/lit/ - Literature

>>22809830
they'd have to say what it is to be 'conscious'

>>22809830
an infinite regress of causes implies uncertainty i.e chance

>>22809830
While it is true that our decisions are influenced by a variety of factors, it is not necessarily the case that these factors completely determine our choices. We have the capacity to make decisions and take actions that are not fully determined by our environment and circumstances. Free will allows us to use our reason and make rational choices according to our own desires and values. While external factors may influence us, we ultimately retain our ability to choose how to respond and act.

The idea that our conscious decisions are not actually made consciously, as claimed, fails to take into account the complexity of human decision-making: while there may be unconscious influences at play, our rational mind still has an active role in the decision-making process. We are not completely predetermined in our choices and actions, as our free will allows us to make decisions according to our own judgement. To claim otherwise is to suggest that the human mind is not capable of making independent choices and acting with intention, which is not the case---one might argue that humans are merely acting on their instinct and emotions, which are influenced by their environment and previous experiences. This would mean that the choices they make are not completely their own, but rather determined by external factors. However, in reality, humans are capable of making decisions and acting with intention. Humans have the ability to reason, think critically, and choose their actions based on their own desires and values. Therefore, it is possible for humans to make independent choices and act with intention. Ultimately, the mind cannot be reduced to a simple equation determined solely by our brain chemistry.

>>22810562
An infinite regress of causes is not possible because it would result in an infinite series of causes without any original or first cause. If the series of causes were to go on indefinitely in the past, nothing could ever be caused, because there would be no ultimate starting point. Without a first cause, no event or effect would ever occur. This would violate the principle that every effect has a cause, and would lead to a logical contradiction.

>>22810599
>We have the capacity to make decisions and take actions that are not fully determined by our environment and circumstances

True, God bless you

>>22809830

>>22810622
top kek

>>22810607
>This would violate the principle that every effect has a cause
That is not a principle. I don't get what it is about this idea that scares so many.

>>22810607
aha, yes, you have established there is an uncaused first cause, which also causes a logical contradiction, from a theistic standpoint, freewill is a transcendental capacity, not a sensical one, for a materialist, they believe in infinite regress which is theoretically possible as no universe origin would make practical sense, so ironically it all boils down to faith, i personally believe its a reality of the two, you have a choice from the menu, but you don't get to decide what is on the menu, it is subject to change, a reduction and enlargement of possibilities that provider makes available as he sees fit, if that makes sese

>>22810622
>Mickey, if the brain is just chemicals, then to say “the brain is just chemicals” would simply be true. What would be odd is if it were more than chemicals yet it believed that it were not. Of course none of this implies that we should not fight for that which we value..

>>22810630
Without such a principle, everything that happens would happen for no reason, and the universe would be utterly unpredictable. This is clearly not the case, as we are able to make accurate predictions to the future based on our understanding of the principles of physics. Therefore, it is a fact that every effect has a cause.

One example of the principle "every effect has a cause" in action is a simple object in motion. Such an object will continue in motion with constant speed and direction, unless it is acted upon by an outside force. This force is the cause of the object's acceleration, and because its acceleration is not zero, we know that the principle of every effect having a cause is true.

To elaborate further on the example of the object in motion, the force acting on the object is being applied by some external agent, e.g. a person throwing a ball, or a force of nature, e.g. an air resistance when a moving object. So it is clear that the cause of the object's acceleration is due to that external agent, which means that there is a reason why the object is accelerating. Therefore, it's a simple proof that every effect has a cause.

>>22810633
From a materialist standpoint, the concept of free will can be difficult to comprehend, since it is seen as a transcendental capacity rather than a sensible one. While it may be theoretically possible for there to be an infinite regress, such an idea would not align with our experience of the world and would cause a logical contradiction in terms of causal relations. As such, it is not sensible to believe in an infinite regress of causes. Furthermore, the concept of faith is not inherently incompatible with a materialist perspective, as faith can still apply to our capacity to reason and form beliefs, regardless of the nature of our worldview.

