/lit/ - Literature

In my opinion it doesn't. It doesn't really matter though because to us it feels like we do

What the fuck did this intel-retard say?

>>6102814
that free will is an illusion.

>>6102814
That free will doesn't real, I assume. Which is rather understandable, since "humans" are just a bunch of particles, physically speaking, and there is no real point where they would suddenly turn into one consistent entity that suddenly has a will that comes out of nowhere.

>>6102779
In the sense that time being a physical dimension, that necessitates that there is only one timeline in this universe.

>>6102809
this.

It just seems convenient that our free will only extends to "that which is logically and mechanically possible for our physical bodies".
IMHO, that is not true "freedom", if anything it reaffirms the probability that all of the particles in our bodies obey the same laws that all the observable ones outside our bodies do.

when it comes down to it though it really doesn't matter: since we are self-aware and can experience our lives as a conscious "outsider" then our free will is as meaningful as you can believe it is.

I think this is what Camus was trying to say.....

>>6102855
see
>>6102883

>>6102779
Oh great, another thread where /lit/ shows it knows dick all about the free will debate

>>6102913
>Oh great, another thread where /lit/ shows it knows dick all about the free will debate

There is no debate friend.

>>6102779
>Does free will really exist?
what difference does it make?

>>6102926
Yeah because it's a bogus 'problem'

>>6102779
I feel like arguing for no free will is like metaphysical behaviorism. Behaviorism was quantifiable and objective and publicly observable, but silly in the end. At least when you take it as the end-all be-all.

It makes sense that we have no free will, yet we experience life as though we had free will. To assert we have no free will is a sort of pointless argument, just as it is pointless to argue we do have free will. There is no ground to be made either way.

>>6102972
Compatibilism

/thread

>>6102972
>It makes sense that we have no free will, yet we experience life as though we had free will
And how would we experience life if it felt as though we didn't have free will?

>>6102972
>It makes sense that we have no free will, yet we experience life as though we had free will.

That's just completely wrong. We don't experience "will" at all, we experience making choices.

The ability to make choices is not synonymous with free will.

Though you are right in some sense, the fact that we have to make choices, makes us believe that we actually authored them from nowhere.

>>6102855
>>6102972
EMBRACE THE ABSURD NIGGERS

>>6103029
Who are the absurd niggers?

>>6103050
ALL OF THEM
THEY JUST WANT 2 B HUGGED

If there's no free will there is no morality, punch the guy in the face.

>>6103029

ABSURD NIGGERS SUCH AS THIS ONE? WHY SHOULD WE EMBRACE THEM?

>>6102997
That anon never suggested we experience having free will, just that our experiences are such that is feels like we have free will. There is a difference.

>>6103064
Is that bodybuilding.com? kek

To be entirely honest i can't believe in determinism.
I don't know if I'm too romantic to accept it, but I really cant believe that everything was necessitated by the state of physical laws since the beginning of our universes time.

like petticoats, kazoos, every post on 4chan, boob shaped wind up toys. . .

that time you became obsessed with drawing dicks.

its all determined? I can't possibly believe it, even if its true. Its determined that I will never believe it if it is so.

>>6103133
That's the thing about determinism. It's sort of retarded to argue it, and when pointed out, the only recourse is to say "WELL I WAS DESTINED TO SAY WHAT I'M SAYING".

Free will exist let me explain you why.
Yes the atomic movements of particles are subject to the physical laws but this microscopic reality does not translate to the macroscopic one. ecample According to quantum mechanics you could pass a wall just because its the quantum way. But do we see that action somewhere in our reality? No because chance and logic have a really unlikely event to happene so that macroscopic reality is different from the atomic one. Even if undeterminism could be translated we couldn't see it in the world we live normally.

>>6102779
His existence must be miserable. Fuck.

>>6103193
A Speak and Spell talks for him. Of course he's miserable, asshole.

>>6103172

yes, except quantum physics don't work that way at temperatures like the ones we live.

If you are a materialist, it is very hard to believe that free will can exist.

If you are not, then it is possible to believe that free will is possible.

