>haha you don't have free will how do you respond?

File: 547 KB, 400x499, Headshot2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Thu Feb 1 11:12:27 2018 No.10622824 [Reply] [Original]

>haha you don't have free will

how do you respond?

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 11:15:08 2018 No.10622834 >define free will

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 11:17:23 2018 No.10622844 >>10622824 That's great. I'll just lie down and wait for my lack of free will to take over for me

Anonymous Thu Feb 1 11:19:57 2018 No.10622854

>>10622824
>free will as in do what you desire and no one controls your actions
then no he is right there is not free will a lot of things that we do can be blamed at our biological
nature, our biology defines what we do and how we do it. One example is death. My will is not to die but I die anyway. There you have it

Anonymous Thu Feb 1 11:22:01 2018 No.10622861

>>10622844

It will. At some point you will become hungry and thirsty and you will feel a strong compulsion to seek food and water. Or you will feel cold and will feel a compulsion to seek shelter and warmth. Or someone or something will nearly strike you or threaten you and you will feel a compulsion to defend yourself.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 11:25:26 2018 No.10622870 >>10622861 I'll feel it, but I'll resist it and die like a good boy.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 11:26:49 2018 No.10622876 >>10622824 >I don't have free will because my brain decides what I'm going to do before....I do Nice argument

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 11:27:36 2018 No.10622880 >>10622861 Compulsion to do those things doesn't mean I have to do it, people have starved themselves before, stayed out in the cold and wet before, and others have laid down to be killed.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 11:28:38 2018 No.10622886 >>10622824 we don't, but what we have so closely resembles free will that it doesn't really make any difference

Anonymous Thu Feb 1 11:28:59 2018 No.10622890

>>10622870

No, you won't. It is essentially impossible to starve yourself to death. You body, at some point in the brain's deterioration, forces itself in a crazed frenzy to seek out food. The arms spontaneously lift up the body, the legs spontaneously begin to tread in any direction because the present location is without food. The hands begin to claw in search of food. The mouth and tongue open up to take in whatever nourishment might happen to fall upon them.

At that point, unless there is no food to be found wherever, you will not starve. And even, as a last ditch effort, the body will become incapacitated to such an extent that it will be apparent to any bystanders that your require nourishment and you will be carried and fed against your will.

So yes, there is no free will.

Anonymous Thu Feb 1 11:31:33 2018 No.10622898

>>10622880

Even one's decision to starve oneself for a perceived 'greater good' is the brain's expression of seeking out better conditions and long-term improvements for the human species. It is possible to kill oneself if one wishes to alleviate suffering. It is possible to sacrifice oneself it the brain perceives it as a short-term loss in exchange for a long-term gain. A wild animal might eat its children in order to survive, not because it wishes to kill its children, but because it is programmed to require nourishment.

Anonymous Thu Feb 1 11:31:50 2018 No.10622899

>>10622824
Truly, you must have the mental capacity of a three-year old, free-will or not.

There's no way to tell if there's free will or not from the inside perspective you idiot! Your statement is meaningless and void. Just as there's no way to tell if you are moving or not, because your reference frame makes it so that only relative motion is detectable. For example, you are moving, because the Earth is spinning and rotating, but since you are moving with the ground you can not notice. There is no way of proving that we aren't all in a Newtonian reference frame accelerating at a constant velocity. How about you read a book and try to understand it next time?

Whether or not we have free will, you just made a stupid statement, either because you were destined to, or because you really are stupid, sir. You are so stupid it makes me nauseous.

*walks away swiftly while maintaining eye contact superiority*

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 11:32:42 2018 No.10622901 >>10622824 Rape some kids, murder some old people, steal from everyone and when I get caught say "DUDE free will don't exist lmao! I didn't have any choice in the matter lol"

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 11:36:00 2018 No.10622914 >>10622890 >It is essentially impossible to starve yourself to death https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallekhana

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 11:36:28 2018 No.10622916 >>10622898 Why the fuck would anyone do anything for the "greater good"? Sounds like a lot of new atheist as hoc nonsense.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 11:37:28 2018 No.10622922 >>10622890 I can decide to go on a frenzy. Or I can just straight up kill myself

Anonymous Thu Feb 1 11:40:48 2018 No.10622927

>>10622916

We are programmed to perceive things in terms of long-term benefits to the species. Yes, our intelligence is capable of recognizing benefits that exist beyond our individual existences.

