of a loser, and point out it's ridiculous to say that this person can't improve or something similar. In reality the decision to improve or change is the result of genetics and previous experiences. There's no magic bullshit that comes in, the decision is a product of that person's emotional state and thought processes. If someone makes a "good" decision it's just a statement of how well their machinery is working and what kind of product the sum of their experiences, genetics, and environment churned out.
Whether it's real or not makes virtually no difference in our everyday lives though, unless you really go down the rabbit hole thinking it through. I may believe in determinism but I'll still call people retards or assholes, even though under my view they can't help it. And as >>160959
most people are just using these beliefs as coping mechanisms. Losers use them to comfort themselves about being losers. Winners use them to build a narrative of what an awesome person they are. Total shitshow.
Claims that you haven't proven. Its absurd to think this thread made you reply LMFAO. Did your genetics made you reply to this thread?
Personality traits are highly heritable.
If that's true then wizards wouldn't exist, as they were born from parents that obviously had sex, and so would be inclined to have sex.
That doesn't really follow. Environment still exist.
Don't the vast majority of people believe in free will? Its certainly the default position people will have if they haven't really thought about it before.
I don't think so. Most people simply don't think about this kind of thing and if they do lots of them believe that God/fate/destiny or some other power leads their lives.
>>160994>Personality traits are highly heritable.>Environment still exist
Therefor >That doesn't really follow
Dude, no. You can't be this bad at logic. This is a joke right?
Ideally yes, that would be the case. Uninformed idiocy is rampant.
It never made sense to me what free will even means.
There's a particular future that will happen (or many futures if you believe in that multi-verse stuff). How can your will be free when that future is 100% guaranteed?
…or non-free for that matter. It just seems dumb and poorly defined.
All possible futures are one hundred percent guaranteed
Free will means you are responsible for your choices. You know, this is how sane men and non-whiners think like.
Determinism was invented so that weak people could blame their failures on environment, genetics and on everything they liked. But whatever helps you sleep peacefully at night, I guess…
So you admit your statements regarding how most people think were baseless?
>>161113>There's a particular future that will happen
What makes you assume that is correct?
Not everything can be known for certain, in those cases it is important to form your own opinion.>>161131
It is based on my experience.
No, it is important to withhold judgement in those cases so as to prevent misinformed decisions and generally making an ass of yourself.
Are you so butthurt because I dared to point it out that maybe you aren't a special snowflake just because you fell for the retarded determinism meme? But really, read some literature my friend if you want to know humanity's general opinion on this question: you will encounter fate, gods and other non-sense that is supposed to predetermine our whole lives again and again.
It feels more like people are arguing about self control and personal responsibility than free will, but then maybe it really is all linguistic confusion and my idea of free will is different from everyone else. Of course it would turn into a self improver vs fatalist fight, why wouldn't it be?
Isn't everything like rolling dice? Normies get a 6 with a p = 1/6. This means sometimes they are lucky and get a 6 and sometimes they are unlucky and get a 1. If you are a very successful person then for example you get a 6 with p = 0.80. Meaning that this person has always luck on his side or has very rarly bad luck. If you a wizard then you get a 6 with p = 0.01 for example, so most of the time you have bad luck.
In my opinion there is no determinism. However, it highly depnds on your dice. If you have good dice then they will very often roll to your favors (good genetics, good environment, etc.). If you have very bad dice then it is almost "predetermined" to fail, because no matter what you do or try the chances that it will work out are very small in the first place.
Free will is possible to the extent things can happen without a cause.
>>161140>It is based on my experience
Your own experience of what is in other peoples minds?
So you are claiming to be a mind reader now?
There is a thing called "communication". Shocking, I know. But guess what? People can exchange world views and ideas besides other information through it to each other!
Language and communication is overrated
We live in a society
Free will always an absurd concept. The fact that people can have such drastically different "common sense" shows people are product of their environment. If you can predict the the actions of a small child, a much smarter being would be able to predict your actions, it is completely non sensical that physical system wouldn't be bound by the mostly deterministic nature of the physical world we inhabit
Consciousness is non-physical.
When you don't believe free will exist you don't personally "suspect" shit, it is suspected onto you.
Free will is what enables you to suspect anything. If you don't have any, you can still suspect but only as an reacation to an outside stimulus.
Free will is what grants you the ability to be your own stimulus you can then react to.
