/lit/ - Literature

>>12120467
If I were free I could change my desires at will. If I wanted to, I could make myself hate laziness and never procrastinate again. I could take off all my clothes and run around outside, if I wanted to. This power is something we lack. But even then, are we free to decide what it is that we wish to desire? We can will what we will, but can we will the will that wills what we will? Ad infinitum...

>>12120467
Go run 3 miles. It doesn't exist. If you want to be enlightened start praying.

>>12120467
First you must determine if you are a compatibilist or an incompatibilist.

>>12120467
Determinism supposes a universe of only material and efficient causation. Right from the start then we can see how it is false, because such a picture of reality would mean that any possible change of some object A could only be explained through the direct action of some object B upon the same object A, like the interactions of billiard balls, but animals can cause change from an internal force, hence determinism is false.

>>12120475
You are unable to exert agency because you lack autonomy. Reinforcing desires that serve the interest of short-term pleasures places man in a state of heteronomy, as the master of reason now competes with stronger, more primal master of pleasure, subjugating him and killing him. Man can only serve one master. Renounce fleshly and hedonistic pleasures and you'll find agency over self return once again.

>>12120506
Ok, how do I motivate myself to study? I’m not particularly hedonistic yet I’m bad at procrastinating.

>>12120500
Determinism isn't exclusive to external forces, or any specific kind of force for that matter. Any change within an animal, internal or external, can be explained by a cause that came before it.

Compatibilism is probably the closest to the truth. There are many uncontrollable factors involved in the choices you can make, but as far as the will is concerned, it makes sense for the human consciousness to think that human beings are free to decide between any choices presented to them, even if their range is not as varied as they might wish to believe they are.

ouch that bite would hurt

>>12120528
>Compatibilism is probably the closest to the truth.

Isnt it all perspective anyway?
Is the prisoner truly a prisoner if he doesn't know (or doesn't care) that he's in prison?
The concept of 'freedom' can be ultimately reduced to the level of comfort felt by an individual. If I feel free, I am free. Sure, I can be deceived or manipulated into feeling like my choices belong to me, but arguing to that degree leads into infinite regress. You can ALWAYS suspect some shady manipulator tugging at your brain-strings. Therefore, the sensible conditions to proclaim one's will free can be put on a simple flowchart
>Am I making my own choices, with reason and emotions put in perspective, letting me, the inner observer, be the final judge? (If no: my will is unfree)
>If yes: Do I have a sensible reason to suspect some unwanted third party or force or effect (this may include the range of things, from brain tumor to the Matrix) affecting my inner judgement? (If yes: my will is unfree, perhaps only temporarily)
>If no: Am I at peace with the current level of freedom afforded to me at the moment, with foreknowledge that ultimately, godlike freedom is unachievable (In no: it is impossible for you to accept free will)

Are you an intellectual?

what is it with extreme polar opposites and you pseuds, always? determinism about lots of things doesn't invalidate free will in a common sense.
you have to first state on what scale and about what are you asking. and the concept of "free will" as known in the days of yore does not really hold now, and needs some ye olde amelioration so it can be investigated and give us better inferential facts.

tl;dr ask better questions, frame them better.

>>12120565
He’s right

>>12120467
Why not both?

>>12120467
If free will existed, I wouldn't still be on 4chan.

>>12120528

I often had dreams where I was in a world where some unknown beeings / dead relatives were showing me around in a world where you had more choices/choices defined in another way than in ours. Its kinda hard to translate in normal language but one example I can clearly remember was something about combining art forms so they become more "alive"/3dimensional, ( with a painting of Claude Monnet becoming a 3d hologram ) but the beeing explaining that to me was showing that to me like it was something very banal to do. Or a little girl that was speaking like an adult was showing me how to make a piano/organ more alive by playing it a certain way, and I could not really do those things myself. Shit was extremely interesting but also frustrating as I couldnt do this either in dream nor after waking up. But the feeling of having more if not infinite choices was there, and merely dreaming this was already something. Anyway I dunno bout OP's question. Just felt like sharing this.

If free will existed time wouldn't

Hey, freewillfags, riddle me this:
If our will is free, can a man willingly do something wrong? Can a man genuinely perform a task that he believes to be incorrect and reprehensible? I'm arguing that men can only do good, in fact we're slaves to goodness.
>inb4 but Hitlar killed bunch of jews
Hitler believed his actions to be good
>inb4 but I can grab a knife and stab myself
That would mean, in your mind, that the goodness of proving the point would outweigh the harm caused by the knife

In every single example you can conceivably come up with, the goodness of the act will always be the domineering factor. Which means that, AT THE LEAST, if we divide the field of all possible choices into binary good-bad systems, humans are already missing out on 50% of them. How can such weak will be free?

>>12120950
baller dreams son

>>12120467
No one knows. Quantum mechanics may show that there is free will. Something about quantum super positions. Heaps of different realities could happen then we observe and somehow one has been chosen. I remember some guys were linking that to brain activity. Someone here might know more. But right now quantum mechanics seems to show that determinism isn't a thing. But in saying that quantum mechanics is barely understood even by the brightest minds on the planet.

Is free will even conceptualizable? I mean unless its straight-up causeless magicks, there has to be some sort of deterministic mechanism that drives it.

