/lit/ - Literature

"I was a mistake."

-Stirner

neat, friend
I am glad you shared this data about yourself with myself

>>6497267

>false, high sense of your own intellect
>low level of actual intellect
>posts on /lit/
>knows of stirner (only through /lit/)

Do all the above combine to equal that you have no choice in the matter but to make this thread?

>>6497266
first you must talk about what it is:

>a simulation is to know exactly, from a initial condition, the final condition after a (temporal) evolution of the system. This is crunching numbers before the events IRL. IF the predictions is verified, this is called determinism.


I do not think that a human can know the initial condition, let alone the laws that you must use.

If we have the first two, then you the final state must also be understood by us, which is likely to be possible.

Was Cypher, in forsaking ideals/morals by wanting to return to ignorance, a voluntary egoist surrounded by individuals with wheels in their heads?

I'll admit that I first learned about Stirner through /lit/, but that just makes me think he isn't actually that important, which is probably the case.

>>6497311
Cypher just wanted the best of both worlds, if Neo succeeds he's out and wins, if they lose he wins, basically if you aren't certain why try? The others somehow granted themselves permission to have egos because their goals where for the benefit of the current participants of mankind.

free will exists

>>6497266
>mfw someone mentions 'free will' near me

>>6497340
Nothing is more important than freeing yourself of spooks and living the free egoist life.

>>6497361

>>6497280

how do you even walk in those shoes but hot as fuck holy shit

>>6497361
>being proud of your ignorance of science

>>6497384
that's what you are, because science says literally nothing about it

>>6497369
Dennet is an asshole

>>6497389
That doesn't mean he is wrong about free will, idiot.

>>6497389
How is he an asshole? Other than being an atheist

>>6497392
Correct. He's wrong for more basic reasons.

>>6497384
I was raised in a Calvinist strain too, weeber.

But the future is actually wide open.

>>6497387
Read Sam Harris.

>>6497393
He just is, look at that rectum beard and shiteating eyes and pooping nose

>>6497399
Why would I read what someone who isn't even a philosopher has to say about free will?

>>6497387
No, you fucking idiot. We pretty much know definitively that free will is an illusion.
>>6497397
How is he wrong?
>>6497398
>he thinks the lack of free will means everything is pre-determined
Cause and effect, you basic bitch.

>>6497406
Free will isn't an issue for philosophy, it's a scientific matter. You don't ask a philosopher to perform brain surgery on you, why would you have one tell you about free will?
>>6497404
>He just is
Great argument. You're JUST a faggot.

>>6497408
>No, you fucking idiot. We pretty much know definitively that free will is an illusion.
You are truly a brain-dead retard if you think this issue is at all settled.

>How is he wrong?
Bad definition.

>>6497408
OMG, you caused me to fall asleep of boredom.

I was fated to fall asleep the whole time.

>>6497412
>You are truly a brain-dead retard if you think this issue is at all settled.
Only non-scientists take issue with free will not existing.
>Bad definition.
Elaborate.

>>6497411
>Free will isn't an issue for philosophy, it's a scientific matter.
It would be if scientists could understand it on a really basic epistemological level.

>>6497413
>fate
see >>6497408
>>he thinks the lack of free will means everything is pre-determined
>Cause and effect, you basic bitch.
>>6497415
>It would be if scientists could understand it on a really basic epistemological level.
How do they not?

>>6497414
There are numerous sophisticated theories of free will that are completely compatible with modern science, see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/incompatibilism-theories/ for more details.

>>6497420
>There are numerous sophisticated theories of free will that are completely compatible with modern science
Not really, as they all have very little evidence to support them. They're just word games.

>>6497418
Science is simply unequipped on an epistemological level to deal with free will, and yet it still plainly exists. The evidence for it is simply not verifiable between people.

>>6497424
Only someone who is extremely deluded could believe this.

>>6497429
>Science is simply unequipped on an epistemological level to deal with free will
Not at all. The evidence is clearly there that free will does not exist.
>The evidence for it is simply not verifiable between people.
Fuck off back to /x/ with your mystic bullshit.
>>6497430
How is making a reasoned judgement based on evidence deluded?