I literally can't understand this mindset, it seems completely idiotic
Take some time and actually examine in depth what is happening when you experience the universe, and ask yourself how this phenomenon is occurring.
synapse firing in my brain, why would even trust your sense, why is his spiritual feeling any different than somebody hallucinating something that isn't their
Ask yourself how it is that electricity and chemicals creates the phenomenon of consciousness. What makes the synapse any different from any other multitude of complex natural phenomena in that it creates "consciousness", whatever that is? Is something like a rain storm conscious? Is a decaying radioactive isotope conscious? Why not? What even is consciousness, that is supposedly created by neurons somehow? Why can a certain pattern become self-aware? Surely you do not deny the existence of consciousness.
Putting a name on something doesn't mean that you understand it. All of my questions still stand.
Many people have spent a long time studying it, maybe you'd learn more about it if you took my advice and looked it up.
Satan will use the ai tovtake over with implicit rule this time
relates. might be futile, because there aren't many wizards, and getting everyone to do the same thing is impossible. unless they want to. but i think this is our only sort-of hope. a social hope.
Sounds like you don't actually know about it and are just putting blind faith in dogma.
And you sound like you're being willfully ignorant to support your current worldview.
And what information am I ignorant of?
I already told you that studying emergence would give you some of the answers you seek, yet you decline.
I know about emergence, it does not explain anything. If it is your position consciousness is merely a pattern of atoms you need to be able to explain how this pattern is able to attain self-awareness. Hand-waving it explains nothing.
Caused by Cartesian dualism, the single worst thing that happened to this world.
I don't think it exists but it's better to act like it does.
From what is the will free anyway? Free will only makes sense in a context where God lets you make your own moral choice. Without God as a metaphysical first cause, it devolves into non-sensical libertarianism, where you can somehow break causality, and be essentially a god where you will float in a complete vaccum in a parallel reality. Regardless of the existence of free will, agency and responsability exist, great confusion is made by equating it with free will.
Free will is a semantic creation, of extravagantly arrogant men who think of themselves as divine creators of their own cause, or that things just happen randomly, in which case you're just a puppet of the dice.
The opposite of free will isn't determinism, but unfree will, that your will is subjugated to an external will, different from that of a slave or prisoner, who make his own choice based on the threat of punishment, but of someone who is litterally being possesed be it by gods, or demons.
Everyone is a puppet of the dice. Life is like a game. It is actually a zero sum game. If you are an ascended superrich normie you will lose all your wealth and health at the end of life. If you are a wizard you will lose all your pain and suffering at the end of life and everyone has zero again. And all that happens in between is just coincidence and randomness.
You are one here snowflake, bud.
And learn what dererminism means.
We have no more free will than a computer. A computer can choose between any two options based on it's preprogrammed desires just like how our desires are preprogrammed by our enviroment.
The only way to have free will is to detatch ourselves from external influences, which would mean having a soul, which I don't believe in.
I've noted that a good portion of deterministic also hold utilitarian beliefs, talking about maximizing "total happiness" and stuff like that. I'm curious, what exactly makes a human's well-being any more valuable than a pig's or an insect's or a tree's or a rock's for these people? They're all deterministic machines right? Just collections of chemical reactions?
Our ability to empathize with humans is much greater. We all just act on instinct. We evolved empathy to allow societies to flourish. Without a flourishing society, the individual who is trapped inside as a part of society suffers. If pigs suffer humans prosper, therefore we don't care about it. It's all driven by what works, what improves reproductive outcomes.
Wrong. Self contradictory. Could be lies aswell.
Utilitarians are usually vegans. Those with that much time to think about it at least.
If the utilitarian moral framework is being motivated purely by individual pragmatism why not just act as an egoist? Or are these people taking the position that the ends of their utilitarian beliefs don't really matter and it's just an elaborate way to gain self-righteous emotional satisfaction?
You just do whatever makes you happiest like any other entropy slaves. For people who have high levels of empathy that's helping people, for people that are narcissistic psychopaths they go into finance or something and steal old ladies retirement checks to glorify their own egos. People just do what they do, believe what they believe. There's no reason a belief in the mechanistic nature of the universe should dictate those people all share their other beliefs.
Religion works best when others also follow the religion. As we live in a "do whatever, fuck everyone else" time, religion is a pale imitation of its previous self.
Free will doesn't exist. Its just basic common sense. The whole does not control its parts, the parts control the whole.
Free will, is not what some people think it is, free will is not simply the ability to do things at random, it means actually having control, a lack of determinism isn't required for free will, in fact the exact opposite is required. Free will is having you determine your actions but we know this isn't the case.
You are made up of cells which send and recieve signals to each other, and those cells are made up of atoms which are made up of subatomic particles, everything you've ever done, is not you controlling these particles, that would be impossible for to control these particles you would need to not be subject to their control, and to not be subject to their control, you would need to not be subject to the laws of chemistry and physics.
