/lit/ - Literature

>>15212112
This sort of juvenile philosophy belongs on /v/ or /x/ or something.

>>15212172
People who say no one has free will are like 14 year old boys who just started to question things but are not able to follow through with their thoughts and think clearly.
As an atheist and a stembug, it baffles me how so many of my kind can proclaim to be rational thinkers yet believe that people don't have free will.

>>15212112

fucking stupid. No one arguing for its existence can coherently define what free will is supposed to mean.

There is no way I can convince you through text that OP is a cocksucking subhuman faggot but I know he's indeed a cocksucking subhuman faggot. If you don't believe that op is a cocksucking subhuman faggot then you're mentally ill and yourself a cocksucking subhuman faggot.

>>15212184
Your brain is just a series of electric and chemical reactions, what force do you believe exists that can manipulate these reactions that is itself not such a reaction?

>>15212112
No. A person with true free will, would most likely look at the evidence available, and conclude that no logical conclussions are possible. He would not be able to with any certanty state either that free will does exist or that it does not.
The fact that you do not understand this and furthurmore state that some people do and others do not possess it, simply makes it seem like you're unintelligent or at best uneducated because you do not understand personallity traits such as creativity and agree-ableness.
I suggest using google a bit more before posting in the future.

>>15212210
>>15212214
>>15212216
Op here. All the arguments I've ever heard about how there is no free will are completely retarded.
It's like arguing there are no images because they're all just small pixels making up the illusion of images.
That's what is meant by images! Holy crap why do so many retards believe that just because something can be reduced into smaller parts, it's not real.

>>15212230

define free will. Protip: You either can't or you can only define it in a way that makes it meaningless.

>>15212230
It is not, not real. Nor is it not real. It's the issue of there not being any evidence to support either claim. I have not seen any evidence in my life that a conclussion in either direction could be made. It's speculation and guessing that has no scientific basis. Unless you are somehow capable of providing through a tought experiment a way to prove me wrong, in which case I would be highly intrested.

>>15212216
>>15212243
I don't have to convince you that I have free will, I know that I do. I'm not sure if you do, so I won't try to convince you that you do have free will. For all I know, you could be a low IQ deterministic bugman. It's you who are trying to convince me that I don't, and I'm merely pointing out how all of your arguments are completely retarded.

>>15212230
The difference is that these smaller parts directly contradict the notion of some force controlling your actions.

>>15212256

you're literally unable to give me a definition of free will.

> I know that I have magic powers from god. I'm not sure if you do, so I won't try to convince you that you have magic powers from god. It's you who are trying to convince me that I don't.

Imagine arguing like this unironically

>>15212243
The ability to make decisions which are not forced onto you.

>>15212256
>I know that I do

No, a particular arrangement of neurons and chemicals in your head makes you think you have free will.

>>15212276
If by "forced onto you" you mean by an immediate force outside of the "self" then sure, we all have free will. But if by "forced onto you" you mean by the laws of physics, which the "self" obeys, then you don't.

>>15212276

what does it mean to be forced?

I can certainly make decisions free from active coercion, and feel like I am choosing things for reasons that are entirely my own. But my decisions are ultimately the result of chemical-biological processes in my brain, which are in turn the result of my genetics and experiences, which are in turn caused by previous events, which ultimately I had no control over.

Or alternatively, I might be able to make choices unrelated to my brain chemistry, in which case those choices are arbitrary.

So either my decisions the result of previous events I had no control over, or they're arbitrary.

get out of here, pseud

>>15212256
>I'm merely pointing out how all of your arguments are completely retarded
You have failed, because you do not possess even the capacity to understand our arguments, evidence provided in your responses. You have made a post stating you have free will. Assuming youre an intelligent human being and not a robot/idiot, this would mean that you are actively seeking out conversation on the topic.
You have then failed to provide an argument as to why my claim "It's pointless to discuss free will or consider if it exists, since it is universally imposible to either prove or disprove" is wrong.
>I don't have to convince you that I have free will, I know that I do
Either a)
What evidence have you provided to yourself to prove to yourself that you do have free will?
or b)
>im an idiot that made a thread in order to discuss something that cannot be discussed and killed another active thread, because im an idiot and what to discuss the undiscussable.

>>15212304
/thread

>>15212316
No. Not yet. I wanna see where this goes.

>>15212298
>But if by "forced onto you" you mean by the laws of physics, which the "self" obeys,
The laws of physics are simply manmade descriptions of the way things behave. Saying that we follow the laws of physics simply expresses the tautological statement that we behave as we behave.

>>15212304
But bodies and characters and brains and genetics are us. They are not external to us. Do you even realize how retarded you sound?

>>15212305
Consider it like this:
I have a computer with three buttons layed out infront of it. Each of these buttons correspond to a different display popping up on the screen. You hit a button, and it either shows then numbers 1, 2, or 3. Does the computer have free will?
Yes, since the method of selection is decided BY THE COMPUTER for what number corresponds with what button. It is also DETERMINED since this method of selection is initialized through some constant framework (the universe, which cannot change since it is everything and has nothing to transform into outside of it).
Hence, there is both free will and determinism.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
> I'm here now and ready to argue

>>15212184
>People who say everyone has free will are like 14 year old boys who just started to question things but are not able to follow through with their thoughts and think clearly.
As an atheist and a stembug, it baffles me how so many of my kind can proclaim to be rational thinkers yet believe that people have free will.

>>15212340

yes, but my brain and genetics are the result of deterministic processes that are ultimately external to me. If you redefine free will as something consistent with determinism, then congratulations, we have "free will," if free will means that external factors are the ultimate cause of our decisions.

>>15212353
By that precise definition, free will exists and every organism that can respond to the enviorment in any way has free will.

>>15212355
Enjoy.

>self
There is no self.
No more than white light is low color and high intensity.

>>15212112
>anime
please leave desu

>>15212304
>So either my decisions the result of previous events I had no control over, or they're arbitrary.
Your decisions being the result of something you have no control over doesn't mean you don't have control over them. A canal can't control the way it's built yet it still controls the flow of water.
Your decisions may be determined by prior events you have no control over, but that doesn't mean those prior events force you into making a decision. Unless you're being mind-controlled, the intent to choose A over B didn't exist until you (your brain is still a part of you) made it exist, thus it wasn't forced onto you.

>>15212508
>Your decisions may be determined by prior events you have no control over, but that doesn't mean those prior events force you into making a decision.
Objectively wrong.

>>15212112
Wow an anon poster on da chan solved it.

>>15212214
This

>>15212216
Based

>>15212304
>I can certainly make decisions free from active coercion

You’re not always aware you’re being coerced you goof

>>15212557
Based. Glad there are some based MF’ers up in this bitch

>>15212112
Why is free will good and determinism bad?
What is it that determinism does that makes you dislike it? What is it about free will that makes you happy?

Woah, it seems people here are arguing materialism and deterministic causality.
Reminder that materialism and deterministic causality have been falsified, take your pseudoscience to >>>/x/

>>15212214
>>15212573
Consciousness has nothing to do with those electroids my dudes.

>>15212625
On force of you saying so?

>>15212256
>I don't have to convince you that I have free will, I know that I do.
Bravo. What an amazing rhetorical technique. It never occurred to me that restating the proposition could count as an argument. Well done OP.

>>15212216
>No. A person with true free will, would most likely look at the evidence available, and conclude that no logical conclussions are possible. He would not be able to with any certanty state either that free will does exist or that it does not.
Why?
>The fact that you do not understand this and furthurmore state that some people do and others do not possess it, simply makes it seem like you're unintelligent or at best uneducated because you do not understand personallity traits such as creativity and agree-ableness.
What do personality traits such as creativity and agree-ableness have to do with free will?
>I suggest using google a bit more before posting in the future.
I suggest you start making sense because all your points so far have been non-sequiturs.

>>15212418
I thought white light was a mix of all colours.

>>15212696
When you see white light, is it?

>>15212696
Just as when you see white light, it's very bright and there's no color, your experience of being conscious and having a self is also bullshit.

>>15212112
It would have been sufficient to say
>I have immediate knowledge of my own agency

>>15212740
Not really, because as soon as I refute their dumb arguments for why they think I don't have free will, they start asking me to prove I have free will. It needed explaining that it's impossible to prove to others that you have free will.

Use your volition to leave this site and come back when you're 18+

>>15212339
Exactly. Determinism is a tautology. Therefore it is true.

>>15212384
Correct.

>>15212784
All of the posters like you have not pointed out a single flaw in my arguments. It's really starting to seem like you've been BTFOd hard be me.
All I get back is namecalling and a refusal to engage.

>>15212508

If I roll a bowling ball at some pins, does the bowling ball have free will?

