[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 637 KB, 695x785, Doomer_insomnia.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15861778 No.15861778 [Reply] [Original]

In your opinion does free will exist?

>> No.15861785

>>15861778
Doesn't matter whether or not it does if you can't exert your will.

>> No.15861790

It's irrelevant, the will appears free to us and we have no choice but to act as free actors.

>> No.15861797

>>15861778
No, the physical world is causally closed. There is no such thing as a non-physical cause.

>> No.15861799

>>15861778
It doesn't come for free, anon.

>> No.15861804

>>15861790
it doesnt appear free though

>> No.15861805

>>15861778
Free will is fundamentally an incoherent concept. You might as well ask whether there exists a squared circle.

>> No.15861807

>>exist

Prove anything exists.

>>Will

You don't even control your thoughts. There is always cause.

>> No.15861842
File: 64 KB, 758x644, gig.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15861842

>free will? I have no use of such thing, for I am one with the Universe

>> No.15861850

If you are hungry you are free to want something to eat. I dont know if this helps you and count as free will for you.

>> No.15861859

>>15861778
in my opinion how could you ever tell the difference?

>> No.15861860

>>15861778
read kant and fuck off

>> No.15861861

>>15861850
I wish there was a range ban on South America =(

>> No.15861864

I don't believe in free will. A lot of people think that just because they can pick and choose what flavour of ice cream they want or whatever that means they have free will. Not that simple. I think that's just something they convince themselves of in order for comfort. A fear of not being in control.

>> No.15861867

>>15861859
This. It's ultimatly an irrelevant question.

>> No.15861869

>>15861867
Why?

>> No.15861872

>>15861778

At one level, probably not; at another level, yes.

I mean do "debts" exist? At one level (hydrogen molecules), not really. At another level (human interaction), yes.

Free will isn't a tricky problem in itself; it's just a small corner of the whole "wow, is consciousness really real or does it just feel real?" thing.

Consciousness is THE problem.

>> No.15861873

>>15861869

>>15861785

>> No.15861880

>>15861804
not him but of course it appears free. wrinkle your nose right now. the input i just gave you may have caused you to actually wrinkle your nose. for basically everybody but esoteric monks: that's freedom enough baby

>> No.15861883

>>15861861
Why?

>> No.15861891

This entire thread is full of retarded basic bitch opinions and you can tell no one has ever read any contemporary literature on any of the subjects.

Check out Alfred Mele and any of his books on free will, he gives fair accounts of both hard determininsm and libertarian free will based in a physicalist model.

>> No.15861895

>>15861873
No. Exert your will? Will is exertion.

>> No.15861899

>>15861864
>I think that's just something they convince themselves of in order for comfort.
Who's doing the convincing, is it not the free sense of Self? Is my will isn't free, then whence does my sense of freedom and ego separate from reality emerge?

>> No.15861907

>>15861895
Will is not exertion.

>> No.15861916

>>15861907
Of course it is. It's a chemical reaction.

>> No.15861923
File: 1.09 MB, 969x1200, 1516093044473.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15861923

Until scientists can offer even one possible solution to the hard problem of consciousness, it's only rational to consider human souls metaphysical children of God and free in every sense of that word, even freer than God himself for He is locked in his Oneness

>> No.15861925

>>15861899
If you are hungry you are free to calculate the fastest way to get food as long as you have enough energy to do so.

>> No.15861934

>>15861891
this cuckpost LOL

>> No.15861940

>>15861916
What the fuck are you on about dipshit? None of this shit matters if you willed it to be a certain way and have absolutely no ability to make it so. The only people who give a shit about whether or now free will exists are fucking pseuds.

>> No.15861944

>>15861891
I shall exert my free will and not read you faggoty book by Faggot McFaggerson.

>> No.15861957

>>15861778
"free will" is one of those concepts that needs untangling...there's two words in it, adjective and noun. Before asking whether "free will" exists, we should ask whether "will" exists at all. Do you have a "will"? Obviously you do, if we understand will as simply the force that makes goal-directed action possible - you want some things (e.g. food), don't want others (e.g. to get caught in a rainstorm), and your actions (go get lunch, bring umbrella) are directed to fullfilling those desires.
But is your will "free"? What would that even mean? Say that a free will would be "a will able to choose between competing desires." On that definition, I feel like my will is free - I make choices between competing desires all the time. Sometimes it's a struggle (there's that part of you that doesn't want to get out of bed and go lift or whatever) but choices are made...
I'm just thinking out loud here. But it seems like the question of free will is really a question of whether the will as a faculty is able to enforce the hierarchy among our desires that our reason has determined is best for us. Or perhaps it's a question of whether we are able choose our desires themselves, the character of our desires, as distinct from whether we are able to choose between desires whose existence we had no say in (e.g. you can choose between posting on /lit/ and working on your novel, but why do you desire to do either of those things in the first place?)
Honestly idk, I'm just some random fag on this board

>> No.15861963

>>15861940
The cognitive dissonance appears to be causing some anger.