No machine ever controls itself from the top down, its always controlled from the bottom up, you get the engine to work and that rotates the gears, which in turn control something else and etc. The whole machine, the entire machine, cannot control each and every one of its working parts using its mind, for its mind is but one of its working parts.If that makes sense, ego doesn't control your heart rate, that's determined by your biology, ego doesn't control your mind, that's controlled by neurotransmitters and electrical signals, and even assuming the brain is simply a conduit, not the actual thinking feeling part of ourselves and that there is such a thing as a soul. How do we know that the soul is not made up of parts which are subject to external forces as well? Unless the soul is made up of only one part, it will be controlled by its individual parts working together to determine the actions of it, not by "itself".
Its hard to really put this into easily digestible sentences, but I think what I typed should at least come across as coherent to anyone smart enough.
Does the thing that you call "you" have any affect on other things at all? If not, how do you know that "you" even exists?
Is there any actual proof that the mind is made up of atoms? Doesn't matter only exist probabilistically, anyway? Not as though it's any more 'real' than higher-level probabilistic objects such as personality.
You can analyze the machine all you want, it doesn't give you slightest insight on will or consciousness. Simplest analogy is comparing conscious experience to animations on TV. You can link the pictures to specific circuits of the machine and high/low voltages and such but no amount of analysis of the TV will give you the source or meaning of the animation on the screen. Are the animations "free" from the machine? No. Does the machine "control" the animation? Again no. The question itself is wrong, not really wrong but meaningless. Do "you" breathe or does it happen to you? Both are true.
>>162206>Its just basic common sense.
you mean atheism? if you take all these atheist assumptions then free will does seem to be impossible. why not just accept that some people believe in things beyond their eyes?>ego doesn't control your heart rate
except some monks can stop their hearts for up to 10 seconds.
>>162215>I bring up the soul>clearly u only arrived at this conclusion cause u don't believe only in the corporeal
Lol, is there any proof that the mind is a single unit that cannot be broken down into its individual parts which are then subject to either changing their states based entirely on forces outside of their own control? There is no such thing in the Coporeal world that we have observed behaving in this way. So Via inductive reasoning we can conclude that things in the Ethereal world(assuming it even exists in the first place) behave similarly, even if consciousness is something ethereal rather than corporeal it doesn't really change the argument, it just means the induction is a bit weaker but still strong as my diamond hard cock when I look at futanari hentai.
>>162215>ego doesn't control your heart rate>except some monks can stop their hearts for up to 10 seconds.|
But what controls their mind retard? If their mind is made up of multiple parts which are simply responding to stimuli or firing off at random, then their will isn't free, its chained and bound to various stimuli and/or rng. The fact that you even brought that up shows how lacking your comprehension of the subject matter is, go sperg out on /pol and /christian over on 8chan faggot.
Please try to avoid throwing around random insults.
But isn't it true that everything that you "observe" exists only in your mind? Sensations of perception are simply metaphors for a deeper, ineffable reality. Ineffable because all perception and thought is a construction of the mind.
So the question is: what is it that is doing the observing? And maybe what does it mean to observe anyway? Can this be broken down into parts? Can it even be affected? I'm not talking about ego or personality or even a "soul", by the way.
The answer is you don't know because you mentally gymnasticated your way out of an epistemological framework that'd give you any answer to question of free will at all lol.
Did "I" do that? How did "I" do that? How do "you" know that "I" did that?
what the fuck did i say about their mind? your mind cant stop your heart, your mind is doing everything it can to keep your heart going.
lol, now you are trying to accuse me of misrepresenting your arguement when I wasn't.
You realize that brain and mind are not the same thing right? Mind is thoughts, feelings, conciousness etc, brain is the organ in our body that is thought to be responsible for those things. Controlling hear rate "with your mind" is not necessarily synonymous with controlling it "with your brain". Also you don't seem to understand what the human body can be made to act in ways that would under normal circumstances hinder survival, but that still doesn't mean the person acting in such a way necessarily has free will.
Stopping your heart for a 10 seconds by focusing hard enough is no different than building up a the confidence alex honnold needed to free solo elcapitan. Sure our brains ordinarily try to keep our bodies alive but that doesn't mean that when they aren't trying their hardest to do that its due soley to "willpower", it could merely be an unhealthy abundance of confidence. Either way, your argument can't prove shit so it begs the question of why you bothered to bring it up lol. >>162222
Dude, if you want to philosophize to past the point where its practical to do so that's fine, but don't ask me questions you know others can't answer just for the sake of intellectual masturbation.
Why do you think that my questions are unanswerable?
Oh wow, a doge meme. Way to make your post seem smart.