>Instantly becoming agitated.
>Resorting to slurs.
>One disagrees
>"Not a scientist"
>It's not settled
>"Learn to science, bitch"
>There are other ideas
>"Word games"
>Nothing anyone says will convince you
>You are fanatically stuck with this idea
>Referring back to the other, the man in a robe
>He knows
>He's always known

Don't worry about it, buddy

>>6497420
>There are numerous sophisticated theories of free will that are completely compatible with modern science, see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/incompatibilism-theories/ for more details.


>when she exercises her free will

>she


fuck this shit

>>6497266
yfw what?

Can someone explain?

The question of free will is nonsensicle. No free will does not exist, but neither does determinism. All things "are" already. If the future is determined, paradoxically, it was not pre-determined, it simply always was. For the future to be *determined*, there must be a choice by a *determiner* at each qauntifiable lapse of time, which actually leads to the free-will of the determiner.

All quantifiable things in this universe are simply orbs, orbs that are part of the supreme spook. The scientists are fundementally incapable of realizing this. They think they lord over nature, but really, they are its play things. To get behind a spook, you must think like a spook. Scientists don't think at all, they let their childish experiments and mathematics do it for them.

Oh boy another argument revolving around semantics. How stimulating.

>>6497266

>>6499533
literally not a single person has jumped onto your terrible meme

>>6497411
>Free will isn't an issue for philosophy, it's a scientific matter.
just stop

>>6497413
so what was the exact moment when you realized how you werent cleaver

Define "free will".

NOT BEING ZIZEKIAN AND AGREEING WITH THE ONTOLOGICAL INCOMPLETNESS OF THE REAL AND YOUR MIRROR-STAGE BREAK THERE WITHIN

TWO-THOUSAND-AND-FIFTEEN

>>6499744
>

>>6497266
>not knowing that individuals have free will

>>6499660
Being able to choose between two distinct choices.

>free will does not exist, I was predetermined to be an annoying cunt

>>6500388
So then a random number generator has free will?

>>6500426
Random number generators do not "choose" , and they're not even actually random, just give the illusion of randomness.

>>6500480
So then what does something need to do to count as "choosing"?

>>6499484
Did Stirner really write this dribble?

>>6497369
>There are no mental events. You are only imagining them!

>>6497266
ITT : retards thinking any experiment will ever say anything for or against free will.

>>6497369
Dennett doesn't reject free will - from what I understand, he redefines the notion for himself somehow.

>>6500671
no

r8

If free will didn't exist, we wouldn't be able to talk about it.

>>6497266
> posting le butthead profile

OK, no joke, I want to read that book.
Where should I start before reading it? help pls

>>6504192
try browsing /hm/ for about 2 weeks

helped me, no joke

>>6504199
Foucault? is that you?

The compatibilist formulation of free will appears to be closest to how we actually behave in the real world.

The majority of people I read claiming free will doesn't exist just have a poor definition of what it actually is.

>>6506531
It sounds more like you just have a weak, self-serving definition of free will. The more you water it down, the more "compatible" it is with determinism, the same way that a watered down definition of freedom is compatible with life in prison.

>>6506543
It's hardly damning to accuse me of holding a logically tenable view of free will rather than a silly one that's easily disproven.

>>6506543
Proof the average /lit/izen is underage.

>>6506557
Not so much logically tenable as usefully malleable. A lump of clay you may mold to fit the hole--calling it logic when the fit is snug.

>>6506566
You're begging the question.