>>12120820
>You can ALWAYS suspect some shady manipulator tugging at your brain-strings.
Based and redpilled

>>12121249
This isn’t even true, QM in theory is entirely deterministic. The problem is that we necessarily can’t obtain all the information we need about a system to calculate future states of a system

>>12120908
>determinism about lots of things doesn't invalidate free will in a common sense
dude, this is the dumbest shit i've read all day

>>12120467
determinism, niggers cant even give a coherent defintiion of free will

>>12120467
>define free will as something that is conceptually impossible
>"Hey, this impossible thing isn't real!"
the absolute state of philosophy

>>12121272
>QM in theory is entirely deterministic
"Thus, quantum physics casts reasonable doubt on the traditional determinism of classical, Newtonian physics in so far as reality does not seem to be absolutely determined." And that's from fucking einstein. Where you got entirely deterministic from is beyond me. There's hue debate on this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism#Quantum_and_Classical_Mechanics

>>12121277
Game having rules does not invalidate the players' agency. Without deterministic effects, The Universe would just be a sphere of Chaos where nothing happens or matters

>>12121283
If that's your only contribution to this thread then you are the nigger of the thread. Bravo.

>>12121292
>believe in this spooky thing we cant define that means that causality no longer exists and events dont follow each other normally in spacetime
i remain free of niggerdom

>>12121288
>>define free will as something that is conceptually impossible
That's a huge claim yet you back it with nothing but stupidness. At least expand on your ideas instead of bringing us down to the rest r/4chan

>>12121295
You're just strawmanning everyone and spazzing out. Like a nigger. You make this space worse for everyone. Like a nigger. Being vaguely aware of a concept does not make you magically not a nigger. You can say what you like but your behaviour is classic nigger.

>>12121303
>still no definition forthcoming
my lels and wews have congregated and are mocking you from the balcony

>>12121306
so what determined you to write this post? how do you explain intentionality? if freedom is an illusion, how do you explain the misrecognition?

>>12121308
it's a feeling we get when our body does stuff, same as all the other feelings

>>12121310
so nature is a deterministic machine, but it somehow mistakes rule-bound causality for a subjective sense of freedom? how do you explain that? if we really "were" free, how would you distinguish it from the illusionary freedom of this world?

>>12121323
>if we really "were" free
you tell me, you still havent defined what this supposed 'freedom' is

Why do we mistake causality for a sense of freedom? Why do we interpret nerve damage as pain? Why do we interpret light as sight? Consciousness is radically unexplained, but it is hardly like we havent been mistaken about many many things before, and since 'free will' still ahs no definition, im going to assume we, like everything else in reality, just follows causal patterns(including the probabilistic patterns of QM), and consciousness is just watching the automaton do its thing.

Most parsimonious view by far.

>>12121297
My point is that these discussions always define "free will" as something that is in and of itself impossible. They claim that if your will is influenced and determined by sources outside of yourself (like nature and nurture), then your will isn't free, because it was forced on you. But they give no basis for why such a definition of free will is necessary, or whether there are other ways to approach the question. As it stands, these discussions are worthless, because the fundamental definitions it is based on are worthless

>>12120467
Determinism is false.
Go with the intuition. Mind is limited anyway.

>>12120467
>hegelhalfsmile.png

The Self being determined, though uncaused and indestructible, so undetermined in a sense, is its freedom to refract into anything and everything else, though casual and assured to the point of utter indifference, so determined in a sense.

>>12120525
>can be explained by a cause that came before it.
Even math has simple issues with multiple possible outcomes, and it's somewhat detached from physical manifestations. Mostly because of randomness and agency.
Ghost in the circuit - that's who we are. Neuron circuit, but nonetheless. Choice can be as external as we are to the physical structures that inhabit us and our capabilities.

I do not think we would have invented a free will in a system without it, nor experience one. Heck, if world is deterministic (it's not, not even physics is - only edgy and self-destructive minds seem to be), intuition and notions of free will and agency have been beneficial evolutionary traits.

>>12121351
>I do not think we would have invented a free will in a system without it, nor experience one.
do you apply this argument to the various Gods we invented as well? River spirits? setting out milk to bring rain?

>>12121289
>that’s from Einstein
you should reread what you copied. QM casts a doubt on determinism precisely because it means we can’t know the entire present state of a system

In other words,
>the Uncertainty Principle indicates that: 1) our observation of an event has a significant effect on the event, and 2) it is impossible for a single observation to observe all relevant properties of an event. This means that any argument for determinism can no longer have simple recourse to the notion of observation.

There is literally nothing in QM that is theoretically nondetermimistic, the issue is patently just that of measurement. That doesn’t mean the world is deterministic, it means we are wholly fucked in testing and observing whether or not it really is

>>12121351
>intuition and notions of free will and agency have been beneficial evolutionary traits.
And most importantly, responsibility, justifications, sovereignty, morality and all other systems that can only exist with free will or at the very least, fatalism, are such benefits.

Now, if "truth" were to be what my demons want it to be (determinism, algorithm, futile, pointless etc.), why should I follow such a truth? I couldn't choose otherwise. Reality has chaos of randomness and entropy, order of mathematics and laws of physics and metaphysics - and then there is us. Minds are absurd to all systems created by the mind.

>>12121359
>do you apply this argument to the various Gods we invented as well? River spirits? setting out milk to bring rain?
In the very least, they were and evolutionary advantage. I do not believe we invented much anything, though. Truth is more terrifying: we are soil for gods, frog gods, river spirits, Trump, God, your favorite argument, your most common emotions and expressions...
We only get to choose if we feed them.