Because they are, you dug yourself into an epistemological hole with your mental gymnastics, there is no way out. According to your worldview you can't use anything in the real world as a source of reliable information, and even your own thoughts are not trustworthy because they are mere constructs of your mind, when you go so far as to suspect, not just external stimuli but also internal as well(you're own thoughts) you have no knowledge anymore. You can't decude anything only induce things, but you don't even value your own inductions your observations are just your conciouness taking note of what your mind has autogenerated and thrown at you. You don't even know if your mind wants you to know the truth.
Its a paranoid delusion, the likes of which goes beyond defartes pretentious argument for the existence of the dead kike on a stick he worshiped.
That is literally the lowest quality animation I've ever seen, some still frames unironically would have been better.
Your use of the phrase "real world" is interesting. What separates the real world from an unreal world?
Arguments from pragmatism are irrelevant, by the way. This is a discussion regarding truth, not the best way life a "happy" life or how to organize a "prosperous" society. Claiming that something is unpragmatic in no way suggests that it's also delusional.
you are such a stupid fucking nigger holy shit. if the mind can go against what its made to do using willpower why cant it go against what the brain is made to do using willpower? if your mind can stop chemicals and atoms from making your heart beat why cant it stop chemicals and atoms in your brain from making you think a certain way?
It's intentional. The wacky animation is supposed to mimic the loose reality of a dream, which is the movie's entire setting. When you try to read something in a dream or focus on something, it keeps moving, shifting, it gets corrupted by any ideas you have at the moment. Like when the guy mentioned "we're mostly made up of water" - that thought shifted the entire reality and the protagonist's mind made room for it.
It's been awhile since I saw "Waking life" but it's still highly re-watchable and makes me notice something new each time. Not the original poster, but I love that movie.
It's not supposed to be realistic animation, the whole movie takes place in some sort of a lucid dream, so the visuals are intentionally weird and oneiric
Pretentious artsy stuff you might say, but it has its moments
>>160740>it is apparent in my day to day observations
which makes it apparent that you make no such observations, the simple examination of your own experience is all it takes
willpower is just the name for the feeling of something taking effort, it is not an actual force that takes place and changes something
>>162350>They are corrolated at best. Event A is followed by event B and there is no theory that explains the nature of their relationship
Well no, there is clearly causation
As explained in the video, the reaction in your brain causes a signal to be sent through our nervous system to our arms, causing it to move
Having no explaination as to how these reactions exactly cause one another is not relevant to what we're talking about>What you can truly know for sure is: all objects and events are occuring IN consciousness. The brain itself is an object, represented as an image in consciousness
Not sure what you mean here, are you trying to go for a "we live in a simulation" kind of thing?
>>162384>the reaction in your brain
This really doesn't mean anything. The voltages and electronic switches in your computer result in the thing you see on the screen. What does that say about the thing you see on the screen? Nothing.>Having no explaination as to how these reactions exactly cause one another is not relevant to what we're talking about
It kinda is tho. I can interact with icons on my phone with my finger. Does my finger cause the icon to move? It seems so but the icon isn't real and there is an immense unseen process between my finger and the image. And the movement of this image is merely a trick. Nothing is really moving inside. Evolutionary simulations suggest that all living things come up with these symbolic interaction mechanisms in order to simplify the "data" so to speak. So your experience of "reality" is symbolic or imaginary.>"we live in a simulation" kind of thing
I don't think we live in a computer simulation, however our experience of reality can be thought as one in a manner of speaking. The experience of being can be divided into subject and object. Everything you experience are objects, including your body, mind and thoughts. Meditative states show that even ego is an object you identify with. What remains is pure awareness. That is the subject, the experiencer. However the causal leap from the object to the subject, in other words deriving the subject from the object seems impossible, there is no "theory of consciousness". So another way of looking at reality is taking this pure awareness or "consciousness" as the foundation and reality stemming from it, in contrast with the materialistic idea of consciousness stemming from "chemical reactions".
>>162386>This really doesn't mean anything. The voltages and electronic switches in your computer result in the thing you see on the screen. What does that say about the thing you see on the screen?
Well a computer doesn't have a consciousness like humans do, which makes this comparison kind of pointless, but if we imagined they did, it would tell us that the computer has no free will>It kinda is tho
It really isn't, even if things in your brain happen through some mechanism we still don't understand you still have no control over them, therefore no agency on your actions and no free will>I don't think we live in a computer simulation, however our experience of reality can be thought as one in a manner of speaking. The experience of being can be divided into subject and object. Everything you experience are objects, including your body, mind and thoughts. Meditative states show that even ego is an object you identify with. What remains is pure awareness. That is the subject, the experiencer. However the causal leap from the object to the subject, in other words deriving the subject from the object seems impossible, there is no "theory of consciousness". So another way of looking at reality is taking this pure awareness or "consciousness" as the foundation and reality stemming from it, in contrast with the materialistic idea of consciousness stemming from "chemical reactions".