>> No.15861968

>>15861944
>>15861934

stay mad anti intellectuals

It's only a matter of time until some dipshit posts that chris hitchens quote thinking they are enlightened but actually saying nothing at all

>> No.15861971

>>15861963
>cognitive dissonance
NPC tier dialogue. Nothing you've said has made any sense or has related to the conversation in any way whatsoever.

>> No.15861976

>>15861957

"To understand mankind we should look at the word itself. It is made up of two shorter words: 'mank' and 'ind'. What do they mean? No-one knows, and that is why mankind is such a mystery."

― Jack Handy

>> No.15861978

>>15861968
>>mele
>>intellectual
YES YES YES YES YES tell us more

>> No.15861981

>>15861940
>None of this shit matters if you willed it to be a certain way and have absolutely no ability to make it so.
What are you, a cripple or some shit? Keep your personal problems to yourself.

>> No.15861984

>>15861891
Explain to me how free will is a coherent concept. Hume's arguments against miracles are all you need to understand that you're arguing about nonsense.

>> No.15861985

>>15861880
it unironically doesnt appear 'free' to me, it appears like a movie

>> No.15861987

>>15861778
Yes

>> No.15861993

>>15861985
>>15861804
Hello p-zombies

>> No.15861994

>>15861971
You're struggling to make the connection. There is nothing outside of cause and effect. There is no exerting will.

>> No.15861995

>>15861971
>NPC tier dialogue.
Everyone is an NPC. Free will does not exist.

>> No.15861998

>>15861981
Yeah the only people who can't exert their will are cripples you're right anon.

>> No.15862006

>>15861778
Preferable experience is the only good. Seek it, whether you are free or not.

>> No.15862007

>>15861998
What are you trying to say? You're talking nonsense.

>> No.15862023

>>15861993
That's not even what a pzombie is, the idea is about consciousness, not free will.

>> No.15862030

>>15861994
The level of disconnect between your replies and my statements is astounding. Schizo tier. Nobody gives a shit whether or not free will exists. Having will is not exertion of said will. Cognitive dissonance has nothing to do with this conversation and the term sticks out like a sore thumb. You're speaking in fucking gibberish.

>> No.15862046

>>15861968
You can't actually make the argument yourself so why are you even posting in the thread

>> No.15862056

>>15862030
You're not making any sense, bro.

>> No.15862068

>>15862046
Why would I waste my time explaining an idea to mouth droolers when I can recommend a book and let those who are not retarded educate themselves?

Are you one of those morons who thinks that if you refuse to yell at a brick wall you don't understand the argument?

>> No.15862078

Yes i never tough about this "free will" doesn't exist. But i think what many people mean if the talk about free will is: Is the universe so hard deterministic, that if i get a choice, that i can decide to take the better outcome.

The answer is no, it is not. But you still cant.

>> No.15862081

>>15862068
I don't even slightly believe you could make the argument in a compelling way, or you would have just done so.

>> No.15862085
File: 277 KB, 469x452, 1592790065661.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15862085

>>15862056
Shut the fuck up you fucking retard here's your last (You)

>> No.15862092

>>15862068
Most books are extended essays, and most essays are extended tweets. If you can't summarise your idea concisely, then you don't understand it and are not worth engaging.

>> No.15862107

>>15862081
So you are.
>>15862092
Not only is this blatantly retarded, but also incorrenct in it's premise, it's not that I am unable, its that yelling at a brick wall is not admirable, especially when you can literally google a blurb on any of his books and get the gist of it.

Horse to water blah blah

>> No.15862113

>>15861778
It exists sensually. To say free-will doesn't exist because our brains have limited intelligence is technically right, but absolutely pointless when it comes to actually discuss the issue.

>> No.15862119

>>15862107
>I could totally make this killer argument I just don't want to bro
Yeah ok, just stop posting.

>> No.15862134

>>15862119
Stop posting on lit if you refuse to read, bro.

>> No.15862167

>>15862107
>Not only is this blatantly retarded, but also incorrenct in it's premise
How so? It's a rare author whose ideas genuinely require a whole book to capture, and even then they are just exploring many adjacent, consequent ideas. I can summarise most of quantum mechanics in the Schroedinger equation, the books are just to get a handle on working with it. What makes Alfred Mele's ideas so special that I need to treat his work like I do Marx's or Kant's?

>> No.15862176

>>15862134
You on the other hand shouldn't bother reading since you clearly are incapable of actually absorbing any content or talking about it.