If I write a program that prints "hello" when I give it an input, does it have free will?

If I write a very complicated program that gives lots of different outputs and which learns what output to give based on prior inputs, does it have free will?

Does a brain which is very much like the program above have free will?

>>15212616

Don't give me that and pretend it means something deep about free will. Let's say some events are the result of truly random quantum processes. That means they're arbitrary. There's no free will there, either.

>>15212112
Go back to >>>/x/, nutjob.

>>15212256
If you have free will then you can do whatever you think of. Certainly you're in complete control of your thoughts then. You can control what you think and what you don't think. You can prove to me that you have free will if you do one thing. All you have to do is to try your hardest not to think of a pink elephant. Only this will prove that you are in complete control of your thoughts and therefore have free will. I'll wait.

>>15212616
Fucking retards who shouldn't be allowed to read.
If two observers experience "different realities", then there NEEDS TO BE SOME OVERARCHING REALITY CONTAINING BOTH DETERMINING THESE DIFFERENCES. Therefore, the realities/universes each of the observers are no longer "different", since a universe is everything, yet I've just transformed them each into parts of an overarching universe. The fact that you can even "prove" that two people are experiencing different things proves what I am saying: that they are both in the same reality. If they were in different realities then no possible communication about this difference would be possible. The cute little article refutes itself.
Then, of course, you claim THE OTHERS are pseudoscientists, while you are incapable of even thinking BASIC philosophy. Disgusting. Actually makes me sick.

>>15212814
You have to read the actual experment. The conclusion of the experiment implies a logical conjunction: Either free will is real XOR nonlocality is true.
However, nonlocality has been falsified.
Therefore, free will is true (which the physicist concludes in the paper).
>>15212863
Read the paper, buddyboy.

>>15212557
But it's not. Even with external influences, it's still ultimately you who makes the decision. Short of God predetermining your choice or you being mind-controlled, the intent that you choose A over B didn't exist until you made it exist.
The problem with your position is that it only works if we ourselves have no say in how external influences affect us, but this is not the case. We are half of the equation that determines how we will be changed by coming into contact with external factors.

>>15212796
Determinism isn't the tautology, what's tautological is saying "we behave according to the laws of physics", and it's tautological because the laws of physics aren't something distinct from ourselves that force us to act a certain way, they're descriptions of the behavior of physical things.

>>15212913
Read Epictetus, Enchiridion.
You belligerent cunt.

>>15212814
>If I write a very complicated program that gives lots of different outputs and which learns what output to give based on prior inputs, does it have free will?
Potentially. It depends on whether or not there are corresponding mental states involving intentionality.

>>15212906

go to article's conclusion:

> Modulo the potential loopholes and accepting the photons’ status as observers, the violation of inequality (2) implies that at least one of the three assumptions of free choice, locality, and observer-independent facts must fail.

Did you even read it?

>>15212931
Got any specific passage or chapter I should read or do you expect me to read a whiole book on the off chance that I'll find something that disproves what I wrote, retard?

>>15212929
>it's tautological because the laws of physics aren't something distinct from ourselves that force us to act a certain way, they're descriptions of the behavior of physical things.
But when people say "the laws of physics" in this thread, they aren't referring to our ideas on physics.

>>15212929
The only cases I've seen of actual free will are when Mahavira (and a few greek philosophers as well) starved themselves to death by force of will, and those Buddhist monks that sit still while burning themselves to death.
Anything less than that is just people being pressured by the environment and biological impulses like hunger.
I mean, gut bacteria have more to do with people's decisions than anything.
The only actual choices are choices against biology.
Choose not to reproduce, choose death, but not due to passion.
If you kill yourself to make a point, just to say "no", then you're truly in control.

The question really should be "why are determinism or free will positions which should have moral attributes? Why do we feel the need to assign values to these?"

>>15212256
I have free free will, even freer than yours bitch

>>15212906
It doesn't matter. I just destroyed the paper just by reading the title. You cannot say two things are in different realities and comment on it at the same time.

>>15212929
And, by the way, I agree with you (see: >>15212353 )

>>15212985
Then they're making a metaphysical assumption that there are actual laws which exist in some plane of existence; laws which determine the actions of physical things but which are not themselves physical, meaning they would be literally super-natural. They're also just assuming that these things exist, because they never advance any argument for their existence.

>>15212814
I see a lot of things comparing our brains to computers, but I think this is because lots of things in today’s world have become tied to computers. I remember reading something from the 1800’s comparing our minds to steam engines, any other anon know of anything like this? I can’t remember what it was from but I don’t think I’m making it up. Anyways, my point is our brains may seem to be like computers but that could very much be a product of the times we live in. I don’t know whether we will ever fully understand the brain, so I’m hesitant to boil down our existence to just chemistry and electrical impulses.

>>15212214
Bruh

>>15212965
It's not a huge tome, friend, it can be read in like a half hour.
http://classics.mit.edu/Epictetus/epicench.html

>>15212952
Yes, and of those three observer independent facts fail as that is what is consistent with all experiments in the field.
Reality is local, non realist, probabilistic, continuous, and free will exists. This is the currently accepted position among physicists.
>>15212998
Read the paper, midwit

>>15213014
>laws which determine the actions of physical things but which are not themselves physical, meaning they would be literally super-natural
The laws of physics would be imminent to substance. A "supernatural" plane is not necessary.

>>15213060
>Reality is local, non realist, probabilistic, continuous, and free will exists.
If you would've read my post instead of ignoring it, you would've realized I just destroyed all "probability". But you didn't (most likely because you were incapable of understanding it), and now look like an idiot.

>>15213033
If you've read it and understood it then you should be able to tell me how it is relevant to this argument. You should be able to summarize whatever points you need to make to support your position. If you won't even put in that much effort to contribute to the discussion, I see no reason to continue it.

>>15213091
This is not something a shit from brains like you can disprove on a 4chan post. The universe IS non-deterministic, this is what all evidence indicates and what is currently accepted among actual physicists.

>>15213060
Here, I broke it up into abby language for you:

Everything that happens has a 100% chance to happen. This is tautological.
The universes "guess" is always right, since this is the event that takes place.
Let's say we have some event. This event will give way to a necessary event after that it changes into.
This event has to necessarily transform into this next event. There can be no probability in this transformation, since
in order for there to be some probability, there has to be more than one possibility. But there is only one universe.
Therefore, there is no probability.

"But, what about a dice roll!"

It is in constant transformation that ends with a certain side face up. These transformations happen according to the
universe they happen in. There is no chance. Any type of objective chance would need to somehow have universe-switching.
But any such universes in universe-switching would not be universes anymore, since they would be parts of a universe that
contains both. Probability still wouldn't exist, since universe-switching would happen according to this universe necessarily.

Hence, the multiverse interpretation of quantum mechanics, where every action has another "universe" in which another was done
in it's place, to make up for their faulty theories necessitating chance.

>>15213100
You should have realized by now that they don't have many good arguments. Their best line of defense is pointing to a book or an author or namecalling. About what you expect from NPCs.

>>15213106
ANY EVIDENCE OF PEOPLE EXPERIENCING DIFFERENT REALITIES WOULD HAVE TO HAPPEN IN A REALITY WHICH CONTAINS BOTH, RETARD. And you call me a shit-brain, as you hide behind "actual physicists" nonsense. Oh no! Actual physicists! It's currently accepted? I better shut up lol.

>>15212814
This guys gets it, right on brother

>>15212851
Fucking based right here!

>>15212112
Like I get it, but it's in itself a paradox. We have free will, but our choices will always be the same.
This seems to me like you're just having an existential crisis and you want to find an explanation that doesn't make you break down.

>>15213121
You don't understand what is meant by "different observations" in this context.
Read the paper, idiot, because you are NOT coming up with a logical loophole that actual logicians, physicists, and mathematicians haven't thought of.

>>15213073
Then the "laws" would simply be the nature or behavior of the substances, i.e. the substances themselves, not something distinct from the substances forcing them to act a certain way, which is the exact point I was making when I first replied to the mention of the laws of physics.
So yes, I more-or-less do agree with what you're saying here; I think you're not the guy I was originally responding to so when you replied agreeing with me I thought you were that guy and read your reply as part of his argument.

>>15213026
>I remember reading something from the 1800’s comparing our minds to steam engines, any other anon know of anything like this
Our brains are like steam engines, since steam engines are thermodynamic systems and studying them gave way to multiple extremely important discoveries.

>>15213033
Based

>>15213107
You are way smarter than the guy you are responding to. Thanks for breaking it down.