>>12121381
>we are soil for gods
certainly possible, but I dont see how that would lend any credence to an idea that still has not even been defined

>>12121381
>only
Where did that word come from? I've been consciously eradicating it whenever I can.
It seems that it is not only a word, but a weed in the garden.

>>12121330
you've completely missed the point. even if you establish reality is completely deterministic, without a doubt, you'd still have to explain how the misrecognition occurs. how do I account for this feeling of intentionality, that seems to posit itself in itself?

no, you tell me, "ah, we'll figure it out" is nothing

>>12121363
>There is literally nothing in QM that is theoretically nondetermimistic, the issue is patently just that of measurement.
This. People who use QM as an argument against determinism aren't looking at the root of the deterministic view. Though admittedly, it has swung the pendulum of likelihood a little

>>12121397
>you'd still have to explain how the misrecognition occurs
Id say the actual feeling of intentionality is more like a feeling of 'will', you are feeling the decision-making process of your nervous system, there is no 'freedom' to be isolated in it at all.

'freedom' was probably added post hoc so that we could develop systems where we hold people accountable for their actions. If we understand that nobody could have done otherwise it becomes hard to punish people

THis is all irrelevant anyway, because your argument boils down to 'surely we couldnt have made a mistake' which is completely ridiculous seeing as we have been and are still deluded about shitoads of things

>>12121414
except this feeling is irreducible, determinism coincides with my freedom, people who think they get the green light to lobotomize themselves because "free will isn't real" are retarded, relative to myself freedom IS real and IS a priori

>>12121388
>any credence to an idea that still has not even been defined
Us being hereditarians who reached the ability to affect the world around us in a multitude of fashion seems plausible, especially since we are being bombarded from such a wild array of ideas, notions, lethalities and wastes of time and energy. I think that if our evolution has produced ability to reach even a single truth, it would be about something important, such as our agency and power.

Before the gods or God? I doubt we have sovereignty over them, though we do have some capacity on choosing which to follow. Before the Universe, varies greatly - we can't necessarily forget to go towards objects of mass, but we can choose if we jump, and how many times we jump, at least until we tire "too much".
I believe this is enough power to change ourselves. It is actual power only if it is not limited to being a direct consequence of things other than ourselves. If it is not, then I might as well not exist (the wish of the memes living on self-destructive thoughts and behavior).

>>12121414
>you are feeling the decision-making process of your nervous system
You do know that our beliefs change our nervous system - not only that, but what we eat as well? Mind isn't completely random, and it isn't completely deterministic.

show me something that's truly independent, thus free and you might have a case for free will being possible. as there is no such thing and everything is cause-and-effect determinism is the only answer, though poorly named.
because most you can determine are probabilities for something to happen, see quantum mechanics
>free-will is for theists who by consequence choose the less rational, not to say irrational path
>compatibilism is for those in denial
>determinism is for those that believe in science and reason
ultimately we of course can't know though

>>12121436
neither randomness nor determinism have anything to do with 'Freedom' which i will note litearlly nobody itt has defined as is the case in every single thread about this subject lmao

>>12120493

What does that mean?

>>12121509
The poster above you defined 'free' as 'truly independent'. That ain't bad for a start: Uninfluenced by inputs and therefore undetermined = free

>>12121584
...so where does it come from, a wormhole?

what people think free will is: Being poseidon and controlling the waves with god magic
what free will actually is: surfing

>>12121603
A meta-structure. Akin to a player in a video game. You can reverse engineer pixels, game engine etc. all you wish, you can't find the player in the system.

>>12121621
bro...

>>12120467
Compatibilism, philosophers figured this out long ago

This seems like a good place to respond to someone in the previous thread about theodicy. I hope the guy will show up.

>>12116525
Interesting if somewhat immature sounding post. I have a few problems with it.

Why does God's foreknowledge mean that there is no free will? As far as I can tell, knowing what a free agent does, whether it's in the past, present or future, does not mean that the act wasn't free. I don't see any contradiction.

You also say that any evil must have been made by god, since it was in his power to accomplish his will by other means. I think there is something deeper at work in Christianity. Originally with the Jews there were laws, and as the apostle points out, when there is only the law we are all sinners. The source of all evil is our sin, which is freely chosen by us. However, god saw this and decided to put his omnipotence to work, such that the creatures who would only sin when left to their own devices could be redeemed despite their sin. So he gave up his son (himself) on the cross and rose again to forgive us. Think about it for a second. He took our free will, which we used to kill the way the truth and the life, and redeemed it by showing that God the word cannot be killed, and he took on the sin (the crucifiction in which everyone participates) and put it to good use, the redemption of all. What he accomplished was to let man freely sin, but in a way that saves and redeems him. God actually took sin and used it for good, and because of that people now freely choose the good.

So, god may have created us and allowed us to create evil, but he used the evil (the we created) for good. As the apostle also says, through Christ we are lovers of the law.

You seem to not like Augustine, but I think this was his whole point. Maybe you should give him another read.
____

Boy, boy.

I don't know if we're going to run up against antinomies before the discussion is over, but this thread is relevant to the debate anyhow, so I'll bite.


>As far as I can tell, knowing what a free agent does, whether it's in the past, present or future, does not mean that the act wasn't free. I don't see any contradiction.