Of course. God, the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth, gave us free will. The bible explicitly says so. We have the option to freely accept his grace and salvation.

That we don't have free will is absurd and heresy.

Man, fuck if I know. This issue has been discussed to death and there's be no real headway into an answer because it's still a question.

Practically, it exists -- even if you find it doesn't, one still operates as if it does.

>>6103399
>If you are a materialist, it is very hard to believe that free will can exist.
not really, read the quantum part on the wiki article about determenism
even hawking doesn't deny it, he merely says that the quantum uncertainty statistically has no effect and therefore it looks like determinism
and then his opinion is just his personal opinion

>>6102779
>free will means that women are willing to sleep with him(he has kids) while you (we) will die a kissless virgin
I really hope skanks die a painful death

>>6103476

>>>/r9k/
>>>/outside/

>>6102779
whats the point of asking stupid questions that are imposible to solve?

>>6103490
Believe it or not but i never went to /r9k/ and I've been on 4chan since 07.

Back to my statement, its just disheartening when you see guys like Hawking find someone and just because you had acne sluts rejected you and I'm not even talking about the popular crowd.

>>6103540
try salt + soap mask

I don't know, you don't either, and he doesn't too. It probably depends on what you're using as proof when considering the problem.

free will as in "free" from what? outside influences? cause and effect?
if so then of course it doesn't exist.
a world with true "free" will is just going to be a chaotic mess with no sense whatsoever.

>>6103616

causality is a myth

If there was definitive, flawless answer we wouldn't have this thread every day.

>>6103617
explain.

>"I cannot move my body, therefore 'free will' is an 'illusion'."

— STEVEN HAWKINGS.

>>6103433
You can have no free will and also live in a nondeterministic world. Just because atoms behave somewhat randomly does not mean that we have control of our actions, it just means that we cannot perfectly predict them all of the time.

>>6103682
Haha, oh god. This is the dumbest shit I've seen you post, and I'm a loser who's here a few hours a day so it's not like I haven't read some real fucking doozies you've written.

>>6102779
>or is it an illusion like pic related says?
Then free will exists as an illusion, in other words, it exists.

All these statements about something being an illusion need first to construct an ontology of illusion if they want to be meaningful.

>>6102779
If free will doesn't exist, why is it wrong of me to think it does?

This smacks of the argument for God running something like "I can tell there is a God because the world is naturally ordered." If we were living in an ordered world, we would have no point of reference of disorder, so its impossible to tell.

>>6102981

what a stunning beautiful argument you just made, good sir

Free will or causality. Pick one.

In a causal universe, all events must have a cause. There is no evidence in all of science or philosophy to suggest humans are any different.

People who don't accept this are in denial because they want to believe they are somehow special.

>>6103887
>Free will or causality. Pick one.
I pick power and indeterminism, so neither of what you're offering.

>>6103921
Even if the universe is indeterminate, that still dosn't mean free will can exist. It just means we can't predict where the casual chain will lead next.

>>6102779
Hawking is a hack, I wouldn't listen to anything this guy said after the year 2000.

I'm still amazed how his small contribution to physics make him such a figure like Tyson.

>>6103433
The fact that shit can behave randomly doesn't magically materialize the ability for people to step outside of causal closure at will to freely make choices in a non-deterministic manner. If causality plays ANY role, then we have no free will.

Given a few expert snips, shocks, and injections and my memories as well as the way I think act and feel can be changed drastically, changing who I am on a fundamental level. How can I possibly believe in free will given these things?

>>6102779
sometimes the question stops existing when you define what the fuck you're actually talking about

>>6103932
you dont understand randomness

>>6102948
If free will doesn't exist than punishing people for crimes doesn't make sense and we should focus on rehabilitating instead of punishment.

>>6104070
I suppose you'll now be rejecting reality in favor of methodology you're attached to for no real reason.

>>6104079
Yeah thats totally what im going to do, thanks for understanding my argument.

>>6104070
Punishing people harshly for crimes will still serve several purposes besides rehabilitation.

1. Believe it or not, one of the reasons people don't break the law is because people are punished for it. Punishing people for crimes reduces the amount of those crimes committed to some extent.