>>10622914
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallekhana

What's your point? Suicide is possible. Malnourshing yourself through a long-term weaning process is a little different than laying on the ground and waiting to die of starvation, which is what I was addressing.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 11:42:09 2018 No.10622931 >>10622922 I never denied that. Suicide is demonstrably possible. But starvation by laying down and waiting for death is essentially impossible. If you don't believe me, try it for just one week. ONE WEEK.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 11:42:21 2018 No.10622933 I believe in free will because if I'm wrong I was never capable of believing otherwise.

Anonymous Thu Feb 1 11:42:49 2018 No.10622936

Will you idiots shut up and read this post. >>10622899

All of this shit is coming straight from your asses. You can't prove anything like this so easily. It's not a science, it's a non-provable pondering, you fucking fools. Are you literally 13 years old?

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 11:43:44 2018 No.10622940 >>10622927 >We are programmed to perceive things in the long term benefit of the species. How? If anything it points to the notion that we are selfish. If you had to kill you son or 2 other children from across the globe which would you do?

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 11:44:39 2018 No.10622947 >>10622886 interesting point of view

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 11:45:21 2018 No.10622951 You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill I will choose a path that's clear I will choose freewill

Anonymous Thu Feb 1 11:50:27 2018 No.10622973

>>10622940

If our brain believes that the two lives from across the globe provide a greater benefit, and can only provide said benefit if our own son is killed, than most people will end up doing it. But that is such an implausible stretch that it's not likely.

If you don't believe me, ask yourself what comes first...

a thought in your head, or the decision to have a thought in your head.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 11:52:43 2018 No.10622979 >>10622886 This my nigguh right here

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 11:53:38 2018 No.10622985 >>10622824 >Free will doesn't exist if I define it as something not existing truly the greatest intellectual of our times

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 11:55:47 2018 No.10622994 >you're five nodes away from free will

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 11:57:19 2018 No.10623002 >>10622931 I somehow don't believe you. Are there any studies that have been done? Does this phenomenon have a name?

Anonymous Thu Feb 1 12:03:08 2018 No.10623021

>>10623002

The basic idea is that traits which facilitate the passage of genes are necessarily those traits which continue to exists. The traits which are NOT conducive to passing on genes must eventually disappear (with some strange exceptions).

So, since our brains evolved under a series of millions of "tests" through which it not only survived, but thrived, and became the most developed such organ on the planet, the brain is therefore disposed to seek out those behaviours which continue the passage of genes. Suicide is an obvious exception, right? Well, in order to commit suicide with a gun or a noose, one must only temporarily overcome the built-in instincts the brain has to prevent its own death.

But to commit suicide through starvation, short of quickly and knowingly creating the conditions which make starvation inevitable (such as handcuffing oneself to a post and kicking the keys out of reach), one must stridently fight all of his (brain's) instincts for a much longer period of time, and in the face of the brain instituting its last-ditch emergency efforts towards survival, and he must do so for between seven and twenty days because that is how long it takes to die of starvation.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 12:07:04 2018 No.10623040 >>10622824 never forget when theological Mr. Rogers schooled Ben Stiller https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDQzijl6El4

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 12:07:19 2018 No.10623042 >>10622824 Free will the way it is commonly understood doesn't exist. I nod and smile to show that I agree, then beat the shit out of him for being Sam Harris.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 12:08:39 2018 No.10623044 >>10623021 Yeah, I get that we're hardwired to survive, but I don't buy that I would get up and walk in search of food. Especially not if I would also be dehydrated since I would only be lying down.

Anonymous Thu Feb 1 12:12:41 2018 No.10623060

>>10623044

I think you'd be surprised. It's kind of like an addict is sad and in pain and absolutely determined to quit his habit. Something in his brain is pushing and pushing him to get closer to another hit. Well, stronger than any drug is the brain's desire for physical nourishment. If you laid down, the first step wouldn't be "I can't do this, I need to get up." The brain's first strategy would be to send a message saying, "This is stupid and pointless. I can do it another time. For now, I'll just grab a bite to eat."

If that effort fails to get your muscles to conspire to move towards an action that facilitates the acquisition of nourishment, the brain will up its game.

At no point in this exercise will there be some thought or action that comes from anywhere except your brain, which desires primarily to survive.

Anonymous Thu Feb 1 12:23:04 2018 No.10623089

>>10622973
>Most people will end up doing it.
Any citation for that?

>A thought in your head or a decision.
I don't consciously choose to have thoughts of naked women come into my head when I drive, and yet I can consciously conjure the thought now if I choose to.

Anonymous Thu Feb 1 12:23:20 2018 No.10623091

Well it depends on how you define free will, while yes it is most likely that what you think is defined by your brain chemistry but it's not liked you're being forced to choose something you don't want to do.