For one not to see any contradiction there, you have to espouse a view of free will that excludes 'having been able to do otherwise'. I understand the compatibilist appeal, but how are we to find this a satisfying conceptualization of a 'free' will? God's omniscience implies determinism, which I do not think is compatible with free will. If you disagree with either of these MPonens, please give me a cogent argument. And make it better than the one I'm about to discuss next.


[cont]

>>12120565
Do you have anything against his argument apart from the reaction image?

>>12120467
where do all these retards who believe in this false dichotomy come from? is it all because of sam harris and other new atheist shitters?

>>12121638
[cont.
>Originally with the Jews there were laws, and as the apostle points out, when there is only the law we are all sinners.

This sentence, and really, the entire paragraph, is deplorably uncritical. You cannot use 'the apostle says' as epistemic grounds for otherwise unsupported premises. What should be even more obviously problematic (and this was the point of the original post that you replied to) is that none of this was necessary for an omnipotent God: he could have achieved any result in any way he would have liked. I feel like this point, simple though it may be, is hard to get across because its acceptance jars with christian doctrine across the board. I'll reiterate it more clearly:

1.You claim god is omnipotent, all-powerful.
2.An all powerful god could have created 'beings with free will' that never sinned. He could have made a world full of humans with free will yet absolutely no evil or pain.
3.Now, either you believe this is impossible, but you must then agree God is not omnipotent.
4.Hug the other disjunct: you must then agree that God is not omnibenevolent; that he chose to include evil in the world for absolutely no reason (remember, whatever use you could imagine for evil did not require evil, seeing as god is all-powerful and could have made it so.).

I do not like Augustine because his arguments for the Christian God are as dated as they are weak.

>>12121667
Yes

>>12121603
that's the whole point. freedom doesn't exist because everything is ultimately a culmination of cause-and-effect. freedom (going by the stated definition) and thus free will do not exist. qed
@theists in this thread: why would you choose to believe in something that is a mere vehicle to answering challenging questions but only adds another layer and doesn't truly solve problems. as ethical guidelines, sure, more power to you. but to solve metaphysical questions? please enlighten me

>>12121767
>culmination of cause-and-effect.
You do realise that cause and effect are merely constructs of human perception? Time, space, continuity, ubiquity, whole of physics - all of these are just how specifically human brains interpret reality. Reality has no obligation in following our pathetic swipes of made-up logic, reality may be a causa sui for all we know and can know.

>>12121782
but reality has an obligation in following our pathetic feelings of agency?

>>12121782
>we can't know anything for sure
well colour me surprised. i made that disclaimer in my first statement in this thread. however, logic seems like the most likely and reasonable path to exploring what is and human arguments tend to be centred around it for that reason.
not for some of us though, agreed mr. edgelord

>>12121821
Sorry I didn't catch your username oh wait thats not fucking reddit.

>>12121843
how about you constructively contribute and tell me why you say that
>all of these are just how specifically human brains interpret reality
do you truly think maths and physics are just perceived? i'm not talking numbers or formulae here, i'm talking about the very interaction of information. and i'm not mocking but genuinely interested

>>12121863
Do you realise that even within the study of mathematics there are tons of interpretive systems that question our current perception of reality?

>>12121873
yes of course. however they are based on some axioms, e.g. that logic exists and that some rules are universally followed. i am not aware of any schools of thought that can be taken seriously yet work without these axioms. therefore my question once again:
>do you truly think maths and physics are just perceived? i'm not talking numbers or formulae here, i'm talking about the very interaction of information

>>12121890
I don't even know what you're asking so let me rephrase your retarded non-question
>do you truly think cause and effect are not fundamental to reality
Yes I do, there's no reason to assume that they must be. Happy?

>>12121363
look into John Bell's work

>>12120475
Your desires are dictated by inner factors(genetics/temperment) and outer factors (society, education) nothing inside you is in your control.

>>12121907
Not the anon you're replying to, but you just walked into a false dichotomy. Don't worry, your condescending tone has made your idiocy something the rest of us can celebrate.

>>12122370

>>12122438
he kept saying 'you do realize' like a ledditor

>>12121349

here

>>12122370
there are two approaches to this. you are using the sociological one which people on this brazilian hammock swinging board don't appreciate. bunch of libertarian narcissists with no empathy, you see.
the other is the biochemical (brain) or physical (molecule/information) one which is the more profound route to take. go ahead, read Foucault if you want the former which sure makes for interesting discussions. but think about where freedom can come from if one particle/wave simply influencing the other is all there is

>>12122279
Bell’s Theorem out doesn’t rule out or rule in determinism, bringing it up is just evading the main point that vanilla QM is deterministic (the evolution of the wavefunction by Schrodinger’s equation IS deterministic). There’s different higher level interpretations of QM, and that’s fine, because I’m not saying QM rules anything out or in either (quite the opposite). Vanilla QM casts doubt on this classical determinism by making it apparently impossible to gather all the necessary information about the present state of a wavefunction just because measurement is gay

>>12120908
least wrong answer ITT

>>12120467
both depend on a linear notion of time and are nonsensical.

>>12122830
QM is inherently deterministic, sure. Yet Bell's theorem proves (as much as we can prove) true randomness and the lack of any pattern beyond this.
As long as we accept that determinism doesn't extend to the outcome but to any outcome's probability I don't see how a case could be made for the existence of any amount of freedom (defined as true and utter independence). Cause-and-effect, there is nothing more to it. And a bit of randomness does not change that

>>12122946
>Yet Bell's theorem proves (as much as we can prove) true randomness
It either “”proves”” true randomness *or* that particles can communicate to each other faster than light and across time and consequently appear to be acting at random. I personally find either outcome to be equally bizarre/disturbing.