2. Replacing personal revenge. Another benefit to the public is that it lessens the need for those who are wronged to get revenge on the guilty. Inadequate punishment only serves to start terrible family feuds, gang wars, and all other sorts of violence.

>>6104070
we don't have a choice

>>6104106
youre making it sound as though violence is in itself wrong

>>6102809

No it doesn't. As soon as you become aware of the fact there is no free will, you see the causality in every little thing. The more you think about it the less of the illusion you have.

>>6104070

Punishing people for crimes doesn't make sense either way.

>>6104106
>1. Believe it or not, one of the reasons people don't break the law is because people are punished for it. Punishing people for crimes reduces the amount of those crimes committed to some extent.

Proof?


Because there is lots of evidence to the contrary.

>>6104131
Violence harms society and society controls the means to punishing people. From society's point of view violence is wrong and they are righteous in punishing whoever they want.

>>6103941

What behaves randomly?

>>6104148
Do you seriously believe that less people will speed less if there were no punishments for speeding?

So many things are rarely done by people in society, not because they are objectively, or even conventionally, considered wrong. They are not often done because they are illegal and you will get punished for it.

>>6103932
>still dosn't mean free will can exist
Well, I didn't argue for free will, on the contrary. Indeterminism is actually an argument against free will. In order to have free will you need to have a will determining its acts. If you incorporate contingency, then free will is negated by the degree of randomness.
But the ultimate point is that there is no agency, strictly speaking. We as bodies are centers of indeterminism: that's how perception is possible since we don't merely pass along what we receive, like totally determined objects do. But we're not originators of movement either. Movement is transmitted to us, from the world around us; or more precisely, we are part of the whole world's movement. We cannot cut up this movement in totally discrete units, yet the movement is also a multiplicity, made up of multiple parts and moments.
This is probably starting to sound like bullshit, so I'm just going to say "read Bergson". He argues for free will, but you can remove that part and combine the rest of him with Nietzschean views on free will.

>>6104168
This is actually a great post with great points. I'll check Bergson out. Thank you.

Not quoted anon, btw. And I'm not being ironic either.

Mind is not the same substance as physical matter which means it is not necessary for human thinking to be part of any cause-and-effect chain. Minds can't be reduced to any physical states since this reduction itself is part of our intentions which has no analogue in physical matter.

Saying humans act predictably is a entirely different proposition to saying our actions are determined by prior causes. Even if mind is something that supervenes on
the physical brain that still doesn't entail determinism wrt human free will is true.

>>6104166
>They are not often done because they are illegal and you will get punished for it.

Proof?

Just do some Googling.

Between 1999 and 2009, for example, New York shrank its prison population by 20 percent while crime rates dropped by 29 percent; from 2000 to 2010, Indiana increased its prison population by 45 percent and reduced its crime rate by .08 percent.


You illustrate what most people view as common sense, but on further investigation the opposite is true.


By your logic, people will not return to prison because it is bad and they will have learned their lesson from the punishment.

>>6104168

There is no such thing as "randomness".

>>6104168
>since we don't merely pass along what we receive, like totally determined objects do

Yes we do, we're complicated pinballs.

Define free will

>>6104207
I'm not saying that the only reason people don't do crimes is because they get punished for it. But to say it is not even a small factor is beyond ridiculous.

I can prove you wrong easily just using myself as a case study. Literally the only reason I pay taxes is because I will get punished for it if I don't. Literally the only reason I very carefully follow the ridiculous traffic laws in my city is because there are tons of asshole cops who wont hesitate in giving me large fines for breaking them.

I know absolutely nobody who would pay taxes if they didnt get punished for not doing so. Punishment probably affects more serious crimes differently, but to say it has 0 affect on the number of crimes is patently ridiculous.

>>6104229
I think that's the whole problem. You can't even coherently define it, yet determinism is a mirror image of it. In the end both lose.

>>6104239
>I can prove you wrong easily just using myself as a case study.

>me
>everyone

It exists.

>>6104337
Holy shit, how can anyone be this dense.