You make your choices, just because they are predetermined doesn't mean you aren't choosing them.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 12:24:21 2018 No.10623093 I've never seen such a meaningless discussion before. read these: >>10622936 >>10622899

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 12:35:03 2018 No.10623134 i don't care, as a human bein it's in my nature to believe i have free will, so i have it.

Anonymous Thu Feb 1 12:42:13 2018 No.10623173

>>10623089

Most people don't pointlessly murder their children. Most people protect and nurture their children.

>I don't consciously choose to have thoughts of naked women come into my head when I drive, and yet I can consciously conjure the thought now if I choose to.

How do you "choose" to conjure a thought in your head? Before you can conjure the thought, there must first be a thought "hey, I want to think about a naked women." And, if free will does exist, there must first be the thought, "hey, I want to think about choosing to think about naked women." And before that, "hey, I want to think about desiring to choose to desire to think about naked women."

In other words, it's an infinite regress without any voluntary source. Your brain spits out the desire to think of naked women as a response of the almost infinite external sensory inputs.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 12:44:08 2018 No.10623185 >>10622927 >We are programmed to perceive things in terms of long-term benefits to the species t. no evolutionary scientist ever

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 12:46:15 2018 No.10623196 >>10622824 Punch him in the face. Keep punching him the face until he asks me to stop. Rinse and repeat until he stops saying stupid, self-destructive things.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 12:46:21 2018 No.10623197 >>10622927 >we are programmed we aren't programmed

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 12:48:58 2018 No.10623208 >>10622824 I hold his hand against a hot stove.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 12:50:00 2018 No.10623211 >>10622927 >We are programmed to perceive things in terms of long-term benefits to the species this is what brainlets actually think constitutes evolutionary biology

Anonymous Thu Feb 1 13:19:00 2018 No.10623342

>>10623173
If there is an infinite regress then there would never be the thought in the first place. It would never reach the conclusion because an infinite time would have to pass to reach that conclusion.

So what would be the start anon? It can't be infinite.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 13:19:36 2018 No.10623345 >>10622890 >Being this retarded

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 13:20:21 2018 No.10623348 >>10623196 He's going to get awful cut by all that edge you have

Anonymous Thu Feb 1 13:21:01 2018 No.10623352

>>10623197
>>10623211

Do read into my statement a suggestion of intent, because that is only a limitation of the grammar.

We have been programmed by the surroundings in which we've evolved; programmed by the environments which have shaped out brains' interpretation of what is "good" (nourishing, conducive to life and survival) and what is "bad" (harmful, deadly, etc.).

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 13:21:05 2018 No.10623353 >>10622890 this is bait

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 13:22:50 2018 No.10623364 >>10622824 >doesn't believe in free will >is a conservative Is Sack Harry the most pandering hack """""philosopher""""" of our time?

>>	« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!Srz2lnO/STC Thu Feb 1 13:24:15 2018 No.10623367 >>10622824 >[H]ow do you respond? "I'm a compatibilist" And walk away.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 13:26:19 2018 No.10623375 >>10623367 Butterfly! Hello how are you.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 13:26:22 2018 No.10623376 >>10623352 Don't >>10623353 How so? Seriously. Any individual can prove me wrong by laying down and attempting to not eat for one week. Just ONE week. Do it, bitch. See what happens.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 13:28:58 2018 No.10623384 >>10622890 >This is your mind on Reddit and pop-philosophy.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 13:29:35 2018 No.10623387 File: 54 KB, 390x533, prahlad.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10623376 lmao one week is nothing, this holy man from india hasn't eaten for 70 years and he's still alive checkmate

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 13:29:46 2018 No.10623389 >>10623384 see >>10623376 One week.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 13:30:29 2018 No.10623393 >>10623352 >What is antinatalism?

>>	« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!Srz2lnO/STC Thu Feb 1 13:30:46 2018 No.10623394 >>10623375 Pretty good considering.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 13:30:52 2018 No.10623396 >>10622886 freedom means lack of constraint. Your will is constrained by incalculable amount of things. It does make a difference.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 13:33:18 2018 No.10623409 >>10622876 Is this his actual argument?

Anonymous Thu Feb 1 13:34:05 2018 No.10623413

>>10623393

What's your point? We've already conceded that suicide is possible and some mothers murder their offspring.

Is antinatalism was a general evolutionary trait, humanity would never have flourished. It's an anomaly with some genuine philosophical backing. But an anomaly nonetheless.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 13:34:32 2018 No.10623416 >>10623376 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreas_Mihavecz

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 13:34:37 2018 No.10623417 >>10622890 That doesn't mean there isn't free will, that is just a situation, of course, it's a primal situation, but free will does exist.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 13:36:09 2018 No.10623424 >>10623396 >Freedom means lack of constraint >This black and white of logic LOL

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 13:36:43 2018 No.10623426 >>10622985 what is your will free of?