Notice how I put “prove” double-nested in quotes. Bell’s Theorem doesn’t prove anything really, it just says that *quantum mechanics* is incompatible with any local hidden variable theory meaning, not in any particular order, either QM is wrong, there exists nonlocal hidden variables like I described in the last paragraph, or “the universe obeys local rules but there’s no underlying hidden variables so you’ll never have a deterministic description.”

This then boils down to “who the fuck knows, really?” I’m admittedly not sure what you mean by your second paragraph.

>>12123268
>>12122946
Also alternatively I forgot to mention that a “god” or something tantamount could be punking us in some manner since by fallacy of composition we cannot really make any predictions about the system as a whole based on what we observe about the parts. But that seems like a dead-end to waste time considering

>>12123268
thanks for this input, anon. I've never been given such a straight forward synopsis of what Bell's work leaves us with.
i'll dwell on this and discuss it with my best friend next time we talk. this might have input on my thoughts that shaped the second paragraph. depending on what I end up with I'll bring it up in the next thread of this kind, they fortunately pop up quite frequently
t. guy that really wishes he had studied physics at uni

>>12120944
You are not free. Your will is not free. Mine can be.

>>12124482
Prove it then.

>>12122370
I desire to eat and to never eat.

>>12124488
How? I can't even prove that I am to others or that others are.

>>12124494
You are what others think you are and you are not free.

Freeterminism, idiot

>>12124469
oh dope, it’s always fun to discuss stuff like this (with someone chill that doesn’t treat every dialectic like it’s a death sentence). im not an expert either, i did ee because i wanted more practical work

>>12124501
Doubt. Egregore is way too deep for them.

>>12124523
>like it’s a death sentence
No work no others no stress no flaws... I want to die because I want good things without the cost.

>>12124541
shut up u dumb philosophy bitch

>>12120936
This but unironically until all these sad fuckers get the joke

>>12124557
Kill me like you were a subhuman and I was Ludwig XVI.

>>12120467
Our self-creative freedom comes from free inquiry: our ability to question ourselves and the world. Free will is slavery to the will, while questioning one's pre-existent desires and following the lines of inquiry from it generates alternate potentialities. Free inquiry isn't an absolute, but a skill of variable magnitude. Our self-creative freedom is cumulative, our ability to change ourselves over time, looking at the act of choice itself ignores this larger picture of self-evolution.

Self-evolution isn't a metaphor: it is literally the evolutionary process folded upon itself; variation -> selection -> reproduction corresponds to question -> choice -> action. Queries are the mutagenic and variety-generating component of this process, often leading to a range of possible options to choose from. As we can question our questions, reasons (selection criterion,) and actions in turn, we're able to modify this evolutionary process itself using its own elements. The result is that the self-creative process is a three-fold strange loop of self-modification, a recursively self-improving process - at least ideally, in practice it's a lot messier.

>>12124647
Are you the guy from sls?

Entropy and chaos > your shitty laws of limits. Though I can choose to prevail even in chaos.

Your experience consists of combinations of electro-chemical synapses running through your nervous system. These synapses follow the laws of physics. Having a free will would imply that you can magically bypass the laws of nature, which is silly.

>>12125999
What if I shoot my balls, what now science man.

>>12125999
>Having a free will would imply that you can magically bypass the laws of nature, which is silly.
What is up with you retards. No it doesn't.

>>12126049
yes it does. how doesn't it?
>it's either physics
or
>magic/god/something supernatural/something we have so far not discovered
the second option is implausible

>>12126160
>it's physics
So? I'm not sure why you're acting like this instantly invalidates the concept of free will. Then, answer me this question - is the will of 'physics' free? Accroding to you, it can't be, since free will is impossible, so, in turn, 'physics' is being unfree because some other thing or force controls it. I'm sure you can see that your own logic leads into a paradox.

>>12126225
'physics' is the name of the ruleset that seems to be followed by particles and information in this universe. this ruleset is strict, fixed and the opposite of free. there is no room for freedom

>>12126225
plus you are falling to a logical fallacy. just because 'physics' might not necessarily be unfree (though it is) doesn't have to mean that those things entirely governed by it (us, our brains and the particles forming it) might be free.

>>12126245
Who set the ruleset? Was it a free agent?
>He isn't
So he must be governmed by his own ruleset, corerct? Who set that ruleset? Was that new guy a free agent?
>He is
Ok, so he's magical, according to you. Assuming you break your own logic and claim it, would it not mean that the ruleset of physics itself is ultimately the expression of free will, and we're the product of this brilliant free will, maikng us perhaps automatons in decision-making, but magial free fairies in essense. Very religious argument, I'm glad you were able to find Christ.

>>12120936
That would take a lot of determination on my part, and I'm just not willing to cause an uproar with some volition diagram that specifies where the hand was, or when the hand was that held the social cue and knocked the magic eight ball into Schrodinger's pocket.

>>12126245
You can only play a game with rules.
What is square root of 25? Oops, two answers. When will a particular radioactive particle decay? Oops, random.

Math is more complex and more free than you think.