You said that punishment did not effect the amount of crime done, this includes everyone in the human race apparantly. Am I not a part of 'everyone'? If it affects me, then your assertion is wrong, it is simple.

>>6103702
>>6103941

can you even define the free will then. it seems your definition of free will it's completely random actions without any goal to prevent any causality

>>6104460
This is how I think of free will.

Free will is the idea that individuals can shape their own personality and abilities, and that they can ultimately determine their own destiny despite their original circumstances.

>>6104416
>punishment did not effect the amount of crime done

It doesn't.

>>6104672
Prove it.

>>6102779
>Does free will really exist?
Yes, it does.

And yes, this means reality violates causality. Deal with it, reality does not conform to you mental crutches of logic.

>>6102779
>Does free will really exist?
I free to answer this question.

>>6102779
This nigga ain't free to walk so he thinks other niggas are under the illusion that they free yo. This nigga jealous

Best thread we have had in a while.

See, it isn't currently possible to answer this with any certainty. If the universe, without exception and at every level, conformed to the laws of classical physics, then no, true free will could not be possible. Everything is nothing more than cause and effect, and under the tenets of the physics of Newton and Einstein, every event that has occured, is occuring, or ever will occur within the universe was therefore predestined at the moment of the Big Bang. In classical physics, there is no such thing as randomness; ergo, no way for free will to exist.
Problem is, quantum mechanics throws a wrench in that whole paradigm. At the quantum level, there *is* such a thing as randomness, or at least it seems so with our present level of understanding. Particles pop in and out of existence, can be in more than one place at a time, and can influence other particles at a speed exceeding that of light-- ostensibly the Universal Speed Limit. Taking this into account, can we say with any surity that there is no such thing as Random?
Nope.
So, until we develop a theory of quantum gravity or finally figure out what tge fuck we're doing with M-theory, this is a philosophical quandary that we're just not going to be able to solve.
What truly matters is that, no matter whether free will exists at all, we can make choices. Our choices may be a mere product of causality, but they are our choices nonetheless.

Learn on dependent origination and karma.

This discussion on free will vs determinism is meaningless. There is no separation between you and what brought you to be yourself. That problem could only have emerged with this terms "will" and "determination" within the judeo-christian tradition. Even the most scientific and secular approaches can't shake the problem off and see it under a completely different light. To take responsibility for your actions and be compassionate about what makes the world what it is, that's the most important.

>>6104492

if you admit that the person, who has the free will, can have some goals how to shape their future, it automatically implies that something affected that person in the past to give them some ideas of what future they would like to have. now, the question is if the person's behavior is completely determined or not, so the free will with this definition goes down to the question of determinism

if you want to exclude any causality at all it means your free willed person will be a mindless random wanderer

I think a good argument against free will is that if humans didn't act predictably or generally determinedly in response to specific situations, the concept of evolution would not work.

Say, a primal creature develops a fear response to seeing danger. If further down the line, free will is introduced and a human will suddenly react randomly to the event, said human with free will is less likely to survive.

Therefore at least part of our behaviour must be completely causal in response to environment. And causal means determined.

>>6105101
partially causal - partially determined
you don't need to bring evolution because the determinacy by the situation is obvious, the question only how far it goes

>>6105101
Free will doesn't necessarily mean you'll act randomly though and you rely in your argument on the notion that free will exists only in some creatures and not in others.
>>6104925
Why do you think that statement is exempt from debate?

Imagine that reality violates causality, then the question is, where does it violate causality and where does this free will reside? Is there an abstract otherworld where each human individual's soul lives? Then where did these souls get their will?
From god?
Then there is a causal relationship between us and god and we are all just god's will.
From somewhere else?
Please explain how something can exist that has the means to create independent agents separate from both each other and the creator. It is unthinkable, which is why Plato couldn't do it.

>>6104337
And prove you wrong he did.

>>6104168
You just rushed past the central problem m8. Try to keep up with the rest of the class.
>we don't merely pass along what we receive
We don't, most things in the body has been shown to be entirely mechanical. A camera can perceive but we don't say that it is indeterminate.
>>6104182
>not being ironic
Maybe you should be...