>>6506570
Nevertheless, definitional compatibilists clothe themselves
in the garb of “compatibilism” because they argue that
determinism is compatible with weaker senses of free will
that they regard as the only kinds of free will “worth
having.”40 Again, for our purposes, “free will” is the
hypothesis that a person who purposefully chooses
something could have chosen otherwise—that is, (1) he
would have chosen otherwise if he had wanted to, and (2)
he could have wanted other than what he actually wanted.
Definitional compatibilists differ in the way they propose to
define free will. Some define free will as the capacity to
make purposeful choices in accord with element 1 alone,
that is, the capacity of a person to make purposeful choices
that he would make differently if he wanted to.41 Others
define free will as a capacity to make purposeful choices
simpliciter.42 And still others define it as the capacity to
make purposeful choices in accord with certain kinds of
motivation.43 Regardless of the definitions they embrace,
however, definitional compatibilists agree on one thing:
they agree that the only kind of free will that matters is the
kind that a person must possess in order to be normatively
responsible for his choices—that is, to merit praise or
blame for his choices—and that to be responsible in that
way, it suffices that a person possess the capacity to make
certain kinds of purposeful choices, even if given their
wants they could not choose otherwise. In short, they agree
that “free will” ought to be redefined to eliminate any
requirement of element 2. An influential strain of
definitional compatibilism is identified with G.E. Moore.44
Moore took the position that a person who purposefully
chooses x has all the free will a person needs, provided that
he could have chosen otherwise—meaning that he would
have chosen otherwise if he had wanted to.45 Moore’s
definition of free will has some surface plausibility, because
to say in a non-determinist world, “He would have chosen
otherwise if he had wanted to,” simply means: nothing
external prevented him from choosing otherwise (e.g.,
chains or threats), and he was fully capable of wanting
something other than x (i.e., element 2). Unfortunately,
Moore’s definition of free will fails to respond to libertarian
concerns in the determinist world that definitional
compatibilists imagine, because in such a determinist
world element 2 does not obtain; that is, in a determinist
world, persons cannot want other than what they actually
want.

why wouldnt free will exist though

>>6506701
Because, in the concise words of Schopenhauer: Der Mensch kann tun was er will; er kann aber nicht wollen was er will. (Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills.)

Read >>6506585 and note how free will would mean you would supposedly have free will if it were possible to want other than what you want. But, people do not elect their will. They do not choose what they want. It comes from an undetermined place. Hence, free will is definitely in question.

Is not the illusion of free will all that matters though?

If it is generally accepted by laypeople ("normalfags") that they have free will and they believe they have influence over their life then is that not all that matters?

>>6506724
The only area where it matters, really, is in the retributivist theories of criminal law. It hardly makes sense to punish someone for a crime if they were predetermined to commit said crime. But, even utilitarian theories of punishment cover that gap by saying it would be better for the whole if said offender was punished (sequestered) for a while, perhaps life.

I believe that we have free will as I believe we have souls given to us by God, which gives different individuals different ways to interpret the natural order of things

>>6506789
>I believe we have souls given to us by God

>no one defines their terms before continuing

>>6506808
>thinks 4chan cares who he is

saged and filtered

>>6506794
I wonder what it's like to look that good. That would be such a waste of good genes if he were gay. He could probably fuck any girl he wanted.

>>6506742

Yes, I'd forgotten about punishment there. But seeing as punishment is usually defined by the People and the People think free will exists then it must be dealt with free will in mind.

>>6506794
Get better reaction images faggot

>>6506585
>>6506715

That seems to be what actually happens though. People don't just have desires, they have desires about desires. For example, someone who likes to procrastinate can want to stop wanting to procrastinate. These kinds of higher level desires can lead to desires about those and so on as you get introspective.

>>6506585
tl/dr

If free will is seen as purposefully choosing between two choices, then it doesn't exist, for a choice made for a reason is not arbitrary and so in a sense is causal, or deterministic.

If free will is seen as meaning simply unpredictable, or random choosing out of a selection, then some might argue humans have the ability to be like the random number generator and make said random choice, disrupting the chain of causality/determinism.

This second view seems to me closer to reality, since many scientists say our universe is indeed random.

However, it doesn't comfort me just to be "home" to a random or arbitrary choice. I just think pure causal explanations aren't enough for the universe.

>Don't have links to anything I read about this, sorry.

>>6506896
god raven is such an icon