Additionally, the concept of faith as a commitment to a specific view does not necessarily imply absolute truth or certainty. It can simply refer to a degree of trust or confidence in a particular perspective or belief system. Even the most critical-minded materialist can operate under some degree of faith when it comes to certain questions or aspects of reality. This does not mean they are necessarily engaging in blind belief, but rather a willingness to accept certain assumptions or premises as a starting point for further exploration and analysis.

>>22809830

>People suggest that free will doesn't exist

Show me a determinist, and I'll show you someone who looks both ways before crossing the street.

>>22810657
Show me a determinist, give a sledgehammer, and I'll show you how the insights of the human brain look.

>>22810640
Here's the problem: you're assuming too much about causality. Eventually our physical models do break down into unpredictable statistics concerning chaos. Our logical models break down into self-referential paradoxes. Our mathematics assume a priori an infinite recursion with no clear first cause and derive from it consequence, some of which are in themselves countably and uncountably infinite. It's observable. It's there. We use these modes of logic to engineer and model much of our modern technology. So why keep denying the truth?

if you pretend free will is real then it is

>>22810670
While it is true that our physical models break down into unpredictable statistics concerning chaos at the subatomic level, this does not discount the existence of causality itself. Causality is simply the recognition of cause and effect, and this relationship undoubtedly exists at the macroscopic level, which is the basis of most of our physical models. Therefore, it is incorrect to deny the truth of causality based on the fact that it is not observable at the quantum level.

While it is true that our physical models break down into unpredictable statistics concerning chaos at the subatomic level, this does not discount the existence of causality itself. Causality is simply the recognition of cause and effect, and this relationship undoubtedly exists at the macroscopic level, which is the basis of most of our physical models. Therefore, it is incorrect to deny the truth of causality based on the fact that it is not observable at the quantum level.

In conclusion, causality is a fundamental concept within physical and mathematical models. While it is incomplete at the level of the quantum world, this does not discount the existence of causality at the macroscopic level, which has been tested and verified countless times. It is therefore wrong to dismiss causality as a principle because it cannot be observed at every level of existence.

>>22810670
Sorry, this >>22810680 has an error. I accidentaly pasted my first paragraph twice. Here's the correction:

While it is true that our physical models break down into unpredictable statistics concerning chaos at the subatomic level, this does not discount the existence of causality itself. Causality is simply the recognition of cause and effect, and this relationship undoubtedly exists at the macroscopic level, which is the basis of most of our physical models. Therefore, it is incorrect to deny the truth of causality based on the fact that it is not observable at the quantum level.

Additionally, even at the quantum level, causality does exist. While it is true that the behavior of subatomic particles may seem random, this is simply a result of our incomplete understanding of the fundamental principles of physics that govern the behavior of these particles. It is therefore a mistake to assume that these particles behave without any cause, rather than accept that we simply do not yet know the cause.

In conclusion, causality is a fundamental concept within physical and mathematical models. While it is incomplete at the level of the quantum world, this does not discount the existence of causality at the macroscopic level, which has been tested and verified countless times. It is therefore wrong to dismiss causality as a principle because it cannot be observed at every level of existence.

>>22810683
you almost made me think even chatgpt had a brainfart when dealing with this stuff :(

>>22810687
>ChatGPT
people here got too comfortable with badly structured and idiotic babbling disguised as philosophical argumentation, to the point where anything that's not that is deemed as AI. fuck this gay website.

>>22809830
I don't see the contradiction here. Just because conscious choices are made dependent on all the factors you mentions doesn't mean those are not conscious choices. What else do you want them to depend on? Pure chance? Do you want humans to be random number generator automatons.

Free will is ultimately a pure human experience of how we rationalise the consequences of the factors that you mentioned. But the point is that the knowledge of those factors (chemical reactions, social conditioning etc.) themselves are contingent on experience That doesn't make the experience thag is free will any less valid

>>22810698
Cont.