>> No.15862183

>>15861778
no

>> No.15862189

>Tfw determined to be a shitposting loser on 4chan

>> No.15862211

Doesn't matter if it does or doesn't.

>> No.15862212

>>15862107
>yelling at a brick wall
All you are doing in this thread is yelling at a brick wall. Just post your argument or get the fuck out. Nobody needs to hear about your unending asspain.

>> No.15862222

>>15862167
the unsharpness of subatomic particles, is not due to fluctuations of reality, but caused buy an infinite information density.

>> No.15862223

>>15862211
Yeah it does.

>> No.15862233

In the material realm? No
In the divine intellect ? Yes

>> No.15862253

>>15862222
Do you have evidence to prove this assertion? Does this model produce any falsifiable predictions? Already I can cast doubt on this hypothesis by pointing out there is a correspondence between information and energy, and therefore an infinite density would produce a black hole. It's hard to reconcile this with my own observations.

>> No.15862276

>>15862176
There is nothing admirable about teaching retards rather than handing them a book.

>>15862167
The ideas in an of themselves aren't completely innovative in an of themselves, I just don't feel like wasting my time responding to elementary rebuttals that he himself responds to in his book. It's all so tiring when you realize everyone who talks about this subject is rehashing arguments from the 1800's.

>> No.15862283

>>15862253
Yes if i would believe einstein. And missues the therms energy and information as one and the same.

No i have no evidence cause i lagg my infinite information density particle accelerator.

And no point faggs like you can prof that the universe isnt infinite old, and infinite big. The only thing you can do is repeat your mantra or relativity.

And in an infinite old universe you get an infinite information density.

>> No.15862293

>>15862276
You have now spent more time arguing about how you don't want to waste your time than it would have taken to just explain what the idea is.

>> No.15862294

What would free will look like?

Does a photon have free will when it passes through the double slit, or is it just a random choice? If the photon can choose, then what is it that is choosing? If it is random, then what is making the randomness, if anything?

Humans likely don't have free will, evinced by the laws of physics, but does the universe have free will in determining these laws? Is the speed of light the value that it is for a specific reason, or did the 'creator' choose the value on a whim? Are the physical properties that govern us necessary for stability? If so, then the will of the creator is not entirely free, since He is ultimately bound by some constraint, even if that constraint be that the universe make sense to Him.

>> No.15862326

>>15861778
The atoms that compose us are governed by chemical reactions, which are controlled by the laws of the universe. We have no say in these laws, so I don't believe we really have free will

>> No.15862328

>>15861778
>In your opinion does free will exist?

yes

>> No.15862331

>>15861778

Well. It's like this. Most of the time we don't but we do have opportunity to overcome our tendencies to be predictable.

See. If you take a behavioral psychologist like Skinner. He does experiments where animals have input, reward, input punishment etc, and gradually this creates patterns of behavior.

Humans get caught up in similar patterns, gambling, mmorpgs that are nothing but farm, get fake prize etc.

Only possible way to overcome this is with awareness. Input -awareness and thought - potential to break the chain. It's hard to do if you're caught in a cycle of habits and I doubt it's possible for anyone to break free of all habits because it requires you to be fully aware 24-7. You won't succeed with that unless you're a monk or something.

>> No.15862382

>>15862276
>I just don't feel like wasting my time responding to elementary rebuttals that he himself responds to in his book
>rehashing arguments from the 1800's
I feel you. Have you considered maybe making a template post for these situations? That way you can cut to the chase of the novel arguments. In the very least you could post some relevant excerpts.

>>15862283
>if i would believe einstein
Einstein's theories are some of the most extensively tested in all of science. It's not a question of belief, but lack of viable alternative.
>And missues the therms energy and information as one and the same
Information is related to entropy. Low entropy is energetically disfavourable/high energy. Ergo you can't have an infinite density of information without a correspondingly infinite density of energy. Even the transcendental numbers really only possess as much information as their generating programs.
> No i have no evidence cause i lagg my infinite information density particle accelerator
You don't need one. There's plenty of freely available data that you can use your model to explain. Indeed, I would invite everyone to do so, as science desperately needs something to surpass the standard model.
>prof that the universe isnt infinite old, and infinite big
Maybe in the abstract sense of the problem of induction, but it's obvious that all the universe seems to be expanding, and therefore originated from a single point. What came before that point is inconsequential given the intense energies at play. Nothing of the previous kalpa would remain.
>repeat your mantra or relativity
I can show you the maths and evidence, as I myself was shown. Given that I can't find a better model to explain these observations, I'm stuck accepting Einstein & co.
>in an infinite old universe you get an infinite information density
This is false on the face of it. Consider a universe that consists of a single, lone particle. No matter how far into the future you go, the universe will look exactly the same, or have some trivial function describing it through all of time.