>>6102779
Free will exists in the same way that this pipe exists, that is, of course it does you fucking imbecile. Even if it is an illusion, I can reconcile the truth and the lie at once. I know that this is a painting of a pipe, not an actual pipe, but to have convinced me it is a painting of a pipe, it must have at least some pipe-like qualities. It must convince me on some base level that there IS a pipe there, even if it is 2-Dimensional, made of paint, and cannot be smoked.

Likewise, even if time is a 4-dimensional cube, with a fixed beginning and a fixed end, and no room for free will between, I still experience the 3-Dimensional illusion of free will. It is flat, subjective, and ultimately impotent, but it is there. I experience it. If there were no free will, I could not have any illusions about it. It would be totally incomprehensible to me.

>>6105232
You nailed it anon. Discussion is over, everybody go home.

>>6102913
>I'm not going to contribute to the discussion, I'll just complain and act like I'm superior to everyone else

>>6103133
>Argument from incredulity

I can't believe it!

Free will vs determinism debates are really boring

>>6105232
>There is a picture of the thing
>Therefore the thing exists
Yeah no, not all of us are pleb enough to use that reasoning.

>>6105232
If you wanna leave it at that that's your business. You are not explaining anything.

>>6105187
>Free will doesn't necessarily mean you'll act randomly though

But that's what I'm saying, though. Causal = deterministic. The only way you can bring up free will in a discussable way is to introduce some sort of randomness. Any other form of behaviour is causal and therefore deterministic.

If you disagree, then bring up an example of what would be causal non-deterministic behaviour. I'd say that by very definition, you can't. A cause implies a rule that is to be followed. The only free will can lie in true randomness.

I know about how some people use quantum randomness and chaos theory to argue for humans as a free will system, but chaos theory relies on complicated systems. That's why I brought up evolution. At the start you had cells. They behave determinedly (chemically, meaning enough particles to statistically rule out quantum randomness). But proponents say, if the human system is complex enough, chaos theory could reintroduce quantum randomness as effecting observable behaviour. Hence my argument as to why a random core in observable behaviour would compromise evolution.

>>6103133
>like petticoats, kazoos, every post on 4chan, boob shaped wind up toys. . .
>that time you became obsessed with drawing dicks.
>its all determined?
Just try to get an abstract picture of how fucking complex is the universe, and how even the stupidest of things has a cause. It's hard to believe determinism is true because you think in human scale. Try to get a bigger picture (of the bigger or smallest things) and keep in mind nothing of that shit happens just because, and then keep in mind very insignificant changes on the bigger or smaller scale could mean the end of everything as you know it. Of course I do what I want whenever I want and I say what I feel like saying and there's nothing visibly forcing me to say it. I'm not forced to do what I do. But I just happen to perceive an extremely simplified picture of myself and the world surrounding me. When you investigate the world further you see there's a structure you couldn't possibly see intuitively. And that hypercomplex structure seems to be working everywhere. We can't know for sure due to our obvious limitations, but everything points at free will being the easy answer to ridiculously complex shit and determinism the rational answer when you take into account everything we've been discovering about how things work in the universe.

>>6105310
You are using different definitions of the words random in your arguing then.

The central point I'm getting at is that the fact that most creatures have a will to live and act in accordance with that does not sufficiently disprove free will.
Sure we can predict things pretty accurately if we look at motivations.. Would that not be the case if free will exists?

It is a case of "all observed actions are predictable > all actions are predictable. Which is already faulty. Then you extrapolate to "all actions are pre-determined, which is not the same as predictable.

>>6105321
>the fact that most creatures have a will to live and act in accordance with that does not sufficiently disprove free will.
And it is not what I said. I said randomness at the root of behaviour is not compatible with evolution, because it renders passing down traits useless.

>It is a case of "all observed actions are predictable > all actions are predictable. Which is already faulty.
Only if you're assuming a reality outside our own observation. If you're actually going to argue this, then I'm not interested in furthering discussion.

>Then you extrapolate to "all actions are pre-determined, which is not the same as predictable.
It isn't? Are you taking determined to mean more than calculatable and predictable? Because that's all I understand under it.