>>15213139
>The experiment shows how the strange nature of the universe allows two observers—say, Wigner and Wigner’s friend—to experience different realities.
Just read it, and it is exactly the type of "observer" I had in mind. So, I'm sorry, but I just destroyed the physicists theory, unless you can offer a rebuttal. But you can't, since you couldn't even comprehend my argument.

>>15213107
Exactly the dice roll looks like chance in the moment, but the way it rolls is the only possible way it could have.

>>15213172
There is nothing worse than these science-types that hide behind the academy.
>>15213143
Yeah, we agree.

>>15213136
>We have free will, but our choices will always be the same.
>This seems to me like you're just having an existential crisis and you want to find an explanation that doesn't make you break down.

Happened to me the exact same way

>>15213136
>We have free will, but our choices will always be the same.
If your choices weren't always the same it would mean there's some random factor completely separate from yourself that determines what decision you will make, thus it can't be what people call "free will". In order for you to be the one responsible for your decisions it must necessarily be the case that you would always make the same decision.

>>15213172
No, he isnt. He's the type of brainless shit for brains moron who uses physics to make an argument without actually understanding physics.
This dumb duck moron wouldn't have the first clue on for to differentiate the Hilbert space required to understand quantum mechanics, or what the state vector is or how spin is represented. He's a faggot moron brainlet.
>>15213178
No, the ACTUAL paper
https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.05080
You try to use physics to disprove free will when in the actual world, free will is accepted by physicists. You are a retard.

>>15212810
you can't even define free will

>>15213132
It's from Alan Watts.

>>15212418
Free will doesn't exist but anyone who doesn't believe in the self is genuinely retarded.

>>15213100
mit.edu isn't a phishing site, you weenie, are you afraid of what it will say?
Why must I duplicate the labor of writing up something someone else did better, especially a LITERALLY 15 MINUTE READ.

The funny part is you think it's an argument for determinism.
You don't know who Epictetus is, do you?

>>15213112
>Their best line of defense is pointing to a book or an author
This board is /lit/.

>>15213244
>No, he isnt. He's the type of brainless shit for brains moron who uses physics to make an argument without actually understanding physics.
>This dumb duck moron wouldn't have the first clue on for to differentiate the Hilbert space required to understand quantum mechanics, or what the state vector is or how spin is represented. He's a faggot moron brainlet.


You lost with this incoherent post

>>15212725
>Just as when you see white light, it's very bright and there's no color

It's all colors you fucking retard.

>>15213275
That passage is a bit misleading. Watts was against the superlative incompatibilist notion of free will which basically means that you're an uncaused cause, but his overall philosophy was perfectly in line with compatibilist notions of free will.

>>15213288
There is no self

>>15212913
>the intent that you choose A over B didn't exist until you made it exist.

>he still thinks in 3 dimensions

>>15213316
There is nothing incoherent about it, moron.
>the established scientific theory of quantum mechanics and the scientific consensus of the existence of free will is defeated because of an incel's post on 4chan!
You are a moron.
The people ITT arguing against free will are doing so from a place of physics despite not understanding physics or the currently accepted position on the topic among ACTUAL FUCKING PHYSICISTS.

>>15213329
retard

>>15213294
Yes, I've read Epictetus, though not the Enchiridion, and I know perfectly well that Epictetus isn't a determinist. That's why I was confused that you were bringing him up in a reply to my arguments against hard determinism. But if you're not bringing him up to support determinis, then what exactly is his relevance to the conversation?

>>15213319
You see white light as all colors?
Or do you know from science, and a prism, that it's all colors?
Consciousness interprets white light from your senses as absence of color.
But you can find out through indirect knowledge, that is, outside of your personal sense experience, that white light is all colors.

NOW:
>I know I have free will because I experience it
See why the example of white light is relevant?
Unless you are saying you experience white light as all colors, which is a biological anomaly

>>15213341
I'm perfectly aware that there are perspectives one can take on the nature of time from which it's patently obvious that free will doesn't exist (as well as perspectives from which it's just as patently obvious that free will does exist), but free will as a concept is only meaningful from within the mundane human perspective, so trying to look for it in other perspectives is like trying to look for cows on a molecular level, failing to find any, and then concluding that cows must obviously not exist.

>>15213275
>>15213322
Here, I found an example of what I mean
>Way out in space, and way out in time. Billions of years ago, you were a big bang, but now you’re a complicated human being. And then we cut ourselves off, and don’t feel that we’re still the big bang. But you are. Depends how you define yourself. You are actually–if this is the way things started, if there was a big bang in the beginning– you’re not something that’s a result of the big bang. You’re not something that is a sort of puppet on the end of the process. You are still the process. You are the big bang, the original force of the universe, coming on as whoever you are. When I meet you, I see not just what you define yourself as–Mr so-and- so, Ms so-and-so, Mrs so-and-so–I see every one of you as the primordial energy of the universe coming on at me in this particular way. I know I’m that, too. But we’ve learned to define ourselves as separate from it.

>>15213368
You're right, you have important work looking retarded on 4chan to do, no time for Enchiridion, a "book" of less than 30 pages

>>15213381
>You see white light as all colors?
>Or do you know from science, and a prism, that it's all colors?
I see white as a single color, white. I know scientifically it's all colors.

>Consciousness interprets white light from your senses as absence of color.
No, that is black.

>>15213386
I'm just saying you're never going to understand Finnegans Wake until you stop thinking about your own life as linear.

>>15213401
You fucking retard it's not about the length of the book, it's about me having no idea what the fuck you're even getting at by bringing up the book. Without knowing what you expect me to get from reading the book, anything I say here after reading it would be a complete non-sequitur because there is no line of reasoning to follow up on.

>>15213303
>this is a low IQ board. People here are incapable of providing original thoughts, so instead just resort to namedropping authors when confronted with a good argument
You're right.
>>15213263
Free will - ability to choose what you do.
>>15213136
>but our choices will always be the same.
In what sense? Everything only happens one time. The choices I made will always be the choices I made. I can't turn back time. This is obvious and is irrelevant to the discussion of free will.
>This seems to me like you're just having an existential crisis and you want to find an explanation that doesn't make you break down.
Easy there, Freud.
>>15212851
>If you have free will then you can do whatever you think of.
I have free will and I can think of flying, yet I'm not able to fly.
>Certainly you're in complete control of your thoughts then.
Not necessarily. My thoughts are constantly influenced by things I see or read or hear.
Your whole post is nonsensical and full of nonsequiturs. You and the anon calling you based should check your IQs.
>>15212849
Point out a thing you disagree with and then we can talk about it.
>>15213229
Again, what do you mean by "your choices weren't always the same"? Always in what sense?
>>15213386
>I'm perfectly aware that there are perspectives one can take on the nature of time from which it's patently obvious that free will doesn't exist
Like what? Explain how they make it obvious that free will doesn't exist.

>>15213450
>Free will - ability to choose what you do.
Define choose.

>>15213458
To decide.

>>15213450
>Everything only happens one time. The choices I made will always be the choices I made. I can't turn back time.
This is false and has been disproven by the delayed choice quantum erasure experiment
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8ORLN_KwAgs

>>15213437
My point remains, despite disagreement with you on the definition of white as percieved. Most people would say white is absent of color. See PicRel. You're not wrong about black also being not-color.
My point, again, remains.
If you scientifically know that white is all colors, but you experientially know that it's an absence of color, and you admit your experience is incorrect, then why do you trust direct experience about free will?

>>15213462
Define decide.

>>15213481
To pick one of the options.

>>15213450
>Again, what do you mean by "your choices weren't always the same"? Always in what sense?
In the context of the free will discussion, it means that if you "rewind time" over and over to before a decision is made without changing anything, you won't make the same decision in all instances.

>>15212725
>Your experience
>No self
I love how you retards continue to refute yourselves inside the same sentence. The awareness of an illusion presupposes an observer.

>>15213479
Sorry, forgot pic.

>>15213487
Define pick.

>>15213479
>>15213496
White being the absence of color is just a social construct, because it makes other colors stand out more when used as a background. But no one growing up in the modern age thinks of it that way anymore.

It's like how people used to think red, yellow, and blue were the primary colors. Because artists studying colors in the old days had no way of properly measuring light, so they were stuck using subtractive synthesis. But nowadays we're taught that red, green, and blue are the primary colors, because our retinas and all our technology work with additive synthesis.