>> No.15862389

>>15862030
Huh?

>> No.15862419

>>15861778
Hard yes. And it is the biggest problem of consciousness. It is literally what makes us human, not just choosing what to do, but choosing what to *think*
How do you make a machine *decide* to do something? We can only make them respond to stimuli. Even a fox can decide to chew its foot.

>> No.15862438

>>15862419
wrong

>>15862382
wrong

>>15862331
right

>>15862326
wrong

>>15862189
right

>>15862085
wrong

>>15861957
wha?

>>15861842
this

>> No.15862441
File: 67 KB, 385x367, 2EVxWd7.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15862441

>>15861778
The idea of free will is virtually meaningless without the context of a religious system. A better question is, why conceptualize of free will? Foucalt has an interesting take on this.

>> No.15862458

>>15862294
Free will is, by definition, non-physical. If every cause of every physical event is a physical cause, then free will cannot exist.

>> No.15862489

>>15862419
Consciousness has nothing to do with free will.

>> No.15862490

>>15862458
you underestimate the severeness of the language games that ''''''compatibilists'''''' are willing to go to

>> No.15862523

All things in the universe are certain and yet not necessary. We have access to true possibilities and we choose from among them, so yes we have free will. It is not truly spontaneous will, but that’s okay, nothing physical can since there are physical forces acting on it. But we are not faced with an illusion of possibilities wherein only one actually can and will happen, we are faced with true possibilities insofar as none of them imply contradiction and therefor impossibility in and of themselves. The course of history and physics implies the outcome’s certainty, but the lack of impossibility means we are for all intents and purposes free in our will.

>> No.15862526

>>15861778
Yes and no

>> No.15862538

>>15862458
What are examples of 'non-physical' things?

I would argue that the idea of there being protons and electrons is 'non-physical'. The protons and electrons themselves are physical entities, but the idea that they must exist to serve some purpose is non-physical. Did God create protons and electrons to serve some purpose? Were they a necessary component for the other parts of his universe to work properly? Or did God decide that these particles ought to be introduced to his universe?

Did he decide that their charges should be equal and opposite, or was he constrained in what their physical properties should be? Did he want them to be the way they are, and if so, why are their masses what they are? Why not something else? Was there a legitimate reason to make their masses what they are, or did God just decide that he wanted those masses on a whim?

Can free will exist if the creator did not have free will in creating the universe?

>> No.15862623

>>15861778
Absolutely. Just cause we're not fucking omnipotent doesn't mean we don't exist.

>> No.15862642

>>15862538
>What are examples of 'non-physical' things?
Anything built from ingredients other than bosonic and fermionic fields over spacetime. If free will exists, then at least some mental states would have to be non-physical. If God exists, he would also have to be nonphysical since he would essentially be a freestanding mind 'outside' of spacetime.

>> No.15862648

>>15862623
You exist because your mother was a whore. How's that, a woman decided the very question of your being.

>> No.15862698

>>15862648
Have sex

>> No.15862710

>waah waah free will doesn't exist because I didn't choose to be born an ugly incel

>> No.15862716

>>15862642
>If free will exists, then at least some mental states would have to be non-physical.

I'm having trouble understanding this. You're saying that there's a set U of all mental states, and that there's a subset F of U corresponding to free will? By non-physical, does this mean that elements in F are theoretically possible, but haven't happened due to the large nature of U? If I could achieve a state in F, how would it be non-physical, given that mental states are, at their crux, arrangements of neurons and synapses?

I don't believe humans have free will, and I question whether anything can.

>> No.15862879

>>15862716
For free will to exist, there would have to be non-physical element that breaks causal closure of the physical. That is, a non-physical element that breaks the chain of cause and effect linking physical events. This nonphysical element would directly cause a physical state of the brain to occur that is causally upstream from behavior. That brain state may roughly correspond to what we call a "decision" or an "intention". From that point on, the chain of physical cause and effect goes on normally -- motor neurons activated, muscles contract, etc.

Occam's razor would suggest that no such non-physical intervention is needed to explain behavior, and thus the idea should just be discarded. It certainly adds a bunch of ugly complexity to the elegant causally-closed system that seems to work just fine as a model of everything we have observed in the universe up to now. I do try to keep an open mind, though, because reality has been known to turn out to be messier than we thought.

>> No.15863134

>>15861778
Yes.

>> No.15863177

>>15861778
No.

>> No.15863222

If we have free will how come so many people are unhappy?

>> No.15863244

>>15861778
In the sense that at any given moment you COULD take any of a large number of actions with full knowledge and the ability to make a decision, yes. In the sense that, if you played back reality any length of time and ran through it again, you would see a different progression of events, no. The path of the universe is fixed and the decisions will proceed on a course defined by the succession of one state into another. There is no random factor in the universe, only the appearance of it from the limits of human perception.