>>12126369
maybe you should stop confusing the map for the territory and accept you know nothing of the actual territory

>>12126379
>what is my intuition
>What is phenomena
Radioactive decay is in fact, random. Not deterministic. Observation affects reality as well. Stop pretending your npc coding is valid.

>>12126387
>calls me NPC
>confuses his symbols for reality

oh im laughing

Determinism

We are essentially code that can react to its environment to ensure its survival. That code changes body function to ensure homeostasis accordingly. We have code ultimately from DNA being translated at different levels. DNA to RNA to protein. Depending on protein composition cell function differs, and this changes the composition of other molecules in it aswell since protein catalyze their formation. Each cell in your body reacts extremely precisely to its environment. Where it is located, what you have eaten, what it previously made, fat composition, even its shape influences expression which influences it's function. Cell communication is another type code in which cells use secreted or surface ligands to activate receptors on other cells. All types of cell communication depend on their location, available ressources, and expression and regulation which are controlled by your environment and DNA. Your organs developed to ensure a maximum amount of cells get what they need and get rid of what they don't to ensure survival by maintaining homeostasis. The brain is no different. It works like a computer. When a neuron fires an action potential it's voltage is fixed, but it decreases the further it travels. The post synaptic neuron sums action potentials reaching it, and if it passes a threshold will release its own. Information is related to the brain upwards through periphery receptor activation, giving your brain information about your organs or surroundings, which it processes and creates an output, either by relaying that signal back down to excite other cells like muscles or by producing hormones that alter cell expression in your organs and therefore dictate organ function.

We aren't really in control of anything. We're just the product of a chain of chemical reactions that begin with DNA.

>>12126408
WE ARE IN COMPLETE CONTROL OF OURSELVES, LET GO OF YOUR PROGRAMMING AND BECOME THE CAUSE OF YOUR OWN EFFECT

>>12126408
>FreeChad: I raise my hand
>Detervirgin: Ha! Clearly the cells in your body have made you do this!
>FreeChad: Why, pray tell, would my cells command me to raise a hand, dear friend? I see no biological imperative to do so.
>Detervirgin: *gets nervous* Y-you did it just to spite me...!
>FreeChad: Good Lord you think me vicious man, Detervirgin! Spite, what an interesting word. The one which belongs to the field of ideas, not to the field of biological functioning. Are you saying my Ideas overwrote my Biology in an act one might call..an act of Will?
>Detervirgin: FUCK YOU CHAD !! YOU WERE NEVER MY FRIEND !! YES, ALRIGHT !! FINE, I MERELY ESCAPE TO DETERMINISM TO AVOID ADMISSION OF MY OWN LIFE'S FAILURE !! WE'RE ALL CODE, JUST DNA PLAYING IT'S HELIX STRINGS IF WE'RE NOT MY INABILITY TO GET WITH A CUTE GIRL MUST BE, OH GOD, IT MUST BE MY OWN FAULT!!! REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>12126398
>>confuses his symbols for reality
I in fact don't. My experience is not the map (physics, math) and those things fail to limit me or bind me. You can dissect a head all you want but you won't find a mind.

>>12124647
This is a misconception of free will. Your thoughts are influenced by your previous thoughts. You make a decision based on what the best outcome for your survival is depending on what you already know versus your impulses. You can choose option A but after further inspection find that option B is better. Similarly you can want option B but your impulses make you do option C because your body thinks it needs it.

>>12126431
Did you even read my post mate? You cannot let go of your programing without killing yourself. Your programming is there for a reason. The best you can do is fight indoctrination by questioning society. Or fight your impulses by studying what is best for you. You can perceive any change you make as your will but ultimately it is programmed as the will to survive.

>>12126450
freewill enables nihilists to respect intention as an individual doing a crime, but only so that the Machiavellians among those staunch respectable people can prey upon the public's lust for vengeance, for agency, and then using those emotions to either drive people towards a certain decision or towards some ponzi scam. Religious folks in american have been used by nihilists for such a long time that most don't even remember how this debate reemerged. Wonder why the cultural war dealt with this particular issue for so long?

>>12120467

Free will

because there are parts of our brain associated with the growth of the SENSE of free will

determinism is sort of a conundrum because all things are causally tied to the events before them, but it doesn't mean that those events logically caused the next event to unfold.

I was huge into determinism in high school and thought that if you could map all events before you, then using a proper computer, you can predict the next events that will happen

We humans are the only animals to step out of line, and we are also the ones with the biggest sense of free will - I would assume that the more intelligent a creature, the deeper it's sense of free will is, and therefore the more freedom it has.

>>12122841
>

Exactly, basically this

>>12126450
>Hand is made out of cells.
>It's not the cells moving my arm, it is the abstract concept of free will.
Literally retarded. Also, just because you are deterministic doesn't mean you use it to justify failures. Healthy people accept failures and move on.

>>12126493
Senses aren't reality. Your senses are just interpretations.

>>12120506

agency does not depend on autonomy though - think of a travelling salesman.

while tied to a business, a model, a product, etc, the salesman can go wherever they want to roll the dice that day on a sale. sometimes, the choice they make is based on information, and sometimes, it's a shot in the dark.

metaphorically of course...

you can prove "free will" by basically defying "determinism" on purpose. just see, what a fruitless, and pointless thought experiment free will vs determinism really is. you can defy and do whatever you want all day long before you realize, "damn, wtf am i doing?"

we humans live closer to the "now" than other animals do, and we can respond and shape things in whatever stupid random way we randomly come up with!

seems like all that multi-verse / quantum uncertainty comes into play regarding this as well, in terms of pieces of the universe not always being tied to each other in a linear obvious manner

>>12126509
>Your senses are just interpretations
just like your sense of time, space, gravily, electromagnetic force, light, color, noise, touch, logic, reason etc.