>>15213488
1. You can't rewind time so why is any of this relevant.
2. Would your argument work if instead of rewinding time you said if you recorded a movie and played it back everything would happen the same way each time you played it? I think we both agree that the fact that in the movie recording everything happens the same way each time doesn't tell us anything interesting about free will. So how is actually going back in time important for your argument?
>>15213475
That's very interesting, I didn't know about this. Thanks for sharing. But still, on the macroscopic scale that our decisions and actions happen in, does that really contradict what I said? I don't think so.
>>15213513
To select

>>15213495
You've done that repeatedly, yourself.
You've made like three arguments at least that refute your position, I especially like the stupid canal metaphor.
I never said Consciousness doesn't exist. A mirage exists. A shadow I thought was a mouse exists. My wife hiding my surprise birthday party but I thought she was cheating on me is all real, they just aren't what they appear to be to Consciousness.
Consciousness can't tell you what it is for itself. It can just do a quick, inaccurate sketch like everything else. White Light.
Free will and Ego and Qualia are like that. They "exist" but aren't the magic ghosts you describe.

>>15213554
THIS IS A NON-ISSUE.
THE ISSUE IS THAT EXPERIENCE OF WHITE IS NOT THE SAME AS SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS OF WHITE.

>>15213575
Define select.

>>15213621
Define "define"

>>15213637
To prescribe meaning.

>>15213643
Define "prescribe"
Define "meaning"

>>15213657
To give.
An interpretable essence.

>>15213657
wololo

>>15213621
>>15213637
>>15213643
>>15213657
FINALLY the real Ultimate purpose of this thread, for OP to get pointless (You)s

>>15213673
Define "interpretable"
Define "essence"

>>15213680
I'm not OP, the point of this is to show the futility of attempting to claim that you need a rigorous definition to discuss something.
This is simply not true and only idiots think that you must define something in order for it to be ontologically real

>>15212112
My own humble take on the debate is that anyone who argues against 'free will' does so in bad faith because no one 'freely believes' that they are incapable of making trivial as well as important decisions (both Civil and Common Law rely on this ground absolutely, it is *the* fundamental law making axiom) and yet, and yet some people do! Go figure!
...
But if 'my' will is free, am I? And if 'I' is a point of grammar *merely* then what OP is really canvassing for is the existence of the (her) soul.

>>15213680
I engaged in anon's "define" game in the beginning in a tongue-in-cheek way but these posts
>>15213688
>>15213673
>>15213657
>>15213643
>>15213637
are not mine.
Also there are two OPs in a sense: I wrote the posts in another thread which got deleted for some reason and some anon made this thread by copy-pasting my posts.
>>15213698
Strong agree with this post. Most human notions are not mathematical. Hell, even mathematical definitions lay on top of notions and words that do not have rigorous definitions. If one thinks that they need to define all things in order to be able to think and reason about them, then they will not be able to get anywhere because there will always be one more level of abstraction. Always one more thing to define.

>>15213583
>I especially like the stupid canal metaphor.
You absolute buttfucking retard. Why the fuck would you assume that two posts on two completely separate reply chains are made by the same person just beacuse you disagree with both of them? I'll have you know that I made the fucking canal analogy and I'm not the guy you're replying to.
>I never said Consciousness doesn't exist. A mirage exists. A shadow I thought was a mouse exists. My wife hiding my surprise birthday party but I thought she was cheating on me is all real, they just aren't what they appear to be to Consciousness.
Ah yes, the good old "I'm not saying consciousness doesn't exist, I'm just saying it's not what it appears to be" cope reply.
This analogy still doesn't work. You say that consciousness is like those things in that it's not what it appears to itself to be. If consciousness were an illusion in the same way as a mirage is, then what you're saying is that consciousness isn't what it perceives itself to be, but this is nonsense because consciousness is perception itself. Your argument implies taht consciousness isn't perception, and if that's so then there's nothing that anything can "appear" to consciousness. You still fall into the same contradiction, it's just not as immediately apparent under this formulation.
There is no getting around cogito ergo sum.

>>15213450
Imagine believing in free will but not believing you can control your own thoughts....

>>15212256
ok why don't you start flying? why can't you have fire powers? free will doesn't exist until you can move cars with your mind

>>15213725
I can control my own thoughts, to an extent. I do it all the time when I choose what to focus on and what activities I want to engage in. My thoughts are influenced by outside factors of course, but that doesn't mean I have no control over my own thoughts. Again, why do you people always argue in non-sequiturs. I'm getting tired pointing out your retarded logic.
>>15213753
> free will doesn't exist until you can move cars with your mind
Just what lol. That probably made sense in your mind. Now try to write your post again in a way that makes sense to other people as well.

>>15213753
>if you're not a God then you've got no free will and someone is pulling the strings
What kind of retarded argument is this lmfao

>>15213718
To add to this, the fact that anon who copy-pasted my post named the thread "Free will exists" suggests that he, as well as many other anons who responded to me completely misunderstood what I said. The post was not meant to argue why I think I have free will. It was exactly to point out why it's pointless for me to argue why I believe I have free will. Nothing I could ever say could convince a nonbeliever.
Logical arguments about free will can only be one sided. It's only logical to try to disprove free will. Too bad nobody on this thread nor in the former thread was even remotely able to do it.
I'm just honestly baffled by how people react to my posts. Are my thoughts really so incoherent that no one can even point out where they disagree with me? All I get back is "so you're saying <something that is completely unrelated to what I'm saying>" and namecalling. Bizarre.

>>15213720
All of those illusions are how consciousness operates. It makes quick and inaccurate models.
That's all it does, all day.
If what it does all the time is make bad drawings, then why would it make a good drawing of itself?

>>15213720
>There is no getting around cogito ergo sum
Yes there is: Descartes was wrong.
Aristotle was wrong.
Wow, done. Who wants lunch?

>>15213818
How was Descartes wrong

>>15213450
>Free will - ability to choose what you do.
We have that ability, but it's not free from external and internal factors that led up to that choice.

>>15213811
>All of those illusions are how consciousness operates. It makes quick and inaccurate models.
>That's all it does, all day.
That's true but trivially so. It contributes next to nothing to the discussion on the ontological nature of consciousness, qualia, or free will.
>>15213818
epic

>>15213824
>Undertake the epokhé
>Don't go all the way
There you go.
I mean, he takes up the position, an exercise, of disbelieving all sense data, but stops once he hits wakefulness, as if that's not also bullshit.
This is like Aristotle saying you can't hear and see at the same time, or that women have less teeth than men or that men have hotter blood.
I mean, why would you just decide that the only thing you can be sure of is that you're paying attention right now, and take that and turn it into an immortal ghost that's not attached to the body?
Jesus Christ, did he never fall asleep?
What the fuck would make you stop the epokhé once it turned inward?

Also, please fuck read Michael Graziano.

>>15213835
>trivially
Prove that, then I'll consider pretending you're at all open minded toward an argument against bullshit like qualia, the most dudeweed crap ever devised

>>15213828
>We have that ability, but it's not free from external and internal factors that led up to that choice.
Obviously not. My thoughts and decisions are influenced by the things I read, see, do and choose. What's your point?

>>15213859
The level of IQ you have is very low

>>15213870
>Free will is real because I feel like it is
Well, you're a nigger and a faggot because I feel like you are.
Gosh, fun to just declare feelings like a damn woman

>>15213886
Stunning rebuttal

>>15213144
discoveries like what?

>>15213891
I've never argue in favor of free will at all. This whole thread you people are trying to put in my mouth things I've never said or claimed. Is it too hard to address the actual point that I made.
READ THE OP GODDAMMIT
I explained there why I believe arguing in favor of free will is pointless. You can only argue against free will.
Quote one post I made where I argued in favor of free will. You can't, because I made none.
In this thread I'm merely refuting the retarded nonsequiturs that NPCs who don't have free will make to make me believe I don't have free will.
>>15213897
I'm telling you man, these people just can't form a logical argument.

>>15213859
Descartes was still heavily attached to the judeo-christian tradition, he went all the way to prove the existence of the self and then relapsed into pointless christcuckery drivel after proving the existence of God by necessity. If you're looking for a logical justification of free will you should read Leibniz.

>>15213869
You're saying that consciousness, ego, free will exist but aren't what they appear to be without saying anything about what they actually are. What's their inderlying nature? What's behind the illusion?
For that matter, you're also pretty vague about what it is they're not. "What they appear to be" is a vague statement, and it's perfectly conceivable that they appear to be different things to different people, so it's not even refuting any specific interpretation of them.

>>15213397
woah

>>15213917
Why is free will desirable and determinism undesirable, though?
I've asked that repeatedly and no one answers

>>15213924
In at least one of these threads this afternoon I suggested 4 books on this subject because it's something that requires more than 2000 characters to say.
But ofc
>Book suggestions on a literature board are cope
So whatever

>>15213060

you said the paper says free will exists. It does not say anything like that. The paper says "at least" one must fail, it's not at all an exclusive or like you said.