Listen, this is all very interesting but if we want to have a serious discussion on anything we have to assume the reality we perceive is real and we can deduce things from it, otherwise we could just consider everything we know is an illusion and the only thing you can really take for granted is that you exist, and any attempt to discuss these things will fall into the void
Do you actually hold it impossible that reality is an 'illusion' (illusion being a concept of reality, paradox) or are you just saying that this assertion is inconvenient to your hobby of discussing things? Personally I'm more interested in the truth than perpetrating some verbal game.
If causality is an assumption then what is lack of causality? A thought experiment? We probably can't ever have definite knowledge on anything but we must still hold certain axioms to be true so we can construct an interpretation of the world to guide our actions and live practically. Rather than believing something that is 100% true in every logical and illogical systems and non-systems imaginable, I'd rather be reasonable and choose the most plausible of all available explanations as what I'll consider true. Causal materialism is not perfect but it is more plausible than any spiritual mumbo jumbo that is put forward as an alternative.
The need for an alternative is itself an assumption. Pragmatism is an assumption of value. All axioms are arbitrary, the axiom that denotes axioms as necessary is arbitrary. The difference between truth and lie is therefore arbitrary. Truth is a thought experiment but so is lying. What happens if you stop thinking?
>>162410>guide our actions and live practically
Casuality does that but it breaks down in subatomic level even before any spiritual mumbo jumbo. The nature of reality seems to be a lot weirder than materialists have ever thought. Causal materialism works very well for what it is intended to be, but it has limited explaining power.
>>162408>we still don't understand you still have no control over them, therefore no agency on your actions and no free will
Depends on what you mean by "you" and "free will". As conscious ego you don't have free will obviously. It's mostly because you're under the influence of the unconscious. But through psychological integration conscious ego can gain more control over self and gain more free will in some sense. If you're looking from a more material and cosmic level, there are two options. Either you are controlling yourself or something else is controlling you. Either you're acting on your free will or something elses free will. In the materialist sense lets say you're under control of the cosmos. So you are a puppet of cosmos. What does this mean tho? If you are a puppet, somebody else is speaking through you, you are representing something else's free will. If I'm talking through a puppet, the puppet is me, it represents my will. So if I'm a puppet of cosmos then I'm representing the cosmic will, I and the cosmos are the same, so this free will problem goes away.
I don't get why people say "quantum randomness" breaks determism. Well yea sure you can't predict it, but how does that lead to that it has no cause at all? Also, one question I've been asking myself is, if you observed some random quantum process and then went back in time (hypothetical), and observe the experiment again, would it be the same? Even things not caused by anthing may be predetermined, like a tape of background noise playing in the background. It may not happen for any perceivable reason but nonetheless it still is predetermined.
What is the cause of causality?
By definition determinism means predictable entirely by prior events. In the context of the usual 'free will vs determinism' debate it also does not lead to free will making any sense, however
>>162422>Its observation problem in its entirety, it doesnt affect the observed thing at all.
You are absolutely wrong. The double slit experiment proves that it is not a matter of a lack of proper tools, but that there is a fundamental difference in the behavior of quantum particles.
>>162423>The double slit experiment proves that it is not a matter of a lack of proper tools, but that there is a fundamental difference in the behavior of quantum particles.
The one that is referenced when someone tries to prove life is a simulation?
While it is certainly a fun idea, I dont believe they accounted for *every* effect. There is still the issue of dark energy, which cant be observed, but it can skew results, especially with such easily *excietable* things as photons.
>>162417>I don't get why people say "quantum randomness" breaks determism. Well yea sure you can't predict it, but how does that lead to that it has no cause at all?
It's not only randomness that break causality, there is entanglement and in some experiments photons "seem to be" carrying information to the past OR foreseeing the future. These experiments imply that spacetime is not the fundamental reality at all.