>>12126387
Hey, Vsauce, Michael here! While you can say that radioactive decay is “not deterministic” at this point because we cannot predict which particles will decay (in spite of that fact that we know how many of them will), there’s still some other explanations aside from “no hidden variables, shits just random bro.” As was said earlier QM may be wrong, God may be pranking us, or there may very well be nonlocal hidden variables making things possibly forever appear random.

>>12126529
>Deterincel: Things MUST be deterministic, I KNOW it!
>FreeChad: Why? This thing seems to be random to me...
>Deterincel: Idiot! How can't you see that there must be...um..wait a second...oh yes! Nonlocal variables, and they're hidden, heh! They make it all deterministic, those pesky dark energy particles!
>FreeChad: How strange your mind works, Deterincel! I'm inspired to think (freely, ofcourse) about this wondrous idea, but for now, I have a date with a beautiful lady. She's a virgin and wants me to be her first after hearing about my free, unbound manly nature. Say healthy, my gloomy friend!

>>12126520
>Time
Subjective. 1h sober isn't the same as 1h on LSD. 1h bored isn't the same as 1h having fun.
>Gravity
Detect the physical concept through fluid in your semitubular canal. Alcohol for example alters it's density and makes you dizzy altering your sense of gravity.
>Electromagnetic force
We have no senses for it and rely on machines to detect it. Later interpreted
>Light & color
Cause different rods/cones in your eyes to stop releasing neurotransmitter by a photochemical reaction changing their structure, detecting light. Defects in different variations of these receptors cause different types of blindness.
>Noise
Vibration is detected by vibrating hair inside your ear.
>Touch
Mechanoreceptors detect changes in cell shape.

Information is detected by receptors and interpreted by the brain. Logic and reason are abstract concepts that describe how well your brain is able to interpret information or derive its own based on previous thought / sensory input.

>>12126546
You are mistaken, FreeChad, I’m not arguing in favor of determinism rather I’m just pointing out what has and hasn’t been proven

Have a nice date, FreeChad

>>12126558
>We have no senses for it
Try sticking in a fork in the outlet, tell us about how much you can't sense it afterwards.

>>12126582
Brb

>>12126520
You experience of reality isn't reality in itself but a pragmatic biointerpretation of reality developed through natural selection for the purpose of survival.

>>12126369
>>12126387
>>12126546
>he thinks the opposite of free will is the 100% certainty of classical physics
heard of probabilities, sugar?

>>12126520
This guy, Plato, recently said this thing about a cave. It's really recent so I understand that you haven't had time to look into it. But go check it out!

>>12121349

I DEMAND that someone responds to this

>>12120467
If you are a materialist with a strong belief in rejection of God and any unseen, spiritual or anything really besides the material substrate - then you're pretty much left with a 51% probability of a deterministic universe and will a a human.

Other way around it's 100% free will, no doubt - read the scriptures if in doubt.

>>12126480
>You make a decision based on what the best outcome for your survival is
What about school shooters?

The act of arguing for determinism proves free will. Think about it.

Both

"Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills."

Your choices are determined by your will, which is to say, they're determined by you. You (your will) will always make the same choice when put into the same situation, but this is not to say that you don't freely make a choice; the only thing preventing you from making other choices is yourself.

>>12127607
"i refute it thus" ass non-argument

>>12120514
Motivation is unreliable. Dedication is your only choice. I have the same probelm with procrasination, and its costing me in school.

>>12127617
Yeah Schopenhauer was a good guy. And correct on this.
ITT: men that accept uncomfortable truths and children in denial. Sure you can have a go at defining 'free' 'you' 'deterministic' in ways that help support your pathetic and desperate theories. Or you can accept what is. Free will is an illusion.
That's not too bad though given that it leads to the certainty that we are nothing but the universe experiencing itself. And that's pretty beautiful as well and makes up for some

>>12127882
>illusion
Is this the most-abused word in the pseudointellectual's vocabulary?

>>12125999
>Your experience consists of combinations of electro-chemical synapses running through your nervous system.
This is unproven.

>>12120475
Being bound by your morals =/= free will's nonexistence

>hurr you're just a bundle of cells and electrical impulses
How does it explain consciousness at all?
One cell clearly has no self-awareness. It doesn't know that it's a cell
Two cell have no self-awareness.
Two million cells have no self-awareness.
Yet, humans have self-awareness. Therefore, at some critical number of cells, arranged in the proper order, the sum suddenly becomes greater than it's part. Why is the critical number exactly that? What exactly happens at that critical point? Until you answer these questions with MUH SCIENCE, reducing human experience to a bundle of cells sending electric impulses to each other is a non-statement.

>>12120467
You don't live in a vacuum. NO FREE WILL!

You can make some choices. NO DETERMINISM!

READ ADLER

The misconception which has haunted philosophic literature throughout the centuries is the notion of 'independent existence.' There is no such mode of existence; every entity is to be understood in terms of the way it is interwoven with the rest of the universe.