>>15213952
I believe that there has been research found that disbelief in free will is correlated to mental illness. So that could be a reason why generally speaking free will is desirable for people. I'm personally happy to have free will. I'd probably feel lost and depressed if I didn't believe I have free will.
>determinism undesirable
Dunno. Is it undesirable? No one has ever told me how determinism is incompatible with free will.

>>15212112
this thread sounds like high school lunch but worse

>>15213990
there has also been research to suggest a correlation between anime girls and retarded posts

>>15213990
personally i believe in free will but not depression

>>15213965
Book suggestions are fine but if you're using them as a replacement for actual arguments because you can't formulate any, you're basically conceding the argument.
People who engage in an argument with you are in the argument to argue with you, not with philosophers A, B, C and D. If you can't continue the discussion with your own contributions, even if its just by summarizing what you read in the books you're recommending, then just bow out of the discussion, don't just name drop a few authors as if expecting your opponent trawl go through all their works before they continue the discussion, and especially don't get all pissy when they ask you to make your own contributions to the discussion you're participating in.

>>15214107
This

>>15213897
If you have no thought nor any sensory experiences then you dont, your own post completely agrees with Descartes yet you don't realize it.
This is why you are low IQ. You don't even understand what Descartes is saying yet you pretend to disagree with him.

>>15213869
How is qualia "dudeweed" crap
Holy fucking shot you people are actually retarded

>>15214028
Kek

>>15212112
I believe in free will. I dont think that some people dont have it though. due to quantum mechanics some stuff in the universe is random which i feel is enough of a window for some free will to exist

>>15213329
Based

>>15213802
what character is that? she cute. also dont let the nihilists on this bored get you down

>>15214171
You think that because experience is really cool and "has an aesthetic feel" that this means that it is magical and nonphysical.
It's easier for you to believe that you are really an immortal spooky ghost than a process of physical materials.

Because, let's repeat this, EXPERIENCE IS REALLY WOWWWW MAN

You're definitely an immortal ghost and not a physical process (which you don't like because it doesn't sound as cool somehow) because
>Stuff feel like it do YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN THAT

>>15212112
Free will is an emergent property. Free will is an emergent property. Free will is an emergent property. Free will is an emergent property. Free will is an emergent property. Free will is an emergent property. Free will is an emergent property. Free will is an emergent property. Free will is an emergent property. Free will is an emergent property. Free will is an emergent property. Free will is an emergent property. Free will is an emergent property. Free will is an emergent property. Free will is an emergent property. Free will is an emergent property. Free will is an emergent property. Free will is an emergent property. Free will is an emergent property. Free will is an emergent property. Free will is an emergent property. Free will is an emergent property. Free will is an emergent property. Free will is an emergent property. Free will is an emergent property. Free will is an emergent property. Free will is an emergent property. Free will is an emergent property. Free will is an emergent property. Free will is an emergent property. Free will is an emergent property. Free will is an emergent property. Free will is an emergent property. Free will is an emergent property. Free will is an emergent property. Free will is an emergent property. Free will is an emergent property. Free will is an emergent property. Free will is an emergent property. Free will is an emergent property. Free will is an emergent property. Free will is an emergent property. Free will is an emergent property. Free will is an emergent property. Free will is an emergent property. Free will is an emergent property. Free will is an emergent property. Free will is an emergent property.

>>15214637
Emergence is dependence, dependency is the antithesis of liberty.

>>15214644
Not so. Emergence is by definition additive. Many cells make a human, many humans make a nation. The complexity increases exponentially with each step.

>>15214712
You have described the ties of dependency within nature and social organization.
Sine Qua Non.
You take out a piece, the structure collapses and emergence cannot take place.
Emergency is Dependent

>>15214783
That's a good point. The argument then would have to be made that free will isn't reductionistic, but rather a creative process. The substrate is materialism, dead and deterministic, but the argument that could be made that an actor with the ability to create a path of his "choosing" would have more "free will" than an actor with less executive functioning. Suppose an actor existed with supreme ability, even if they existed bound by the rules of this reality. Would they, with their knowledge and ability, not be able to both envision and exhibit a myriad of possibilities? Something like that, compared to us, or compared to the apes that we have surpassed, would exhibit more of what we see as "free will" even if free will is an illusion.

This is very messy but basically my argument is that free will is an illusion that becomes true through its action, the way that cells working together eventually formed animals, and animals working together eventually formed nation's.

Suppose we take my argument of supreme actors even further and envision an omnipotent actor, a God, if you will. Such a (theoretical) being would, by their omniscience and ability, have total 'freedom'. By extending the concept to it's logical conclusion, of freedom building through ability and knowledge, maybe it so happens that it becomes totally divorced from it's substrate, an apotheosis if you will.

>>15214783
Essentially your argument that the thing cannot exist without it's components does not deny the existence of that thing. Water molecules craving to bond would result in the cessation of a wolf, but no one would deny that the wolf exists because of it.

>>15214878
*Ceasing

>>15213758
You cannot control your thoughts. Examine your thinking more closely. Do you actively and intentionally choose the next thought or does it simply arise? Take a deep breath and watch the mind deliver your thoughts. Do this for 5 minutes. Now try to think up a thought. Was that thought truly original and completely uninfluenced. Were "you" the true cause of that thought?

>>15214911
This is a good argument. To this is would say compare my "thoughts" as they were , to the thoughts of an ape.

While I may be base and crude, is his thoughts more so? Isn't he not that much more of a slave to his whims? What is this thing that separates me and the ape of not 'choice'?

What is the executive function except proof that we can influence reality in specific ways?

Let's say free will exists.

What is its alternative? Determinism, correct?

What would this world of determinism look like? Can we say? If we can, is there a difference (beyond, of course, the label)?

Now, imagine the same but determinism exists and we're imagining a world of free will.

IT DOESN'T MATTER. Stop quibbling over this nonsense of a "problem."

>>15214977
I knew you were going to say that

>>15212264
>The difference is that these smaller parts directly contradict the notion of some force controlling your actions.t's like saying that because there are quarks, leptons and electrons interacting with there own weak, strong and electromagnetic forces there is no gravity.

How can free will exist if life wasn't self-created

>>15215428
Who says it wasn't?

>>15215474
Well ok, what about any given human life? For sure people don't commission their birth

>>15214911
This is not a good argument.
Yes, I can and absolutely so actively and intentionally choose what I want to think about and focus my attention on. You dont?
> Take a deep breath and watch the mind deliver your thoughts. Do this for 5 minutes.
The mind doesnt deliver me any thoughts. I think some things during such a period but they are not sent to me by some external thing called the "mind". They are my own internal thoughts.
> Was that thought truly original and completely uninfluence
Some of the things I thought about were pretty original, yes. And no thought is completely without influence, whatever that even means. As I said before all thoughts I have are influenced by my what I see, what I choose to do and what I choose to think about.
> Were "you" the true cause of that thought?
Of course. It wasnt a friend that whispered my thoughts to me lol. They were my thoughts.

What is your point?
>>15214962
I agree with the point that animals and children have less free will that I do. Anons argument is not good at all though and doesnt prove anything.
>>15214977
Nobody ever explained to me how determinism is incompatible with free will.
Your argument about determinism is interesting. I dont know how but I accept the possibility that there might be a way to tell the difference between determinism and not.
It might matter. Although at the level that /lit/ argues you're right that it's mostly meaningless word games.

>>15216358
>meaningless word games
well, apply words to words ('will') then what's to be expected? Not science.
essentially what's at issue is 'agency' whether bound up biologically or somehow extra.
>>15213711
self or soul, I'd say. what's odd in all this is that agency is being assumed all along, or at least 'my' having or 'my' lack is being bandied about all over the place.

>>15216812
>mfw OP or surrogate OP or whomever initiates a wordgame with the willful assertion that she's not playin'!
Cute.

>>15212112
I refuse to believe in free will because it means evil people are actually just that way and not just dysfunctional animals
I'm religious btw.

>>15217497
OP here, I agree with you. There are definitely people who have no free will. I have met a few myself. It's very easy to predict their behavior because they never stop to think what they are doing. It's like all of their being has been reduced to primal instinctive drives. It's scary to think that such people exist.

>>15212112
You sound like a 15 year old who watches too much anime.

>>15217574
That's ok with me, you're not the first one to tell me this. Curiously enough, no one has been able to point out any flaws in what I wrote. Do you have anything you disagree about what I wrote?

>>15217581
well, except for those arguments that you eschew, of course.

>>15217620
Seems like you are unable to form a coherent counterargument or even point out a single flaw in my reasoning. Ok then.