If you're so bent on some sort of definition of free will that is causal, then give an example of what would constitute acting out of free will, without some sort of randomness.

>>6105349
So you are arguing as follows?
>We react atleast in part to the environment, this implies causality so we don't have free will.

Obviously no one will argue that humans make choices entirely cut off from the environment.
>I'm hungry, I'll take a shower.
This creature would be less likely to survive..

But this is not what anyone has ever meant to be the definition of free will. Free will is simply the ability to, at one point in time, do one thing or the other. With the exception that a compatibilist would argue that an action resulting from a cause inside of your organism is your free will. For a compatibilist we are all machines, but we can be judged for the quality of our machinery.
These are the options, maybe there are more, but,
you must see that you in your interpretation of free will, are arguing the obvious.

>>6105349
>>6105378
Adding this for expediency.

>It isn't? Are you taking determined to mean more than calculatable and predictable?

For something to be determined it has to be absolutely predictable, if you make a calculus or extrapolate in any way you can't prove determination.

>Only if you're assuming a reality outside our own observation.

If you go around taking notes on all the animals you see and come to the conclusion that all animals have a moveable lower jaw through induction, but you didn't observe the crocodile. Does the crocodile not exist? Is it still true that all animals have moveable lower jaws?
It is an extrapolation.

>>6102779
Free/unfree will is a false dichotomy since it perceives a human being as a separate entity.

When you stop differing between the self and the rest, the question becomes absurd. If you're not apart from but a part of everything, how can you be free or unfree from it? That's like asking if a drop of water is free from the ocean. He isn't free from it, but he also isn't subjected to it, because he is it himself.

>>6102779
>mfw littards still think free will and determinism are mutually exclusive
>mfw littards don't know their Hegel and how freedom = absolute necessity

>>6105417
If you're talking about compatibilists, they just shifted the definition.

As for Hegel, I'm getting to him in 2 weeks.

>>6105378
But it does imply that free will, if it exists, is constrained between choices that evolution has determined for us, right? And that meaningful human behaviour that affects survival IS determined.
Obvious as it may be, I think this renders the existence of free will rather irrelevant. Who cares if our choices are set or not? Statistically it will average out between the possible predetermined choices.

>>6105413
I would agree but the non-existance of a distinct self isn't beyond debate. If you wanna try a proof I'm all ears.

>>6105428
How would you even go about establishing the case for a distinct self?

Here are more interesting questions than the boring "is there free will?" one

Does KNOWING whether we have free will or not, change anything in our lives? The answer is "no".

>>6102779
As long as we can predict our future, does it matter?

>>6105426
>Humans will want to live more often than not.
Yeah.
Who cares if our choices are set or not?
Philosophers, and, one would expect, people who enter the thread "does free will really exist?"
Besides, there are other choices than evolutionary ones. Why do we choose certain clothing, why do we eat unhealthy food, why do we mourn some dead people and not others? So the question do we have free will has some relevance, albeit not in realm of building houses and selling advertising.

>>6105430
My point exactly. Have you read descartes attempt?

>>6105431
>STEM major detected
How is that more interesting?

>>6105412
>If you go around taking notes on all the animals you see and come to the conclusion that all animals have a moveable lower jaw through induction, but you didn't observe the crocodile. Does the crocodile not exist? Is it still true that all animals have moveable lower jaws?
It is an extrapolation.
Yeah, that's correct. As far as I would be concerned in that situation, a crocodile wouldn't exist, because it wouldn't hold any relevance or connection to the world I lived in.

>>6105413
Not if you argue free will implies some sort of randomness, loose from the causality that connects everything.
But that would mean that everything could have some sort of "free will". And randomness is irrelevant to us anyway, since we can't act in anticipation to it. Hence the existence of even this definition of free will is irrelevant.

How would we ever know if there wasn't free will?

>>6105447
>Yeah, that's correct. As far as I would be concerned in that situation, a crocodile wouldn't exist, because it wouldn't hold any relevance or connection to the world I lived in.

Sure, as long as you understand that you aren't making an argument.

