/lit/ - Literature

I will FUCK froy in the mouth, then cum all over his freckles

>>16341139
Okay, go back to your vidya and cooming. Don't think about this stuff, anon.

Retard. At the quantum level the universe is nondeterministic. Things have to be modeled by probability, not certainty. Humans are often modeled effectively with similar devices used to model electrons. Determinism is just an approximation of free will

>>16341139
Based Chad

>>16341152
>Unironic STEMcel
Kill yourself retard this is a philosophy discussion.

That doesn’t go nearly far enough to prove the rigidity of absolute determinism.
Compatibilism works perfectly fine in our material world

>>16341152
>Humans are often modeled effectively with similar devices used to model electrons
that statement sans any reference, ipso facto you are a tremendous piece of shit

>>16341158
>The entire argument for determinism comes down to "durr I can only picture the universe working mechanistically, with infinite causality, like what Aristotle said"
>Science has shown that nondeterministic forces exist, despite their counterintuitive nature, undercutting the logic that all determinist arguments are based on

>>16341175
I refuse to believe that you make any choice freely, it's only in reaction to the material world that you "make choices".

Imagine not trusting the only thing you know to be 100% true (consciousness)

>>16341183
It feels like there’s some wiggle room to me. All I’m saying

>>16341181
>Science has shown

>>16341187
trite, maybe, but what is truth, or what does it mean for your conscience to be true?

>>16341175
Compatiblism seems like a huge cope desu

So either this thread is dead or the /sci/ refugee is seething and writing 10 paragraphs

>>16341263
There's a /sci/ thread about /lit/ not knowing numbers right now.

>>16341274
Why would I care about numbers? That's why we have fucking nerds in the first place.

>>16341152
If the outcome of any physical process is random because of quantum mechanics, then it is also not your free will

>>16341263
It's dead. I got bored and started touching myself

>>16341139
free will is a time based occlusion, a filter that prevents experience for a while

>>16341216
Not only is it comfy to believe in (and there is no way of knowing which of the three is correct) it also has the advantage of pissing off both absolutists of the other ideas

>>16341152
>anything that happens is random
>therefore free will exists
dumb bugman

>>16341152
electrons are not random everyone is too stupid to notice the pattern

>>16341139
i know you wanna bait but that´s pure basedness
>>16341152
probality still doesnt make will free.
in the best case it would be arbritrary.
>>16341175
COPE

>>16341157
I could kill that "Chad" twink in one strike lmao.

>>16341304
At least you've finally admitted you dont care about truth

>>16341139
>Nuh uh, wrong.

>>16341335
>COPE
Done.

>>16341356
Facts lead me to the truth well enough. This darkened room isn’t all that necessary. It seems we’ll be left wondering about it forever and we must chalk it up to a faith in one or another. Whichever facilitates the best lived life, I advocate.

>>16341355
Go back

>>16341139
True, but only if you're specifically talking about libertarian free will. Kantian free will (which I find very convincing) and compatibilist free will, instead, are not refuted by determinism.

>>16341516
Fuck you, bitch.

>>16341152
Based quantum anon destroying materialists and hard determinists.

>>16341158
Science is based on philosophy, brainlet.

>>16341175
Free will exists or doesn't, either way I can't know so it is totally irrelevant to me. I'll do what I can and suffer what I must.

>>16341152
Imagine thinking oh I'm free when you're just a slave to the roll of a dice. That's arguably even less free than hard determinism.

Very based. Also refuted Kant btw

>>16341480
I've only seen a couple of your posts before and I'd just like to know which philosophy you most subscribe to.

>>16342466

>>16342462
>reducing quantum randomness to the roll of a dice
Retard.

>>16342483
>it's a special kind of randomness that isn't blind caprice at all
Cope

>>16341152
are you suggesting that quantum entanglement somehow disputes the deterministic nature of human behavior is errant?

>>16341176
>sans
>ipso facto
cringe

>>16342491
Dices are deterministic dumb dumb, they are predictable, quantum randomess is not, your example is invalid, quantum randomness cannot be reduced to roll dices.

>>16342476
Epicureanism with some slight modifications of other life affirming sorts. Looked and liked a bit of Robert Anton Wilson’s thoughts.