>>15212112
i don't know about free will but that's a very cute girl
i'd like to be on a student council of an anime high school with her as the kaichou, and she would praise me when i do a good job

>>15217667
I didn't construct a counter argument, but rather took a look at what you purported to do. You began by insisting that you wouldn't be able to convince anyone of your free will belief, correct? and with the strong implication that no one would be able to convince you out of yours, right?
And, if so, what would be the point of arguing? ..And yet you did argue (something) and now allude to your airtight 'reasoning' that relies a little too heavily I feel on the misreasoning of others-- or do you disagree?
At any rate, if you cannot convey your 'free will belief' to anyone, for whom or of what did you argue? My guess is that you argued for yourself in more than a single sense-- not the integrity of the argument per se, but for your *own* integrity, or integralness, or self, or soul. If you had definite knowledge of 'will' then you'd be able to argue for or against it, but you do not. Everyone, however, possesses a sense of self some with more some with less strength, which dovetails very nicely onto your codicil belief that some are unfree (of will- but why not shave this off? it's unnecessary).

God exists, ergo no free will.

>>15218089
That limits God, presumptuous definer.

>>15218066
As I have explained in other posts, I did not make this thread and the title is not mine.
I made the post that you see in the OP in another thread in response to an anon who, after I refuted his arguments for why he thinks no one has free will attempted to retort with "Well then why don't you prove to me you have free will?". The post is me explaining why there is no point in trying to argue for free will. It only makes sense to argue against it.
>and with the strong implication that no one would be able to convince you out of yours, right?
I implied no such thing. I like arguing against people who believe no one has free will. That's how it all started.
>And, if so, what would be the point of arguing?
To have fun and to understand the arguments better.
>And yet you did argue (something) and now allude to your airtight 'reasoning' that relies a little too heavily I feel on the misreasoning of others-- or do you disagree?
Yes, I argued why it makes no sense to argue in favor of my free will.
>At any rate, if you cannot convey your 'free will belief' to anyone, for whom or of what did you argue?
As I said before, I like examining the arguments against free will and pointing out logical flaws in them. It's fun!
>My guess is that you argued for yourself in more than a single sense-- not the integrity of the argument per se, but for your *own* integrity, or integralness, or self, or soul.
No, that post was just me explaining to another anon who asked my for my arguments for why I have free will, why all such arguments would be futile.
>If you had definite knowledge of 'will' then you'd be able to argue for or against it, but you do not
Why? I don't see how that would be true. You can have definite knowledge of something without being able to convey it to others. Especially knowledge as fundamentally subjective as one's own free will.
>Everyone, however, possesses a sense of self some with more some with less strength, which dovetails very nicely onto your codicil belief that some are unfree
The posts in these kinds of threads indicate strongly that there are many people who do not believe they have free will. I take them for their word. They probably don't.
And yes, you're right, it doesn't contradict my beliefs at all and fits nicely into them.
What's your point?

>>15218092
Not in an abstract sense

>>15218089
How would the assumption that God exists imply there is no free will?

>>15218111
Augustine argues the futility of attempting to wrap one's mortal brains around the will of God. If His will predominates, then it would stand to reason that our lives are predetermined, but if He at the same time wills our free agency *also*, what then? Yet another paradox to negotiate as best [we] can.

>>15212112
This line of thinking is literally what sent me to a psych ward when I was younger. Ah, good times.

>>15214579
Even if we agree that consciousness is caused on by material processes it's still undeniably true that consciousness exhibits several properties that can't be called physical without stretching the definition of "physical" that it becomes meaningless. If you want to account for how non-physical properties can arise from physical processes you have, broadly speaking, two options: Emergentism and non-emergentism.
Non-emergentism means that matter itself already has some really simple non-material properties which through accumulation and structured interaction give rise to the more complex non-physical properties apparent in consciousness. Basically panpsychism.
Emergentism, on the other hand, means that something genuinely novel arises out of the physical processes that "cause" consciousness. This is at the very least a form of property dualism, if not substance, dualism, and it also blows a hole in all talk of reductionism, which means you can't say that matter is the "real" thing and consciousness just an "illusion"–they'd both be equally real to the universe.

>>15215428
Self-caused causes are incoherent concepts and contribute absolutely nothing to any freedom you might possess affterwards, since you wouldstill be affected by external factors after you come into existence. Since it doesn't make your decisions any freer, it can't be necessary for free will.

>>15218101
I suppose my point is that the argument has always been of minimal interest to me 'either way' as it seems to me so pale, so colorless.
What I detect in my own life are periods of effort, periods of running on auto pilot (as it were) bursts of determination, longer or shorter periods of inspiration, of avoidance, of not being able to do anything right, or of not being able to do anything wrong. If I attempt to break this down in terms of the 'too free or not too free' WILL argument then it really seems that both apply always, and simultaneously. Though I ultimately do agree with your fundamentals as stated, I don't feel any compulsion to opt for one side of the argument as opposed to the other- at all.
Just a different take.

>>15218468
Not that guy but
> it really seems that both apply always, and simultaneously
Yeah basically. Like I said previously, there are perspectives from which you can look out at the world and see free will everywhere, and there are perspectives from which you can look out at the world and not see any free will at all, and neither is uniquely valid. That doesn't make discussing the topic wholly pointless, however, as not all arguments for either perspective are valid.

>>15218595
That's true, as -dare I mention- was second nature to Nietzsche, whose dizzying exploitings of perspective have guaranteed his surviving the next 300 years at least..

>>15218444
I defy you.
There is no property of consciousness that is nonphysical, not qualia or any other spooky ghost phenomena that you think is so special.
If you think consciousness can't be physical, I guess television and radio waves are also "nonphysical"

Note here that the insistence on free will is admitted as being due to an intuition that being fatalist will cause depression.
That's the thing throughout this thread, and the other one
>I refuse to believe that determinism is possible because it sounds scary and I just know I'll get depressed
Which is all you need.
There's no reason or argument here, just feelings and suppositions.
OP is scared he isn't "in control" and so plugs up his ears to reason and facts and goes LALALALA YOU CAN'T TELL ME. I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALA

Fatalism is the only emancipatory position.
Read Frank Ruda.
I've been a fatalist for decades and have never been remotely depressed.

>>15218458
I think they are plenty coherent, conception being that first external cause. Then you are born to other external causes like geographical location, your parent's temperance, your genetics, etc.

When exactly do you get to the point when you are able to invoke free will? Is it the day you can be tried as an adult?

This whole thread is weak shit. Where's the engagement with the Lucas-Penrose argument?

P1) Determinism For any human h there exists at least one (deterministic) logical system L(h) which reliably predicts h's actions in all circumstances.
P2) For any logical system L a sufficiently skilled mathematical logician (equipped with a sufficiently powerful computer if necessary) can construct some statements T(L) which are true but unprovable in L. (This follows from Gödel's first theorem.)
P3) If a human m is a sufficiently skillful mathematical logician (equipped with a sufficiently powerful computer if necessary) then if m is given L(m), he or she can construct T(L(m)) and determine that they are true—which L(m) cannot do.
C) Hence L(m) does not reliably predict m's actions in all circumstances.
C) Hence m has free will.
C) It is implausible that the qualitative difference between mathematical logicians and the rest of the population is such that the former have free will and the latter do not.

>>15219154
Idiotic argument. Lol it’s actually hilarious.

>>15219138
This guy gets it

>>15218595
>there are perspectives from which you can look out at the world and see free will everywhere


What? Where?

>>15219230
It's called Instrumental Reason.
>In general terms, instrumental reason is a specific form of rationality which focuses on effective means to an end and not, as other forms of practical rationality do, on improving living conditions, promoting reasonable agreement, or human understanding.

Basically, reason can be used to show anything you want if you're motivated to make it do so.

>>15219202
What's wrong with it

Adding onto >>15219138
What I meant to say was, how the origin point cannot be discounted, at least out of principle. You are right, that maybe it shouldn't have anything to do with what comes after, but having given no control over our birth kind of sets the tone no? Is that not the most significant external event that we have no power over? And everything that happens after is just branching out of that regardless of any philosophy?