>>6105441
I'd say Hume was pretty succesful. Bundle of experiences, seems adequate imo.
>>6105440
You still seem to be missing the consequences of what I'm saying. The "why's" of the questions you listed have to be justifiable from an evolutionary view point, because a senseless action to choose from would have been filtered out. All free will's existence would allow is a choice between predetermined actions, if the difference between them has no consequential significance.

>>6105462
You're the one who felt the need to respond to the statement that reality outside our observation is a stupid assumption. But I'm glad we both agree it is stupid, then.

>>6103667
Not him, but read Hume or just google search The Problem of Induction.
You can only ever prove correlation, and only correlation of past events. Everything else is an inductive assertion. There's no logical reason to accept the statement "This apple will fall when I drop it" for the same reason that you don't accept the statement "The steelers win because I wear these lucky pants."

>>6105483
Yeah, technically. But Hume also says that it's the only way us humans know how to function, so we might as well assume the universe will stay consistent and hope for the best. Anything other than that would be meaningless anyway.

>>6105470
You are seriously downplaying the significance of the "more often than not" part of it. Unless we have absolute predictability, we have no proof of determinism, and we do not have absolute predictability.

>>6105509
Joke's on you I'm a Christian existentialist

>>6105552
(That's a joke it isn't very relevant to the conversation)

>>6102779
he doesnt even have free will to move his body

>>6102779
It doesn't really exist but it's an extremely helpful fiction. People are thinking, decision-making animals. In truth, their thought patterns are probably pre-determined, but the 'free will' concept, though strictly fictitious, helps us evaluate and judge people in useful ways.

>>6106156
No, it skews our understanding. For example we are told the inside is what matters and that we shouldn't judge people based on how they were born. In fact judging someone based on physique is like judging someone based on intelligence. We tend to treat stupid people harsh and physically handicapped people with compassion, when really we should be consistent.

Arguing that free will doesn't exist is like arguing that you are fat because of genes so you won't diet or exercise.

I honestly believe its a moot question. It zero-sums because the Universe is as determned as any system is - the future is predictable, given enough knowledge. However, its completely irrevalent to humanity because we don't have enough knowledge to predict it; only the Universe itself can know its own future.

Because we're simply aspects of the Universe, we cannot know our own future and so have free-will.

>>6106765
>we cannot know our own future and so have free-will.
Not knowing what's going to happen and deciding what's going to happen are not the same thing.

>>6106765
Why does not knowing our future mean we have free will? With enough knowledge one could 100% predict the future, as you say, and as such surely there can be no free will? As other anons have already mentioned; we live our lives under the illusion that the choices we make are "real", but we always made them for a reason - no matter how small.

Randomness is just a concept. Everything in the universe happens for a reason. The more technical you get about it, the more obvious it appears to be.

>>6107005

Yes it is. Free-will is only revelant to the Universe itself. Its impossible for any aspect of it to predict, and therefore, we do have free will.

>>6107131

>With enough knowledge one could 100% predict the future, as you say, and as such surely there can be no free will?

Yes but nobody ever can. Humans are a subgradient of the Universe, an aspect of it. The Universe itself knows all, and so can predict everything because it knows everything. Humans however cannot predict the future and so have free will. The Universe itself does not. Think of it like being trapped in a swamp - you cannot see through the mist and so desperately travel in one direction. You do not know what direction you are travelling in, yet the route is pre-determined; you'll either nd up in th North, South, East ect to where you started walking.

>randomness is just a concept

So is everything. Everything is a concept, even you. You may as well be dreaming for all "reality" tells you.

>>6107295
>Yes it is. Free-will is only revelant to the Universe itself. Its impossible for any aspect of it to predict, and therefore, we do have free will.
I guess I'll decide the lottery outcome for tomorrow then since I can't predict it.

>>6107315

The Univers itself knows the outcome of the lotery. You, as a degenerated version of it, don't.

>>6107331
Not knowing the outcome doesn't make me free. It just makes me ignorant. That's my point.

>>6105431
Do you just lack the capacity for abstract thought or do you simply go through life without sight?

>>6107353

Ignorance and inability are the same thing when the ignorance is fixed.