>>16342443
That’s the spirit. Interesting thought experiments is all it really can be.
I hope the goddess had her fill of fun that day

>>16341152
Not this shit again. Even if there is s as element of quantum randomness at work in the universe, that's still not something that you or me or anyone else has control over. It doesn't imply free will.

>>16342506
Chance doesn't make you free.

>>16342513
Are you trans?

>>16341152
What about Böhm's theory? I think that there isn't very good evidence either way desu, we can't really know if determinism is true or not, but it's easier for both science and metaphysics to assume it is which is why it has become a popular viewpoint. What do you think about pluralism btw?

>>16342663
No.

>>16341139

Freedom of will is not freedom of action.

>>16341139
Based, thanks Chad, I needed that.

>>16341139
Check out the appendix in Jonas' "The Imperative of Responsibility". The couple it with Arendt's wonderful point about psychologically privileging the past with its perceived certainty and non-contingency over the future with its uncertainty and contingency when constructing intellectual schemas while being a bitch autist in The Life of the Mind.

>>16341152
Give me a logically consistent definition of "random".
"Random" is just a massive cope for "don't understand".

>>16341324
Randomness is free will.

>>16341329
based and truthpilled

>>16341152
>At the quantum level everything is non nondeterministic
Except the law that at the quantum level everything is nondeterministic, gotcha!

>>16343603

Specifically, there is zero sum between freedom of will and freedom of action. In fact, that is precisely why the former is self-evident. This argument would be almost unassailable if they were one and the same. Had my will been "free" in implicitly being made manifest, then I would have to concede that it would be Epistemologically indistinguishable from a will totally subordinate to an autonomous Phenomenal. But I and the Phenomenal can disagree and, indeed, though it quantitatively binds my action, it cannot qualitatively bind my will.

Determinism isn't so bad. At least all my fuck ups aren't my fault.

>>16342575
It does not, but it completely disproves the claim that everything is deterministic and that Laplace’s Demon would be God.
And the claim that everything is deterministic is the ONLY counterargument to free will existing.

>>16341152
Electrons have no more basis in reality than unicorns. Only difference is one is useful to the scientific fiction

>>16342483
It is tho

>>16342443
This. What truly matters is what can be known, such as our relative freedom compared to others in the world.

>>16341139
Free will can't exist so free will can exist. If the universe wasn't deterministic, things would just happen at random and their wouldn't be enough coherence for you to meaningfully choose anything.

>>16343685
Scientific Laws are not Platonic Forms floating around in the ether, they're man-made statements.

>>16342575
There is no Little-You in your head pulling the levers. There is no Real You living on Jupiter beaming your thoughts via satellite to the radio in your head. Dualists are in-human bugmen, believing their minds to be computers. They reject beauty, and life, and love, and goodness, and believe themselves sterile, weak, castrated. Good things MUST be something separate from them, for nothing good could come from them. It's schizophrenia made into a philosophy.

Your life is yours, and is not controlled by some secret force controlling you from afar.

>>16344780
Imagine interpreting the OP like that lmao.

>>16344794
Find in my post where I was talking to OP, bugman.

>>16341139
Based.

>>16341152
The probabilities aren't exactly random. Besides, it''s not chance on quantum level goes against determinism on bigger scale.

>>16344906
Determinism is subjective.

>>16344931
Maybe.

>>16344941
Read Kant and Schopenhauer. Time, space, and causality are subjective.

>>16344973
I don't give a shit about non scientists opinions on reality.

>>16344997
Suit yourself. Determinism is still subjective.

>>16344997
BRO! I LOVE REDDIT AND SCIENCE TOO! I LOVE BILL NYE SO MUCH DUDE LMAOOOO I LOVVVVVE SCIEEEENCEEEEE!

>>16345007
Might as well be. Doubt we'll be able to tell anytime soon.

>>16341356
no such thing..

>>16341152
You don't understand it.
Scientist are apes that conclude experiments.
They cannot draw any reasonable conclusions. Your post shows that. So, please, stick to what you can do, and leave the thinking to someone competent.
Thank you for your time.