Ultimately we are just animals who evolved some senses and perceptions to survive in this world and in society, and perception of free will to rationalise social behaviour is one of them. Infact we apply this phenomena to things that we later found actually have no free will, like rivers, lightening, thunder. This is where all the theistic bs comes from

>>22810698
>I don't see the contradiction here.
Because there isn't. Arguments that sought to refute free-will is mere wishful thinking by narcissists who want to "dunk" on everybody else, which is why their arguments are usually just either brief assertions of their viewpoint, or an attempt to ridicule the opposite stance simply by pointing out that it is "stupid", rarely ever building a case for their own stance.

Give them true arguments, and they'll eventually accuse you of using ChatGPT, as if that would invalidate the arguments if it were true. This place is a shithole.

>>22809830
People that say free will doesn’t exist are typically losers. I’d say you can’t even enter the debate unless you are an individual which is uncommon. Usually people who don’t believe in free will are both regurgitating and coping for a life they dislike. If they are happy then you can listen to them. But obviously, all that matters is our perspective. We cannot comprehend whatever paradoxes of reality that are real.

>>22810670
This is too much truth to handle for the 80 iq causality nigger's brain. Pearls before swine. He just needs an excuse for his skydaddy to be real. Not even actual theologians are retarded enough to believe that such a lowly argument based of causality alone is sufficient to prove God.

>>22810698
>>22810728
While the concept of free will may be influenced by experience and perception, it is not based solely on these factors. We also have the ability to engage in rational thought and decision-making, which is not determined by our external circumstances or social conditioning. Free will is not just a result of us rationalising our experiences, but an inherent metaphysical ability that allows us to choose between different courses of action. As such, free will cannot be reduced to a simple biological process or evolutionary adaptation.

If free will is a real experience and not just a product of biological processes, then the question of why we possess this capacity remains. This question cannot be answered by merely appealing to evolution or scientific explanations, as these only describe how we have *developed* different traits, but not why we would have these traits in the first place. It is at this point that a more holistic, philosophically-sound answer becomes necessary. It is not impossible that there may be a higher order of principles or purposes which have led to the development of our human faculties, including the capacity for free will.

>>22810743
>ad-hominem
Seems like the only "80 iq nigger's brain" here is you, pal. Bet you'd try to shoot me with an Uzi if we were down "on ya hood".

>>22810749
>We also have the ability to engage in rational thought and decision-making, which is not determined by our external circumstances or social conditioning.

Since this premise is incorrect everything that comes after doesn't stand

>>22810761
There is a clear distinction between rational thought and decision making, and the biological process of cognition or social conditioning. Rationality is often defined as the reasoning process by which individuals assess information, draw conclusions, and make decisions based on their assessment. Whereas, cognition is the process of perception and understanding through which individuals organize and make sense of information. While cognition is influenced by external factors such as culture and society, rational thought is the process of utilizing cognitive abilities to arrive at conclusions and make judgements.

In this sense, the process of rational thought and decision-making involves a level of self-control and autonomy that is not present in purely cognitive processes. Instead, we are using our cognitive abilities to actively determine our actions and make choices. This shows that rationality, and by extension free will, is not merely a result of biological conditioning or sociological influences, but rather a conscious effort to exercise our intellectual and moral faculties. This indicates that there may indeed be a higher order or purpose which has led to the development of our rational nature, which is what makes us unique as human beings.

>/lit/ arguments be like
"uhm... no!"