I think the concept of free will is largely irrelevant. It seems like two different questions addressed by one term. It seems more accurate to speak of the progression of states and how this is handled. In that sense, there's an infinite potential for how states COULD progress on account of the capacity of the actors involved to act in different ways. That doesn't mean there's more than one path in which one state WILL proceed into another, because the method is determined by the previous conditions.
Annoyingly, on the personal scale one of the conditions controlling the procession of states is the belief in your control or non-control over said procession, and believing you have control I think undoubtedly has a better outcome.

tl;dr Free Will doesn't """"really"""" exist, but you should believe in it anyway.

>> No.15863273

>>15862382
>I feel you. Have you considered maybe making a template post for these situations? That way you can cut to the chase of the novel arguments. In the very least you could post some relevant excerpts.

Yeah that's probably a good idea, I'll do that someday, maybe throw it on here eventually.

>> No.15863298

>>15863244
>but you should believe in it anyway.
But I don't have a choice. I will believe whatever I will believe.

>> No.15863322

>>15861778
free will relies on supreme individuality, which simply doesn't exist. Yes your motivations depend almost entirely upon instinct, culture, and other outside influences, but who are *you*? What are you but something made up entirely of outside matter? When life leaves your body and are dissolved by bacteria and worms, haven't you become part of a new system? Havent you gained new life? To worry about free will requires an unhealthy ego and attachment to the self.

>> No.15863345

The heritability of human traits is pretty shocking and that nature is multiplied by nurture (enviroment), it's never either or. I'd still say I have free will if I am to state an opinion and that I am responsible for ending up in this sorry state. I'm sorry mother and father.

>> No.15863357

>>15861891
>hard determininsm and libertarian free will based in a physicalist model
That's why I don't read contemporary literature on the subject.

>> No.15863378

>>15861778

Ask yourself what is will itself? A completely abstract concept, made up, a human fabrication. Will itself does not even exist so how can free will

>> No.15863397

>>15863357
Mele is one of the few who still believe in free will.

>> No.15863404

>>15863378
The question can be rephrased as: Does human behavior have any non-physical causes?

>> No.15863415

>>15863298
>I
so none of your choices are your own, yet you still have a concept of self? thats paradoxical. If everything you will ever do or think is governed by uncontrollable circumstance, which is true, than this "I" doesn't exist. You have never been separate from these circumstances and therefore identifying with this hypothetical consciousness that exists outside these influences is just some construction made to protect the ego.

>> No.15863425

>>15863378

Yeah but of you can make that argument about literally everything so it's a non unique argument.

Ie determinism is just a concept created by man so determinism isn't real. These words we're using to debate the topic are just abstract sound images strung together arbitrarily

Dadadadadlebekrjrbsmdkrke

>> No.15863427

>There is no such thing as chance. Chance would be a negation of the law of causality, which demands that even the temporal meeting of two separate causal chains still has a cause. Chance would destroy the possibility of life; it would call back man, who is the only one ready to overcome evil, from his path. Chance would make telepathy impossible, which is nonetheless a fact. It would nullify the connectedness of things, the oneness of the universe. If there is chance, then there is no God.

-Weininger

>> No.15863441

>>15863415
Do self referential equations possess a self? Also, Buddhism is infamous for rejecting the self using a similar argument.

>> No.15863442

>>15863298
You haven't understood any of this.

Your beliefs are fixed in the sense that your ability to evaluate the information and come to a decision is predetermined. You might say that only God knows whether you'll be persuaded by an argument but that you will or won't be is fixed long before the argument takes place. This doesn't discount the appearance of free will.

Imagine a blind man lost in a forest who finds a string tied between trees, seemingly carving a path. He follows the string in one direction and does not double-back. From the perception of the blind man, he is wandering in a broad space with many directions he can go, but he's decided to follow the string. But from the perception of the string the blind man is on a fixed path. The place he will end up is predetermined, the blind man simply does not know it yet. This does not change that there is simply no circumstance you could argue where it is really in the blind man's best interest to leave the string. Even confronted by a wolf or armed man he would not let go because leaving this path would be certain death, he has no way to find a safe path and would surely be chased down without the string to guide him.
Similarly, people are on a path which they perceive to be in their best interest. They have no knowledge of how long the path is. At any given moment on the path they may evaluate possible choices in direction and choose, again, to follow the string, knowing that to deviate is certain to end poorly. But the path knows its location, which is already fixed. The person has the ability to go in any direction, but the only direction they can choose is the one that is predetermined.

>> No.15863456

>>15863222

I'd argue it's because of free will they are unhappy. If we didn't have any choices and just did what we were programmed to do, we wouldn't have any reason to be upset.