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 13:36:47 2018 No.10623427 >>10623413 >Humanity would never have flourished. Vague buzzwords mean jack shit. Flourishing is a subjective term that you of your own free will has chosen to define in X way.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 13:37:52 2018 No.10623433 >>10623409 Essentially yes.

Anonymous Thu Feb 1 13:38:15 2018 No.10623436

>>10623417

Provide me evidence or even a coherent explanation of how it does. What happens first, your desire to hold a thought, or the thought that prompts the desire to hold a thought?

>>10623416

An extremely rare case of someone surviving a long period without food. Completely unrelated to the point. He was locked in a prison. Not voluntarily laying in the street outside a bakery.

Anonymous Thu Feb 1 13:39:46 2018 No.10623443

>>10623427

And yet you have failed to provide a single shred of contrary evidence. Criticize your idea of buzzwords, criticize my use of the word "flourish". Easy, no problem. But demonstrate for me in any coherent and meaningful way that your will precedes every thought that occurs in your head, and you completely fail.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 13:40:56 2018 No.10623447 >>10623394 Glad to hear it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 13:41:41 2018 No.10623451 >>10623436 >What is a hunger strike?

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 13:42:18 2018 No.10623455 >>10623427 >flourishing is a subjective term that you of your own free will has chosen to define in X way Yes, I am the one who defined the word "flourished." What a fatuous remark you just made, comparable to: "Well, that's just your opinion."

Anonymous Thu Feb 1 13:44:51 2018 No.10623467

>>10623451

>this anomalous behaviour disproves the behaviour of billions upon billions of humans throughout history.

I said before, one requires a short-term suspension of their instincts to create a situation in which they are unable to acquire nourishment. People whose brains actually functioned in a way that made nourishment undesirable long enough to die of starvation, in a situation where nourishment could be had, are extremely rare.

Anonymous Thu Feb 1 13:44:58 2018 No.10623469

>>10622890
>this nigga never gone back to africa
>never lived on the streets
>never been to slums, ghettos, or shanty-towns
>this little niggy sittin back in his house made of gold-plated shit-bricks and talk like he know somethin to the people outside

TL;DR You lack life experience or you're not well-travelled; likely both.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 13:45:40 2018 No.10623473 >>10622824 yeah you're right but only teenagers actually care about those sorts of questions. good job retard.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 13:47:09 2018 No.10623476 >>10623455 You didn't define it anon. Your brain did it for you =)

Anonymous Thu Feb 1 13:47:35 2018 No.10623481

>>10623424
what is your will free of? You never choose your genes, brains or environment and everything you've ever experienced were the result of these things. Everything from the breakfast you ate this morning to your alertness, irritability, tempature etc. determines how you happen to behave in different situations. The more you look the less there's room for any sort of freedom.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 13:47:55 2018 No.10623483 >>10623469 Nice drive-by comeback. >no contrary evidence >no acknowledgement of the brain's power over human action >no recognition of the relationship between ability to acquire nourishment, and likelihood of survival amongst all species.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 13:48:41 2018 No.10623486 >>10623467 How does once simply suspend their instincts? Why the hell would the brain choose to voluntarily hurt itself. If you had no free will then it wouldn't occur in the first place.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 13:49:01 2018 No.10623489 >>10623483 >the brain's power over human action what the fuck

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 13:49:05 2018 No.10623490 >>10623476 Correct. And not just my brain, but the collective interpretation of most of the brains in our early existence, compounding more and more information together to recognize the utility of language.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 13:50:07 2018 No.10623498 >>10623455 What is flourish to you anon?

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 13:51:56 2018 No.10623507 >>10623490 Why are you saying "my brain", if you are just your brain then you would be saying "me"

Anonymous Thu Feb 1 13:52:30 2018 No.10623508

>>10623486

If the brain has a coherent morality - morality being a system of principles that are "good" for humanity and the world at large - it may de-prioritize one's individual life if there is evidence that a demonstration of said morality might compel others to follow said morality, thus bringing about an overall benefit to humanity and the world at large.

But the temporary suspension I was talking about before what the brief leap one must make to secure the handcuffs around the post and kick away the kick. After that, all the neurological will in the world will not provide nourishment without outside assistance from another willing party.

Anonymous Thu Feb 1 13:54:50 2018 No.10623519

>>10623498

In this context, to flourish means that you, your community, and your species survives and live *relatively* well for a sustained period of time.