>>15219063
>There is no property of consciousness that is nonphysical
So subjective experience is a physical property? This interpretation is basically indistinguishable from panpsychism.
Again, if you're going down then you're pretty much just redefining the physical to include the mental and then saying that the mental doesn't exist, only the physical does.
>If you think consciousness can't be physical, I guess television and radio waves are also "nonphysical"
Explain how the belief that consciousness has nonphysical properties implies the belief that television and radiowaves are nonphysical

>>15219154
>P1) Determinism For any human h there exists at least one (deterministic) logical system L(h) which reliably predicts h's actions in all circumstances.
How do you formalize actions? Seems to me like an impossible task. Why would such a system exist? Why would the system be recursive (a condition necessary to apply Gödel's first incompleteness theorem)?
>>15219108
>Note here that the insistence on free will is admitted as being due to an intuition that being fatalist will cause depression.
My knowledge of my own free will has nothing to do with how I'd feel if I hadn't free will.
This proposition is as ridiculous as claiming that all christians insist on existence of God because otherwise they would be depressed, and that all atheists insist on the nonexistence of God because they want to commit sins and don't want anyone to judge them. I could also say that all people who don't believe in free will do so to evade moral responsibility for their actions. It's too easy to make such baseless claims.
Even if it were true (it's not) that I came to believe that I have free will due to fear of depression or feelings, pointing it out is not an argument against free will. All you're trying to do is, at best, an appeal to emotion yourself.
>OP is scared he isn't "in control" and so plugs up his ears to reason and facts and goes LALALALA YOU CAN'T TELL ME. I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALA
You sound like a 13 year old child. Also how can you not see what I'm doing here? I have been responding to all of the arguments against free will and trying to engage with them, refuting them. You're clearly just projecting at this point because you know you have no arguments against free will. Also, to top it off
> read my book
Just lol.
>>15219138
I developed my free will as I grew. As a small baby, I did not have a lot of free will, I wasn't able to think. External causes have influenced who I am, just like the things I see and do everyday influence the things I think and do, and in turn, who I am. That has nothing to do with free will.
>When exactly do you get to the point when you are able to invoke free will? Is it the day you can be tried as an adult?
This is a common fallacy. Let me offer you an analogy to demonstrate why your argument is invalid
> 1 grain of sand is not a pile of sand
> if a collection of grains of sand is not a pile of sand, adding one more grain won't make it into a pile
> therefore there can be no piles of sand, because there must be a first number of grains that make up a pile, but that means that a pile came from a non-pile, which is impossible.
Free will is not exactly a binary predicate. Some times I have less free will than others, for example, when sleeping I do not have a lot of free will, at least I don't believe I do.

>>15219388
>Is that not the most significant external event that we have no power over?
There are events we have no power over. A lot of those events are formative events and make us into who we are. That is in no way incompatible with us still being able to make decisions and choose for ourselves, i.e. have free will.
>And everything that happens after is just branching out of that regardless of any philosophy?
Branching out in what sense? The past experiences are part of what makes us who we are. It's not in the least the whole part. There is an inborn, genetic component to our identity as well. All these things influence how we think, what decisions and choices we make. What's your point?

>>15219388
The overwhelming forces that direct our lives are legion, but Economics, Weather, Geopolitics, Disease, Social Expectations, Language, these are gigantic forces pushing a person around. Add onto these the legion of purely biological and then also familial and social drives and pressures, how can we say anyone is free, except perhaps the very rich, but in many ways they are even worse off because all the pressures are still there plus needing to manage the wealth and status too.
Only a person with no life experience to speak of, a person with no significant sensitivity to the world around him, only that insensate lump of flesh with two eyes could be so ignorant as to even consider stupid stuff like "freedom"

>>15219429
I don't see how the way your immortal ghost idea of consciousness is any different functionally from electromagnetism.
Energy makes matter move.
But, if consciousness is a form of energy, what makes it nonlocal as in panpsychism? Why would it pervade and be present in everything if, for instance, x rays are not omnipresent?

>>15219476
Being born is pretty much the whole part of who we are. It holds everything else in a container until we die. Formative is an understatement.

So again, when is it that a human being is able to exercise free will? I brought up age in regards to the judicial system example earlier because it seems like the best comprable metric.

>>15219551
>your immortal ghost idea of consciousness
I never said anything about consciousness being immortal, nor did I say anything about souls.
>Why would it pervade and be present in everything if, for instance, x rays are not omnipresent?
> if consciousness is a form of energy
I didn't say that either

>>15219574
>Being born is pretty much the whole part of who we are.
Do you deny the existence of identical twins?
>It holds everything else in a container until we die.
What do you mean by this?
>So again, when is it that a human being is able to exercise free will?
I don't know about other humans, but I, for one, exercise my free will every day, when I choose what to do, what to focus my attention on. I am exercising my free will by choosing to respond to you right now.
If you're asking when a human being begins to have free will as he grows, my answer was provided here
>>15219444
It's a complicated question because free will is not a binary predicate. But just because you can't pinpoint when exactly something starts having a property, it's a fallacy to say that such a property cannot therefore exist, which I have illustrated by the sandpile analogy.

>>15219584
Then you don't know what the words you're bleating out mean. PicRel

>>15219620
>I am exercising my free will by choosing to respond to you right now.
No, what you're doing is completely compulsive and pathological, you're compulsively replying to get attention, after you started a bait thread, compulsively, to get attention.
Take your meds

The way OP is describing "free will" as something that is accumulated over time or cultivated is 1:1 with how Chabad Hasidim describe Da'at

>>15219584
>>15219626
I didn't mean to quote ">Why would it pervade and be present in everything", but taking this opportunity to expand on it: I never actually claimed that panpsychism was true, I only ever said that the claim that consciousness is caused by matter implies either panpsychism or some sort of dualism rather than pure materialism–I myself never actually argued for either panpsychism or materialism.

>>15217567
You're conflating complexity of will with freedom of will. That's in bad taste.

>>15219521
A vile feel good story that has nothing to do with reality, but it keeps people pacificied

>>15219686
Yeah you don't ever say anything at all, you just type enough words to get another (You).
Here's that (You), attention whore

>>15219737
On the contrary, I've said quite a bit, but you choose to ignore it and argue with what it is you think I'm saying rather than what I'm actually saying.

>>15219620
I don't understand how sand has to do with human development dude, you're gonna have to be a bit more on the nose... tell me what age you think people have enough free will to be considered responsible for at most of their actions and what happens in their lives, pretending you're a judge etc.

>>15219778
You have just described yourself.
All of your "refutations" are feelings and intuitions, you don't even know the words you're using, like Determinism.
You are just arguing to argue.
I am also bored, so I also reply.

>>15219388
Okay, this is a very interesting objection that I think really gets down to the very core of all the free will denialism, and properly addressing it requires a lengthy response so please bear with me for a moment.
You are working under the assumption that "free will" refers to the freedom from external influence. But is this a valid definition of "free will"? Or, put another way, if we did indeed have total freedom from external influences, would our choices really be any freer? To answer this we'll have to analyze the various ways in which external things influence us and to what degree they affect our choices.
To start things off, we can divide these influences into those that affect the nature we come into existence with and those that modify our nature once we already exist.
The former are things like our genetic code, the foods and drugs our mother uses while she is pregnant with us, and any diseases she might have at that time. It's true we have no control over them, but what alternative can there be that does give us any control? Coming into existence as an uncaused cause is the equivalent to coming into existence completely at random: as a human baby, an adult, a fish, or a tree; in the depths of the ocean, in the void of space, going 600 miles an hour, or at the big bang. This alternative doesn't give us any control either. The onlyway we could have any control over our coming into existence is if we were a self-caused cause (as distinct from an UNcaused-cause). However, self-caused causes are an incoherent concept; in order to cause yourself to exist you would have to already exist, but then you wouldn't be causing yourself to exist as a causal agent anymore because you already exist.
So, the fact that external influences affect the nature we come into existence with is ultimately irrelevant, since there is no real alternative in which we could come into existence which would give us any greater control over the nature we are born with. (1/2)

>>15219388
>>15219914
(2/2)
In the second place, after our birth, external factors continue to influence us, producing changes in our nature: I become able to read after my parents teach me how, I become scared of dogs after one attacks me, I suffer personality changes after severe head trauma. How would a person not influenced in this way go about making the choices we make every day, like choosing what to order at a restaurant? Simply put, they wouldn’t.
A decision is the result of the interplay between two factors: the decision-making agent, who contributes a set of personal preferences and some capacity to evaluate different options and judge which of them best fits their preferences; and the situation that the agent is presented with, which contributes a set of possible options and consequences that the agent can judge and choose from. As a result of this interplay, both the agent and the situation are changed. By making the decision-making agent completely independent of its surroundings, the interplay between these factors is erased and the agent can’t make any decisions regarding its surroundings–can’t even become aware of their existence, in fact, and so is doomed to spend their lives stuck inside their own minds, completely alone.
So, since being uninfluenced by external factors doesn’t make our choices any freer, but rather removes our ability to make choices, the freedom from external influence can’t be a valid definition of free will.

I don't get it
Why do I have to believe some or all people have free will?
As soon as you convince yourself some people don't have free will what's the point in trying to argue this?
Maybe you don't have free will?

>>15219914
Even as a paradox, I think it should be studied closer when considering this topic. Would it really be fair to dismiss it because it has no solution, especially being central, the closest to the origin point of what's being discussed? The alternative is to be born into a different existence where the rules arent so heavily skewed in the favor of circumstance, lol. I would say try to refute >>15219521 rather than me honestly

>>15220040
Congratulations in getting the point of the OP.