I don't consider it impossible, but we have to ignore the possibility if we want to reach any conclusion at all, because if we don't not only we can't have a discussion, you can't even find any "truth" by yourself as the basis of any idea you may come up with may very well be an illusion>>162413>As conscious ego you don't have free will obviously. It's mostly because you're under the influence of the unconscious
Even the decisions you take consciously are determined by what goes on in your brain, not the other way around>Either you are controlling yourself or something else is controlling you
You might be under control of a rigid set of physical laws not enforced by any conscious being, or not be controlled at all and left to the randomness of the universe, but that still wouldn't mean you have control over your actions
>>162435>Even the decisions you take consciously are determined by what goes on in your brain, not the other way around
Sure, and what goes on your brain is determined by what? The cosmos? Sure. As long as you don't identify with your ego and identify with the cosmos, you have free will.>You might be under control of a rigid set of physical laws not enforced by any conscious being
Physical laws are abstractions of the mind and the fact that they are possible for human mind to concieve, in other words the fact that the universe is understandable and foreseeable in a sense, 2+2=4 every time, strongly suggests that the nature of universe is mental. The fact that universe is not completely alien and incomprehensible implies it has the same nature with the mind. So let's say it's the other way around, the universe is completely and utterly dead and meaningless, random and without consciousness. Then how do you have all of these when you are only a mere product of random events in universe? How does that make sense?
If the basis of ideas are illusion then maybe we should give up on the notion that ideas can lead to Truth and look somewhere else.
If it helps, this sentence is a lie which can act as a metaphor.
The poster whom you agreed with at least provided some argument. You on the other hand, couldnt even do such simple thing.
>>162437>Sure, and what goes on your brain is determined by what?
It doesn't matter, it may very well not be strictly determined by anything, you still have no control over it and therefore no free will, that's the crucial point i've been repeating since my first post ITT
And what do you even mean with "the cosmos" anyway>Then how do you have all of these when you are only a mere product of random events in universe?
Are you asking me how conscious life forms came to be? i don't know, nobody does
Is it relevant to what we were talking about?>How does that make sense?
There are many things in the universe that don't make "sense" according to our human sensibilities>>162440>and look somewhere else
Like where? everything you know may be an illusion
Let's just put it like this: if the reality we perceive is a thing, there is no free will
Are you ok with this now?
>>162450>Like where? everything you know may be an illusion
So stop looking at things>if the reality we perceive is a thing
Even nonexistent things are things.
>>162450>you still have no control over it and therefore no free will
The problem here is you haven't given much thought on what really constitutes "you". There are many layers to you. Your being is not equal to your conscious ego. The proof is your inner experience. In deep dreamless sleep you have no sense of I, ego. It's built up artifically by the mind while you wake up. So, what you consciously "will" is trivial. The sense of being "you" is fake, an illusion BUT "being" in itself is not an illusion.
>And what do you even mean with "the cosmos" anyway
No easy way of telling this so lets give an analogy: focus on a droplet in the ocean with a microscope and all other cutting edge scientific tools. There are many forces pulling and pushing this droplet so you could say the droplet is completely controlled by the ocean. Or you could say the idea of droplet is merely an abstraction, an idea, an illusion. The ocean and the droplet are fundamentally the same thing, they are one being and they go together. It's the same thing with the idea of cosmos pulling you all directions and you having no free will. "You" are an abstraction. Let go of the illusion and the problem goes away.
>>162452>So stop looking at things
Which is what i said, we can't reach any conclusions for certain>Even nonexistent things are things.
Tedious semantics>The problem here is you haven't given much thought on what really constitutes "you". There are many layers to you. Your being is not equal to your conscious ego. The proof is your inner experience. In deep dreamless sleep you have no sense of I, ego. It's built up artifically by the mind while you wake up. So, what you consciously "will" is trivial. The sense of being "you" is fake, an illusion BUT "being" in itself is not an illusion.
Yes, you're also your subconscious self
Does that help us with free will though?>No easy way of telling this so lets give an analogy: focus on a droplet in the ocean with a microscope and all other cutting edge scientific tools. There are many forces pulling and pushing this droplet so you could say the droplet is completely controlled by the ocean. Or you could say the idea of droplet is merely an abstraction, an idea, an illusion. The ocean and the droplet are fundamentally the same thing, they are one being and they go together. It's the same thing with the idea of cosmos pulling you all directions and you having no free will. "You" are an abstraction. Let go of the illusion and the problem goes away.
So i should identify myself as a part of the universe rather than a complete separate being?
Again, does that help us with free will?
If the acknowledgement of nonexistent things is semantics then the acknowledgement of existent things must be semantics as well. What is the difference between existent and nonexistent things? Perspective. What is perspective? Definition. What is definition? Meaning. What is meaning? A metaphor for the Truth. What is the Truth? Unutterable except through metaphor. What is metaphor? Existence.
Existence is the Eye in the pyramid. The synthesis of opposites. This is how the universe can see itself.
>>162465>Yes, you're also your subconscious self
Does that help us with free will though?