>>22810654
right, because the root of reason is faith, since reason is based off presupposed axioms, self evident truths/reductions we accept as constants, when in reality they can be subject to change just like anything else, as we see now deeper in the quantum/subatomic realm, this is in terms of the materialistic lense, however it cannot possibly be so in the moral context, there is no grey in the moral world, since something can not be wrong then change to right or vice versa, as that would contradict the definition of morality and its inherent subsisting demarcations

>>22810743
there is no definition that can alone suffice to be conclusive in terms of God's "existence, that's why faith is an amalgam of other reasonings that fortify its compelling position, the reason why the cosmological standpoint is robust is that it shows it takes just as much "faith" to believe in the principle of infinite regress, that neither is more "logical" than the other, and that both demands a leap of reasoning

>>22810790
To address the first point, while it is true that our knowledge of the world is based on presuppositions, it does not follow that these presuppositions can simply be subject to change at will. If a foundational axiom is to be considered true, it must be supported by sound reasoning and evidence, and not merely accepted as true by faith alone. As such, it is not accurate to equate the root of reason with faith, since we can justify many of our axioms through rational argument. In the second point, the distinction between moral grey areas and clear right and wrong is indeed an interesting one. However, I would say that not all moral issues are entirely clear-cut or straightforward. While there are some fundamental principles and values that are widely accepted as impermissible or virtuous, there are also other issues that may be more subjective or contingent on individual circumstances. In these instances, it is important to approach the issue with respect and understanding, and to carefully consider the various factors involved in order to arrive at a morally sound decision.

While our moral beliefs may not be black and white, they are also not completely subject to personal interpretation and can be based on rational thought and sound reasoning. In other words, while the issue of morality may not be a matter of clear right and wrong, that does not mean it is purely subjective or relative. Instead, our moral principles should be grounded in objective truth and evidence as much as possible. As such, we should strive to arrive at morally sound decisions through a combination of logic, reason, and consideration of the various factors involved, rather than solely through personal preference or cultural norms.

>>22810790
>>22810808
One example is the principle of non-contradiction, which states that a statement cannot simultaneously be true and false. This principle is based on a logical argument, rather than faith or belief alone. Another example is the law of identity, which states that a thing is itself. In this example, we use reason and observation to see that things exist and behave in specific and consistent ways. From these observations, we can then deduce fundamental truths about the world around us, which serve as the axioms or foundational principles of our knowledge.

Another example is the principle of sufficient reason, which states that any fact or event must have a reason or explanation for its existence. This idea is not based on faith or personal assumption, but rather on the concept of cause and effect. It is a foundational principle in that it helps us understand the relationship between a cause and its effect, and to infer causation in our knowledge of the world. The principle of sufficient reason is a central tenet of our scientific and philosophical understanding of the world, and it is not merely a matter of faith or religion.

I can continue like this all day, faggots. You'll never beat me.

>>22810808
the only difference in your mind, principally speaking, between reason and faith, is a temporal frequency (how many times an instance occurs within our perspective of time), the more you encounter "rule breaking" (miracles) so to speak in the realm of natural law, the further you detach yourself from rigid systematic thinking and adherence, this of course is revealed through experience and for most would fall under anecdotal or delusional, for non theists. For the sake of practicality i will concede that it is more conducive to societal thinking that a demarcation be made from these two terms but as i am partial to the realm of spirit, these definitions become increasing blurry and problematic.

In terms of morality, a variety of actions can be used to achieve a goal, but all will definitively fall under a given side within moral criteria. What you are suggesting is relativism, since you believe the definition of what is moral is subjective. There is no need to be verbose on this subject i believe, what one must agree on is definitions, which never seems to work.

>determinist faggot makes a thread
>his stance gets completely obliterated by the sheer weight of logically valid arguments that he's unable to refute
>resorts to mere ad-hominems and repeating the validity of his claims without laying out a proper foundation for them "I AM A SURGEON!!! I AM A SURGEON, DOCTOR HAAAAN!!!"
This entire board is a shithole full of pseudo-intellectual faggots that simply LARP as philosophical bookworms, but,in reality, they merely cling stubbornly to "original" and quirky ideas regarding the nature of reality and other things in spite of common sense just so they can appear smarter than other people,