>>15219923
I think much of the disagreement regarding the existence of free will arises from this problem.

On one hand, my continual experience of self-determination legitimises the notion of some degree of conscious will, where one action or the other exists as simultaneous possibilities, and I choose one over the other in what appears as free will.

On the other hand, there are empirical and logical causal factors that must inform and impose some decision of action and therefore self-determination.

I believe that both figures of free will are true simultaneously, in that it may be true that free will, as a notion of entirely uncaused action outside the will, cannot exist objectively, but this is irrelevant to the existence of free will as the conscious choosing of action in the experience of being.

The Courage Of Hopelessness is such a good phrase.
Qualiafags and Freewilltards are terrified of losing control, and the worst terror to them is never having had control.
We must affirm the position of a comic fatalism, whose slogans are:

>Start by expecting the worst!

>Act as if you did not exist!

>Act as if you were not free!

>Act in such a way that you accept the struggle you cannot flee from!

>Act in such a way that you never forget to imagine the end of all things!

>Act as if the apocalypse has already happened!

>Act as if everything were always already lost!

>Act as if you were dead!

>Act as if you were an inexistent woman!

>>15220154
Consider as well that free will is an excuse: my life sucks, but it's no one's fault but my own. This makes you less angry at the things you have no control over.
On the other side: my life sucks, it's not my fault though, I had no choice.
This makes you less angry at yourself.
The reverse order also holds, free will makes you happy with yourself if you are doing well, and determinism makes you happy with the world when you are doing well.
The FUNCTIONAL difference is in your respective attitude: self-centered/directed or world-centered/directed.

>>15220170
You just don't want to take the responsibility for your actions. Nofreewilltards are massive copers.

>>15220236
I think this is quite true - to me it further infers that these metaconscious concepts like free will are true only in that they confirm a sort of being, which perhaps arises from their acceptance itself.

Perhaps then the question of free will becomes normative - 'what should people believe about free will that enables a good living?'

>>15220268
See >>15220236
Your attitude is just cope from the self-centered perspective

imagine believing in free will and not being an antinatalist in 2020. I mean Jesus Christ guys, you've had enough time to read by now and enough information to come to these obvious conclusions.

It's time to move on from "debating" this and dedicate yourself to whatever meaningless pursuits you have an interest in.

>>15220383
His interest is in shitposting. He's following his stupid dreams even now

>>15220383
>>15220315
We get it, you're edgy. Wow, you don't believe in free will! Holy shit you're so interesting!
Get over it.

>>15220421
Seethe, bitch

>>15220383
free will is retarded, antinatalism is a matter of aesthetics

>>15219521
Yes those things have a huge effect on our lives but they don't singlehandedly diract our lives. The way those things influence you is determined in part by your own nature, i.e. yourself, so it's not as if they just throw you around without giving you any say in the matter.
>Add onto these the legion of purely biological and then also familial and social drives and pressures
All of which you can choose to ignore.
The existence of factors that make a one option preferable for you isn't something that denies you the ability to choose–it's a prerequisite for having the ability to choose. If there were no reasons to prefer any one choice over any other, then all choices would be meaningless.

>>15221036
>The way those things influence you is determined in part by your own nature, i.e. yourself
Yes, the thing constructed by language, religion, parents, friends, experiences.
If you mean ego as in pure awareness, that has no qualities or nature at all, and thus has no cares or drives to do or want anything.
Everything about "your nature" are just that: natural, as in assignment by outside forces.

>all choices would be meaningless
Yes.

>>15212112
>no option 3 - that one don't believe anyone has free will
Embarrassing
>you actually don't have free will but consider killing yourself (even if that implies you can choose what to do)
This has got to be the most brainlet post that I've seen on /lit/ in ages
I really hope that you're baiting

>>15221139
>Yes, the thing constructed by language, religion, parents, friends, experiences.
Yes, precisely. There is no you that can exist separately from these things. To want to be free of them is an incoherent sort of freedom, because it takes the notion of freedom to such an extreme that it becomes contradictory. What you're asking for is the freedom from being any specific, definite, existent thing. You're basically saying that we can only be free if we have no definite nature–if we don't exist. But this is nonsense because as soon as you attain this freedom, you cease to be, and so it's impossible for anyone to actually have this "freedom".
The only sort of freedoms that make any coherent sense are those that existent beings can have. Yes, existence implies certain limitations, but that doesn't mean that you don't have a certain degree of agency and freedom within those limitations. To demand absolute agency and absolute freedom is to miss the point entirely.

>>15212112
lmao kys brainlet

There is absolutely no free will in humans.

It is an error to think that abstract motives do not have necessary effects because they are mere thoughts. This error results in the delusion that we can be conscious of having free will. In reality, the most powerful abstract motive necessarily determines concrete action.

Let us imagine a man who, while standing on the street, would say to himself: "It is six o'clock in the evening, the work day is over. Now I can go for a walk, or I can go to the club; I can also climb up the tower to see the sun set; I can go to the theater; I can visit this friend or that one; indeed, I also can run out of the gate, into the wide world, and never return. All of this is strictly up to me, in this I have complete freedom. But still I shall do none of these things now, but with just as free a will I shall go home to my wife.

>>15221255
2/2

Are two actions possible to a given person under given circumstances? No. Only one action is possible.

Since a person's character remains unchanged, if the circumstances of his life were unchanged, could his life have been different? No.

Everything that happens, happens necessarily. Denial of necessity leads one back to the idea of absolute randomness, which can hardly be thought of; the world without universal causation would be "randomness with no sense in it".

>>15221229
>as soon as you attain this freedom, you cease to be, and so it's impossible for anyone to actually have this "freedom".
Yes.
Things aren't nonsense by virtue of you not liking them.

>>15221267
>Since a person's character remains unchanged, if the circumstances of his life were unchanged, could his life have been different?
How would you check that?

>>15221402
>Since a person's character remains unchanged
I'd like to note that's a stupid assertion

>>15217567
>My will is free because my thoughts are more complex.

This board is for people 18 or above.

>>15221414
You are stupid. Every human has a unique way of reacting to motives. This is called a character. It is the nature of the individual will. Characters are determined by nature, not by the environment. Two people who have been raised in exactly the same environment will exhibit different characters.

>>15221402
This board is for people 18 or above.

>>15221452
>determined by nature, not by the environment
Nature is the Environment you idiot.
No one can change, huh? Then why do you think there's free will, if it's impossible to do anything outside of your predetermined possibilities?
There's free will, but to do what your "nature" has predetermined you will do?
That's not what freedom is.

>>15221627
>why do you think there is free will
I don't? Character does not change. It remains the same throughout life. This is presupposed whenever a person is evaluated as a result of their past actions. Given the same circumstances, what was done once will be done again. Behavior, however, can change when a character learns how to attain its goal through a different way of acting. The means change, but not the ends. This is the result of improved cognition or education.

>>15221627
holy fuck are you braindead

>>15219674
Do you agree with the description? Why or why not? Is Da'at exclusively 'free will' or is it more strict or more broad?

>>15212112
Man does at all times only what he wills, and yet he does this necessarily. But this is because he already is what he wills. There is no free will.

>>15212112
There is absolutely no free will but you can still feel free. Everyone has a feeling of the responsibility for what they do. They feel accountable for their actions. They are certain that they themselves have done their deeds. In order to have acted differently, a person would have had to be entirely different. The necessity of our actions can coexist with the feeling of freedom and responsibility. When a person has a mental picture of himself as a phenomenon existing in the experienced world, his acts appear to be strictly determined by motives that affect his character. This is empirical necessity. But when that person feels his inner being as a thing-in-itself, not phenomenon, he feels free. This is because the inner being or thing-in-itself is called will. This word "will" designates the closest analogy to that which is felt as the inner being and essence of a person. When we feel our freedom, we are feeling our inner essence and being, which is a transcendentally free will. The will is free, but only in itself and other than as its appearance in an observer's mind. When it appears in an observer's mind, as the experienced world, the will does not appear free. But because of this transcendental freedom, as opposed to empirical necessity, every act and deed is a person's own responsibility. We have responsibility for our acts because what we are is a result of our inner essence and being, which is a transcendentally free will, its effects are the inborn characters of all people. We are what the transcendental will, which we are, has made us.

>>15221681
Use google. Chabad.org is a good place, I'm not here to educate your ignorant ass

>>15221779
>Transcendent Inner Essence
Spooky ghosts, so I heard.

>>15221700
/thread

>>15221700
Very succinct. Good post, Anon.