>>12120467
In order to believe in free will, you need few things. 1) An agency who defies the laws of causality 2) Proof of such.

In order to believe in determinism, you have to drop the assumption of 1) an agency that defies the laws of causality.

>>12127811
How do I have dedication

>>12121026
Explain why people feel guilt for killing in self defense

>>12129635
jewish brainwashing

>>12129635
Not everyone does. Most gangmembers don't. Most white southerners don't.

Read the greeks, plebs. The world is governed by the Moirai.

>>12125999
>These synapses follow the laws of physics
The laws of physics are just manmade descriptions of how things behave, not actual external things that move matter and energy around like puppets on strings.
Since the laws of physics only describe how things behave, saying that something follows the laws of physics only means that it behaves as it does.

>>12129540
>In order to believe in free will, you need few things. 1) An agency who defies the laws of causality
Causality doesn't contradict free will, in fact it's necessary for free will

>>12129540
>In order to believe in free will, you need few things. 1) An agency who defies the laws of causality 2) Proof of such.
On top of this, once you have an agency established, then there's another free will vs determinism all they way down on the mechanics of such agency.

Free will is untenable unless you believe in some sort of ectoplasma that violates causality and that agency can't be subject to it.

>>12129635
Because these are separate structures interacting here. Guilt comes from the piece of them that adheres to notions of society/family/goodness or whatever it is for them specifically. Death is such a nonoword for people that an encounter that visceral with the real thing can make them doubt their actions (usually because they believe to be in control of them and hence responsible for in respect to the societal structure, hence the guilt). But as >>12130429
said, not everyone has that tie - or expresses it in the same way, mind you

>>12126689

COWARDS!

>>12121349
what is there to respond to, that is such a retardedly convoluted sentence

>refract
quit misusing clear, scientific terminology as vague figures of speech to explain things

>>12131410
>what is there to respond to, that is such a retardedly convoluted sentence
this kills the obscurantist

>>12120467
>>>/his/

>>12131410
>>12131472
>a basic a-b-c;c-b-a sentence with singular subject-predicate relation is convoluted

Suffice to say that neither free will nor determinism alone could deliver you from idiocy.

Considering what we know, this isn't even up for debate. Deterministic

>>12121249
>>12121363
>>12121410
I suspected that a particle not having a definite state / the cat being both alive and dead was quantum physicists conflating their limited models with reality.

Still, there's so much we don't know.
What if we created a completely accurate simulation of the universe (technology will inevitably allow for this if we live long enough) - except [such and such] is different.
This would literally be the creation of a parallel universe that is different.
I guess the creator would still be guided by the same determinism that chose a different universe but I still feel like this could muddy the waters and, again, so much we don't know

>>12124647
This is more art than logic, at best.
At worst you're a buzzword slinging pseudo-intellectual that has no clue what he's saying

>>12126480
>you cannot let go of your programming without suicide
It's your programming that would lead you to suicide in the first place

>>12131518
>>12131472
solid explanations boys

>>12120475
>If I were free I could change my desires at will.
I mean, you kind of can. It requires effort and you don't have 100% control, but it is possible to influence yourself into desiring something less/more.

>>12131638
>>12120475
The inclination to change desire in the first place is predetermined; based completely on current programming.

We can definitely learn to change desire. Nothing to do with free will but it's a very beneficial thing and something to aspire toward

>>12122370
That's pretty moronic

If I were gang raped by men I'd probably turn at least a little gay. Our environment can change us -> more importantly how we experience our environment -> more importantly how we experience in general.

This is putting aside the reality that a neural interface will be invented eventually.

Anyway, none of this goes outside of determinism. How you change your programming is dictated by your (and more generally the universe's) current programming

What are the practical implications for a person's life and decision making is there if the universe is deterministic or if free agency/will exists?

You literally can't prove determinism is true, or indeed that for any event there is cause associated to it.

>>12131870
>truth from utility
stop

>>12132083
Are you not able to answer the question? What difference would it make between the two mutually exclusive possibilities? For example, imagine two copies of our universe, frozen in time, identical in all ways except one universe is deterministic and the other has the possibility of free will. When time is "unpaused" and allowed to play, how would the universes diverge? Would there be any difference?

>>12131671
I don't quite understand your comment. How did it disprove what I say?Gang rape is a influential outer factor and that's it, Determenism doesn't negate change, quite the opposite, it embraces change.

>>12131671
>If I were gang raped by men I'd probably turn at least a little gay.

>>12132173
That's no OP's question. OP's question, or the discussion is whether freewill or determinism is true. Not whether knowing the answer will help, change or do anything.

>>12132457
You're right. It's not OP's question. it's my question, that I asked, separately. You'll notice that other questions which were not asked by the OP were answered or discussed in this thread. Now, I can't help but get the feeling that you are avoiding my question.

>>12132592
Its not avoidance, but rather stickin to the topic.

The utility of knowing such answer is obviously dependent upon each individual. You could ask a similar question with regards to existence of everything else other than whats around you. The answer would be exactly the same.

>>12129340
that's a fucking stellar and thread winning post right there. props, lad. you're one of the smart ones

>>12129340
muh heap paradox

>>12131870
Whether or not free will exists changes nothing. On the other hand, whether or not you personally belive that we have free will does change certain things about how you act and how you approach life.

>>12132920
>whether or not you personally belive that we have free will does change certain things about how you act and how you approach life.
This is a joke, right?