>> No.15863475

>>15863415
Fundamentally, the self doesn't exist. It is merely a convenient fiction. But I don't see what the nonexistence of free will has to do with the nonexistence of the self.

>> No.15863477

>>15861778
No, and I don't care

>> No.15863616

>>15863475
if you do not exist for the reason that you are made up of outside things, free will does not exist for the similar reason that your motivations are made up of outside influences.

>> No.15863617

if we didn't have free will, would you rather live knowing you don't have free will, or would you rather live falsely believing you have free will?

>> No.15863671

>>15863617
Why should it matter whether or not you have free will? Knowledge of it wont change your actions. It's just as dumb as the obsession with other vague, useless concepts like 'meaning' or 'purpose'.

>> No.15863698

>>15863616
The self can simply be defined as the collection of causal processes happening under my skin that are connected in a certain way to brain processes.

>> No.15863711

>>15863617
You don't have a choice what you believe.

>> No.15863712

>>15863698
Are your eyes under your skin? What about your smell receptors sticking out of your nose?

>> No.15863733

>>15863712
Sure. Again, it's just a convenient fiction. The borders are approximate. Things like "humans" or "dogs" or "tables" or "chairs" do not fundamentally exist. They are conceptual classifications that help us navigate through life.

>> No.15863870

>>15861778
Free will is an emergent property, as is consciousness.

>> No.15863953

>>15861778
It exists as a something you naturally conceive and feel you experience, but the causal nature of things denies the reality of that human experience.
It is as inadequate as your eyes, who can't see further than the stars.

>> No.15863964

No all is the will of God. God just made me cum. He will do it again. He can't be stopped.

>> No.15864060

>>15861778
it does. all your decisions in life were yours.

>> No.15864066

>>15863964
bruh

>> No.15864141

>>15861778
Only retards think so.

>> No.15864155

>>15861778
will is not entirely free nor entirely slaved
there are many influences on all things, all things are contaminated to a degree.
it's the curse of causation and repercussion examination.

>> No.15864156

>>15864141
did someone else wrote your comment for you?

>> No.15864164

>>15864155
funny how stupid pederasts don't even touch the fact that there are 7 bln of interpretations of word free.

>> No.15864196

>>15864156
Would you have written your comment had I not written mine?

>> No.15864198

>>15864164
hey jesus why were men given a prostate

>> No.15864967
File: 93 KB, 750x1000, 20200701_082232.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15864967

Yes, but with some caveats. What I mean by free will, is that it is you making your decisions. It is not something else or autonomic functions making your decisions. This does not mean that human decisions are magical or violate predictability from physics etc., as some people interpret free will to mean.

>> No.15864972

>>15864967
Incoherent.

>> No.15864984

>>15864972
Incoherent.

>> No.15865067

>>15861872
rather than saying it is the problem... why not say it's the ontological primitive i.e. the cause of all phenomena

>> No.15865658
File: 140 KB, 1080x1271, 1592432292717.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15865658

>>15861842
this. based thinkpad

>> No.15865664

>>15861778
It's impossible to prove if determinism or free will exist. As others have said, it's irrelevant anyways because the result is the same.

>> No.15865684

>>15864972
>>15864984
Incoherent.

>> No.15865714

>>15864967
That's not what free will is, though. By that logic a pocket calculator has free will since it has its own internal computational processes.

>> No.15865724

>>15865664
Nonsense.

>> No.15865726

the premise is so faulty the all you have to do is btfo hard determinism which is not that hard to justify. It can almost be used as a mantra, that if free will does not exist in this moment my behaviour is the summation of all i am then when i fuck am i cooming again, the apparent lack of "free will" can be used as a tool to assess what is congruous with the self. some people use a belief in free will to put shit off and not act in accordance with their ideal in every moment

>> No.15865729

>>15865724
elaborate

>> No.15865754

>>15865726
incoherent

>> No.15865760

>>15865729
If it can be proved that the behavior of something is predicable based on physical causes, then it can be assumed that free will does not exist for that thing.

>> No.15865763

>>15865760
But that can't be proved.

>> No.15865774

>>15865763
Why not?

>> No.15865790

>>15865774
Because our perceptions are axiomatic. Science is just like religion because it works on axioms. It's just like that mickey and donald meme: all knowledge is based on which ultimately cannot be proven.

>> No.15865794

>>15865790
>>>/x/

>> No.15865795

>>15861778
Yes there is free will. determinism is based on a Newton worldview, but Newton got btfod buy quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics gives the observer (conscious) influence about matter. Our conscious is not in the brain, but in a superstition state, which influences the brain, thus creating free will. We are gods anon

>> No.15865802

>>15864972
>>15864984
>>15865684
>>15865726
>>15865729
>>15865754
>>15865794
Incoherent.