Subconscious is only a part of the self. If you dig down deep enough you encounter this state of being which the Buddhists call the great void. It's the same thing with probing deep into matter. The fundamental reality of matter is these vibrational energies constantly emerging from and going out of existence into this quantum vacuum, what you call empty space, the void. The mind and the matter are fundamentally the same thing emerging from this mind-like infinite void,the substratum of existence itself. Let's call it the cosmic mind.
>So i should identify myself as a part of the universe rather than a complete separate being?
Again, does that help us with free will?
You see it all depends on the level of analysis. So this cosmic mind is manifested by embodiment into these infinite appearences. These appearences are artificial but fundamentally they're one with the cosmic mind, which has free will.
Ok, and what truth do you think you'll reach thinking about non-existent things?>>162473
If you're trying to say that there's some metaphysical entity outside the meterial realm which makes free will possible that's fine, there's no way i could prove that wrong or you could prove that right anyway
You could have simply said that in response to my post instead of bringing about "becoming one with the cosmos" and all that shit which had nothing to do with my point
You don't think about non-existent things. You think about no things, which easily confused for not thinking, because most people only know how to think in concepts. Concepts are metaphors for a deeper ineffable Truth, thus are all words lies which represent Truth. If one dwells on the lie the result is attachment to illusion, if one looks past the lie to the lie's Truth, which is not a noun, illusion becomes powerless. Truth is not an entity, it is becoming and being.
Proof doesn't exist outside of mathematics. The concept of causality cannot be proven. All you have is your experience, your being. You can talk all day about proofs and theories but fundamentally, you don't know what matter is and where it emerges from, so the idea of materialism is founded on ignorance. So like you say you can pick either. First, matter and spacetime is the ultimate reality which you have no idea how and where they emerge from and how could they possibly bring about consciousness, therefore you hypothesise there is no free will or consciousness. Second one is taking consicousness as fundamental reality and spacetime and matter extensions of it. Which seems a lot simpler and intuitive since all reality exist in your experience and your experience exists in consciousness. And this suggests there is free will. You can pick your pick but the first one leads basically nowhere so I'm taking my chances with the second one.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbZO1ykipj0
It doesn't, but there are so many factors to consider it might as well.
It does, but society is structured in such a way that it might as well not.
Au contraire, society is structured in a way that you have to take responsibility over things that would be out of your control even if free will was a thing
>>162490>Proof doesn't exist outside of mathematics. The concept of causality cannot be proven.
and nothing exists outside of mathematics, mathematics is a descriptor of reality. >First, matter and spacetime is the ultimate reality which you have no idea how and where they emerge from and how could they possibly bring about consciousness, therefore you hypothesise there is no free will or consciousness. Second one is taking consicousness as fundamental reality and spacetime and matter extensions of it.
you still know nothing about anything with either options. you still have no idea what matter is, you have no idea what consciousness is, all you have done is given supreme authority over all knowledge and truth to yourself because you think you are the highest being in your existence.
>>162945>mathematics is a descriptor of reality.
Only some. There are many mathematic systems that, as far as we have seen, do not function in reality.
Success and failure, either in your private or in the work sphere, is often pinned down on the individual, who is always told to "improve himself" and try again, when it actually often depends on factors outside of the individual's actions
This thought that you can do anything if you just try hard enough is everywhere in modern society, be it via capitalism, humanism or positivism
>>162945>nothing exists outside of mathematics
And mathematics exist in the mind, you might as well say the universe exists in the mind. Mathematics is a production of the mind and it can somehow make accurate predictions about the universe. Only explanation of this mystery is the universe and the mind sharing the same structure.
Often said by losers who wants to blame their problems on others. This argument always leads to screaming determinism.
There is no-one to blame for anything when you see the truth. Things just are. It's exactly the same as teachings from philosophies like Zen. Our culture is full of toxic mental trap paradoxes that do thing but cause suffering. It's just a point of view. I don't see the point in saying that people should suffer and blame themselves for who they happen to be.
*do nothing but cause suffering
It's extremely obvious that if you yourself are dissolved of blame, then so are other people recursively. Can't blame your parents when your parents can blame their parents, and so on.
Who cares what Zen says? Yeah people who don't want to admit turning their bodies into Michelin is their fault. Not an argument.
You're saying all that bullshit but I'm sure you don't really believe that. I'm sure you blame your parents for like not giving you a million dollars for giving birth to you.
And there he goes, the man who fell for the narrative and gets upset at the "losers" who question it
You're way to invested in this rat race, friend
Pft. Yeah right, im sure you're enjoying you'ee situation.