>>16344997
You are not intelligent.

>>16345040
Sorry you failed the 5th grade.

>>16345025
We already can tell...

>>16345300
Based on anything substantial or the fantasizing of some dead guy who didn't even know about QM?

>>16345383
Based on the same laws that science is based on.

>>16345396
So how are you going to prove it?

More like it makes no discernable difference if free will is true or not and isn't worth even thinking about.

>>16345437
Kinda accurate but free will bullshit often leads to other harmful ideas.

>>16345425
Same way you prove the epistemological presuppositions underlying all science.

>>16345519
>epistemological presuppositions underlying all science
Not how any of this works. Take a break from reading clueless dead guys, m8.

>>16345563
Not how any of *what* works? Do you even know what's being referred to? Science rests on epistemological presuppositions that were designed by — you guessed it — philosophers. Said presuppositions are as demonstrably unproven to those who can't think as the rest of philosophy is.

>>16345581
>that were designed by
You missed the part when science left the philosophy bubble of verbal masturbation and went to testing hypnoses. "Determinism is subjective" isn't something science can measure or test, hence it's just some meaningless opinion.

>>16345628
Science never left, it still relies on a theory of knowledge (which relies on ontology) that can't be scientifically proven (since a subset can never be comprehensive enough to prove the superset).

If you want to understand how determinism is subjective, you have to leave the subset of epistemology known as science. The reason why is because "subject" is not a scientific term.

>>16345581
Science precedes philosophy. Egyptians were arguably doing science before the first Greek was born. How is it possible?

>>16345663
>Science precedes philosophy.
This is wrong. Science only precedes the academic notion of philosophy as a formal discipline beginning in Greece. Philosophy, which just means "love of wisdom," began with the first homo sapiens to live long and freely enough to reflect on things.

>>16345710
If we go by this science was born when the first living creature uses their senses to measure reality around them and decide based on these measurements.

>>16345722
This process starts immediately after the philosophical one. It's so immediately after that they seem to arrive at the same moment, but the reason why it has to come after is because "using the senses to measure reality" first requires a conscious formulation of what "reality" consists of. The mind has to first consciously decide on an "I" and a "you" and establish boundaries between the two. That is a philosophical process. Science follows, which would be the systematization of the philosophical presuppositions that were consciously decided on.

>>16345763
This is a paramecium. It's organism is able to make decisions based on gradients of substances around it. By your account this thing has a consciousness and this constitutes "philosophy" in some way.
For me, you are just a coping moron. But that's just me.

causal determinism is retarded midwit philosophy that was refuted by Hume over 200 years ago. Give it up already man...

>>16341139
True, all of existence is action and reaction.
Our reaction to things is determined by our upbringing and genetics, neither of which we get to choose.
Therefore, free will doesn't exist.

>>16345789
Is this a greek paramecium at least?

>>16345857
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sn3MTYNe8mM

Lel. I would like to see one of these "science is just philosophy" copers go to all the way down that rabbit hole though. Paramecia are interesting examples because they're slightly more complex than the average microbe, they have a "mouth" and an "anus" and reproduce sexually. The only possible coping strategy would be to claim they can't "decide" because they don't have a "mind" or a "consciousness" like more complex animals do.

And then you'd force them to explain how consciousness magically arose when a sufficient number of cells came together at some point in evolution, or similarly every time a human is conceived by mixing a sperm cell and an egg cell (both arguably less complex, individually, than a paramecium). They get together and start multiplying and dividing, all cells so far, all "robots" just like the paramecium, all receiving all manners of input and output from the environment around them, and then suddenly, by pure magic, they become more than just a bunch of cells, and now there is a magic property called consciousness that precedes environmental input.

I can forgive old philosophers for not going down this route because the necessary biological and physical knowledge was not existent yet, but for people living now it's just infinite cope.

>>16345892
I mean, if you spent 4 years on your philosophy degree, it's only natural trying to push it into everything. Assuming anon isn't just some faggot who read a few guys and tries to force the MUH PHILOSOPHY lens on everything.

>>16345857
>Is this a greek paramecium at least?

>>16345789
I never said any of this had to do with anything other than homo sapiens.