>> No.15865821

>>15865794
lmao, I know this sounds weird. but it's true that all we can base our reasoning upon is our perception of reality. and what if said perception wasn't accurate? it's a possibility to consider

>> No.15865831

>>15865795
Lol, no, that's not how quantum mechanics works.

>> No.15865840

>>15865795
Quantum mechanics gives the observer APPARENT influence about matter.

>> No.15865859

>>15861778
It's a concept, meaning that the essence referred to must exist. Free will does necessarily exist at least in potentiality, but it's not necessarily something we can access beyond the concept.

However, I do believe we have access to it, and the demoralization effect reached when we give in to despair and control-grid belief systems implies that there is a struggle for the destiny of our being. We can choose to partake in it ourselves.

>> No.15865918

>>15864198
men took it along with chairs and toilet seats and sexual shame. body is a car. learn it not to break.

>> No.15865921

>>15864196
no. we adapt to the environment. but how we adapt is our choice right?

>> No.15865925

>>15864198
Prostate is not at fault; it's women.
They designed our bodies to be sexually repulsive so that we couldn't use it.

>> No.15865934

>>15865921
jeebus! is..is that you?!?!?

>> No.15865937

>>15865921
>but how we adapt is our choice right?
To an extent. Desperation was used against us, and now we have ugly people around sabotaging others.

>> No.15865938

>>15865934
howdy bro.

>> No.15865946

>>15865938
I love you Jesus! You're the best!!!!

>> No.15865963

>>15865937
more interesting question is what if you were hired to write that comment, and I would never know.

>> No.15865991

>>15865963
Why would anybody hire me to post that? Ugly masses are always sabotaging others. Who do you think is the willing cannon fodder in revolutions, if not malicious and ugly breeds? Who do you think teaches others to hate themselves in schools? Who do you think lies for a living? Beautiful people?

>> No.15866447

>>15861778
I don't know.

>> No.15866647

>>15865921
Incoherent.

>> No.15866815

>>15861880
you told me to wrinkle my nose. But I didn't do it
I have no idea why I didn't do it
I just don't
Maybe I do it out of spite? But why do I feel spite? None of this is mine, I am merely the first person to experience my thought and happen to have more access to it
My own actions are fundamentally as mysterious to me as it is to you

>> No.15866823

>>15861778
If it doesn't then I don't really have an opinion, do I?

>> No.15867016

>>15861957
Read Schopenhauer on this.

>> No.15867077

>>15861891
Best post in the thread. These idiots are like the crackpots who think they have a theory of everything yet inevitably lack even a passing familiarity with modern physics.

It will never cease to amaze me how room-temperature IQ pseuds think their half-baked philosophical opinions should be taken seriously when they would never think the same for their verbal sharts/opinions on high-level math, physics, chemistry, linguistics, etc. Why is philosophy, almost alone among all intellectual disciplines, treated as though it doesn't require intense study to understand?

>> No.15867083

>>15863397
>doesn't realise that compatibilism is the most popular position on free will among philosophers

>> No.15867086

>>15863404
nope.

>> No.15867095

>>15861984
Hume's argument against miracles is the most embarrassing part of his philosophical oeuvre.

>> No.15867104

>>15867077
Incoherent.

>> No.15867130

>>15862030
what are you talking about??

>> No.15867149

>>15861778
No, the universe (or multiverse) is deterministic. However, it is so deterministic on every level that we may as well behave as if we have free will as prediction of the future of the universe is impossible for a being within the universe. There’s no free will but there might as well be

>> No.15867156

>>15865714
No, it does not. A calculator is not making decisions, so it doesn't have free will. More specifically, human beings and other living beings have internal models of the actions they can perform and the consequences of those actions. A calculator does not. There is no model building in a calculator, so no decisions about the action plan they will take and the effect it will have for themselves and their environment.

>> No.15867166

Why won't determocucks just kill themselves? If I truly believed myself to be fundamentally identical to a toaster, I'd throw myself out of the nearest window to escape such hellish existence.

>> No.15867185

>>15867104
cool take, kantbot

>> No.15867277

>>15861778
anything i wanna be real is real, worlds just how we perceive this shit, i say its real but i also think trannys are okay so what do i know

>> No.15867281
File: 9 KB, 225x225, F7973745-71FD-4A9B-B1C5-1B48C7517303.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15867281

>>15867166
>guy who would kill himself if his self esteem was slightly damaged thinks other people are more mentally unstable than him

>> No.15867313

>>15867281
If you believe in cuckterminism, if you have no self-esteem, as you have no Self. You also can't be mentally stable or unstable, because these conditions pertain to a living psyche. You're a machine whirring its way through the protocol dubbed as "life", sad and meaningless. Please, use the window, spare us real humans with real souls your company.