Free will isn't a thing, it was something made up by the government back then in the midst of thinking how to psychologically handicap people when it came to freedom, rendering the psychological departments of the US to team up and form a system where they said free will existed, so then they debated on what they meant, and they continued to be a democratic system, (which is good but also not all free). So, in all honesty, we aren't free.
If free will is impossible why are you holding him accountable for his own actions? He was predetermined to do that, remember.
Nature is not deterministic. This has been tested with Bell's theorem many times. Conway (yup the Conway of Conway's game of life) has done some work in this area; look up the free will theorem.
Nehew, QM theory has many interpretations, it's likely I'm imprecise and/or wrong.
>>162969>why are you holding him accountable for his own actions?
Where did i do that?
there is always something trying to control you, we are selfish and we dont know shit.
Other things exhibiting some effect on the Self doesn't mean free will doesn't exist. Only if the Self has absolutely no agency would free will not exist. This would also mean that the Self doesn't actually exist since in order for a thing to exist it must exhibit some potency of action in reality.
It doesn't prove anything. It doesn't even give any evidence against determinism, but lack of determinism itself is still not sufficient to make free will a meaningful concept. A random process is something else entirely.
>It's extremely obvious that if you yourself are dissolved of blame, then so are other people recursively. Can't blame your parents when your parents can blame their parents, and so on.
That is absolutely true, and while I accept that, it is also very frustrating. I cannot blame my mother for being a selfish idiot and that pisses me off.
Is there any conclusion that requires 'free will' as an assumption that could use 'unpredictability' as an assumption instead?
Observations of people using cognition and rational decision making.
Modern experiments in neurophysiology clearly show that any voluntary conscious movement is preceded by unconscious preparatory processes-the so-called readiness potential. The pioneer in this field is considered to be Benjamin Libet. The experiments are incredibly simple — the subject is asked to freely and arbitrarily move his finger when he wants, while remembering the time of decision - making on a special clock. According to the tachometers, a conscious decision is preceded by an average of half a second of unconscious brain activity. Based on this, Libet concluded that consciousness does not initiate an action (does not make a decision about the beginning of the action).
Professor John-Dylan Hines put the dots on the "i" in his experiment, called the "Hines group experiment". The essence of the experiment is approximately the following: the subjects were asked to make their own decision on which of the two buttons to press-left or right. All they had to do was press immediately after the button was selected. During the experiment, the screen showed letters that changed each other every half-second, and the subjects had to remember which letter was on the screen at the time of making a decision. Brain activity was recorded using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) — a widely used method that allows small local blood flow responses to neuronal activity to be recorded throughout the brain. The scan was performed every 2 seconds with a spatial resolution of 3 mm.
The moment of conscious decision - making was easily calculated by what letter the subject saw on the screen when making a decision. It turned out that only in 1.4% of cases, the decision was preceded by pressing more than 1.5 seconds. In comparison with this time, the moment when the activity in some brain structures could already predict which of the two buttons will be pressed, was separated from the moment of decision-making by a huge amount-7 seconds! Making an adjustment for the inertia of the fMRI method, the afftars of the work carried the time of appearance of the harbingers of the future decision even further — 10 seconds before the moment when the subjects seemed to make this decision. And 7-10 seconds is not half a second.
So, rather than "Free Will", we have "Free Won't".
In General, according to the latest data available to neuroscience, supporters of compatibilism and libertarianism have sucked a dick.
I don't see how this experiment in anyway disproves free will.
It instead just shows that there is lag in self assessment of meta-cognition.
These lectures require many scrolls I've yet to read so I don't fully grok as yet.
They might be useful to others exploring this topic.
That's an interesting image OP because I think most anti-free will people would fall under "Hard Indeterminism", as most people accept that quantum world has true randomness (unless you believe in a niche theory like the hidden variable theory, but most don't).
Despite this, it seems most people who would fall under "Hard Indeterminism" identify as "Hard Determinist" (or just determinist) instead.
It reminds me of how most atheists are actually agnostics, they just prefer the term "atheist" because it's just a better term if you want people to know you aren't a believer (whereas people who actually identify as agnostic tend to be a bit more open to the meta-physical)
>>167912>There can only be one past
This is an intuitive line of thinking, but is there any proof?
Magnitude moves only in one direction, the loss of inertia. Free will is in potentiality, and has to be actualized. A seed is a tree in potentiality. Of course, as humans we inherit our genetic potential. We have free will to act within the limits of our genetics. Most people don't have free will though because they are somatics, only reacting to the various stimuli instead of actualizing their free will.
The future is not already determined if that is what you are trying to say.>>167913
Magnetism which creates magnitude, the loss of intertia, common sense.
[Last 50 Posts]
if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it did it really make a sound?