>> No.15867316

>>15867166
Free will is hell, determinism is deliverance.

>> No.15867369

>>15867313
>pretending I have a soul means I have one and people who don’t pretend don’t have one
Perspectivist cope

>> No.15867901
File: 8 KB, 266x189, index.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15867901

>>15861778
yes and no but yes

>> No.15868379

>>15867095
Can you substantiate that claim? Or are you actually praising Hume for having a such a mastery of philosophy that his most embarrassing claim is a solid refutation, establishing the absurdity that is 'non-physical' causes.

>> No.15868677

>>15861778
Free will doesn’t exist, in the sense that your brain creates an illusion of choice by making you feel like you are deciding things. But in most cases, it’s more practical to assume you have free will.

>> No.15868712
File: 24 KB, 330x468, 330px-Martin_Scorsese_03.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15868712

>>15861778
Yes, in the same way free speech and free thought exists. You are limited by your fixed state, but this doesn't mean you are incapable.

>> No.15868747

>>15861778
If free will existed, I could have chosen to not comprehend the sentence you just wrote out. Or you this one.

>> No.15869975

>>15861778
how and why would an experience be affected by an opinion?

>> No.15869997

>>15861797
t. stopped at high school physics

>> No.15870032
File: 43 KB, 615x409, 0_PAY-KNM_WONKY_FACE_DOG_2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15870032

>>15861778
>>15861778
Trick question, if I had free will I could form my own opinion, but there is no way of knowing whether or not I formed my own opinion or if I was always going to hold this opinion per determinism.

>> No.15870046
File: 268 KB, 750x750, wojakdivinegrace.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15870046

>>15861778
y-yes...

>> No.15870133

Free will assumes autonomy, which is to deny the absolute status to the principle of causality, namely, everything in nature is caused by something that it is not itself. Which is a philosophic generalization of the empirical law of the conservation of energy. Now long ago however I read an intriguing article that posited that top down causal dynamics of the brain can downwardly impinge on ion voltage gates in the neuron, which is a way of saying that thought can influence the operations of the brain.
I take this to mean that thought can influence physics.

Now this isn't to suggest that thought necessarily is an entity of its own (naturalistic dualism). Rather it hints that the computational complexity of the brain lends itself to a certain degree of self-programming. There is no paradox of self-reference here either, as in neurological terms it means that one part of a population of neurons is determining another. Computation can reshape physics without standing in total contradiction to deterministic laws.

>> No.15870248
File: 11 KB, 584x320, how.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15870248

>>15861778
i think everything is predetermined and that you cant do anything about it unless you looked at the universe's future from above the universe like looking at a computer world's future.
how do we mentally KNOW that we have consciousness? it makes no sense. do we even know or is it programmed into us or something? its so weird.
theory: the consciousness jumps between predetermined universes depending on (???, it cant be choices because they come from the brain probably) (probably shouldnt worry about processing power required)

>> No.15870389

>>15867149
>we may as well behave as if we have free will
>>15868677
>But in most cases, it’s more practical to assume you have free will.
You both are carrying on as if you still had a choice in the matter. You don't.

>> No.15870514

>>15861778
It doesn't, but what difference does it make to make to your experience on earth?

>> No.15870531

No
OP was destined to be a fag

>> No.15870566

>>15861804
to you and a few others, to most people it does.
Our thoughts are controlled, but it's usually without the knowledge of the subject.
The question is how much is it controlled. You can try little experiments, see if you're able to change yourself, your thoughts, your habits. Change them for the better, since changing them for the worse could be playing into the hands of the puppeteers.
(if you say: "Why does it matter either way?" True, perhaps it doesn't, but at least with "changing for the better" type experiments you can, at the very least, reap some mundane benefit out of it all.)

>> No.15871114
File: 85 KB, 1071x709, 1594780190055.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15871114

People don't understand time. It's not a linear progression, it's a infinite collection of fields overlapping with one another.

I think free will exists but I'm not sure.

Now instead of approaching this some a perspective of truth, think about it from a point of practicality:
>Who is going to get further in life, somebody who thinks they have no control over their life OR somebody who believes his choice in actions shape what is to come?

Once you look at the question from that point of view it's a no brainer.
>Unless you're sick in the head

>> No.15871210

>>15871114
I should point out the definition of "free will" I'm referring to is the layman's definition:
>Do I have any control over my life AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

>> No.15871329

>>15871114
>Once you look at the question from that point of view it's a no brainer.
You are carrying on as if you still had a choice in the matter. You don't.

>> No.15871338
File: 35 KB, 144x145, 1545471912729.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15871338

>>15871329
>In YOUR opinion

>> No.15872427

Interesting how basically everyone in this thread (troll replies excluded) agrees that it's a stupid and meaningless question and yet we have threads on it created almost every day.