>>10623507

Because there is a gap between "me" and my self-perception, and the chemical reactions occurring organically in my brain that truly determine my actions and responses.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 13:55:08 2018 No.10623521 >>10623508 >Good for the world at large. And how do you define that it's good? If you grew up in Nazi Germany would you have objected to the death of the Jews?

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 13:59:26 2018 No.10623534 >>10622985 this basically. >you can't choose to think of choosing something before you chose it >therefore free will is an illusion, buy my books please

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 14:00:53 2018 No.10623538 >haha you have free will but you think you don't

Anonymous Thu Feb 1 14:02:24 2018 No.10623543

>>10623519
That definition of flourish is shit anon. What if the community contradicts with you the individual? What if the species goes against the community? Which one is ultimately the most important?

No matter which one you choose it means you can shit over the other two to add to the one you don't.

Anonymous Thu Feb 1 14:07:14 2018 No.10623566

>>10623521

This actually demonstrates my point perfectly. The people had been convinced that "the Jews" represented a genuine threat to the well-being and survival of their race and their society. That is how horrific actions seems justifiable, or, at the very least, tolerable.

>>10623543

The one that facilitates the passing on of the genes. If there is a gene which drives a person to suicide as early as possible, the individuals holding that gene are much less likely to procreate and pass on the gene. Therefore, suicidal genes are a relatively small proportion of genes in existence.

That does not, however, preclude the potential for the brain to respond to external threats with suicide.

Anonymous Thu Feb 1 14:12:04 2018 No.10623583

>>10623566
But if you concede to that point then ultimately morality is non existent. If I was convinced by my friend that you were a threat to the survival and of my race and society then killing you would be good.

Which is what ultimately? Me, community, or society? No matter which one you pick that gives you the right to shit on the other two at will.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 14:13:43 2018 No.10623590 >>10622824 How can you live in a society that is built around the concept of free will in its legal system? Grow some balls and live by your words.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 14:16:29 2018 No.10623601 >>10622824 Dunno

Anonymous Thu Feb 1 14:17:19 2018 No.10623607

>>10623583

Not really. Because our justice system, in general, reflects a nuanced sense of morality. We don't, like the 10 commandments, declare that killing is wrong. because we generally don't imprison people for killing accidentally or killing in self-defense. Similarly, we have measures to collectively assess if someone was being fair, honest, and rational when they respond criminally as if threatened. We have "fit to stand trial" determinations and "temporary insanity" pleas because we acknowledge that, at times, we are not in total control of our actions.

And yet, at the other end of the spectrum, we have stricter punishments for things deemed to have been considered and preconceived, such as fraud, first-degree murder, war crimes, etc.

There is no black and white answer because the brain is a complex organ. It receives billions of input and computes them into a limited number of outputs based on an unfathomable amount of prior and current information.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 14:17:55 2018 No.10623609 >>10622890 Sophistry everyone

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 14:18:31 2018 No.10623613 >>10623609 Yet another response without any contrary evidence.

Anonymous Thu Feb 1 14:21:01 2018 No.10623627

>>10622890

To add to this: if there were free will, it would not ever be frightening or sickening to perform the act of suicide. It would not be difficult to stare oneself to death because, after all, if it is one's will, what possible impediment could exist?

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 14:21:36 2018 No.10623630 >>10622824 duh

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 14:22:31 2018 No.10623638 File: 53 KB, 600x450, stare.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10623627 starve

Anonymous Thu Feb 1 14:22:42 2018 No.10623639

>>10623613
You just showed that the body is reading and wanting to get energy but ultimately the person could still sit down and not get any. If he had no free will he would compulsively get up and get a sandwich, but just because his body reacts doesn't mean his mind reacts.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 14:23:56 2018 No.10623649 File: 132 KB, 882x731, 1511243913116.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10622824 Kill myself in front of him.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 14:25:24 2018 No.10623658 >>10623627 You just made a blanket statement. How do you know that every single person to ever kill himself did so frightened or scared?

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 14:28:00 2018 No.10623679 >>10622824 In a sense I don't have a free will, but in order to act out in this world I should maintain the mindset that I do have a free will, that way I manage to get more done and it helps me to avoid self destructive behavior.

Anonymous Thu Feb 1 14:29:06 2018 No.10623690

Say we grant you that the body can override the mind when the mind wills something against the body's survival. I still don't see how that refutes that I can exercise my agency when I will it to. There seems to be some gap where we can grant that most of the time the body is operating on some latent level, but this in no way entails the full thesis that I have no rational agency. For example: I decide I want to be a doctor. I organize my life around things that will make that so. I become a doctor. What account can someone who is against free will give me that disproves that this wasn't a rational action?

Anonymous Thu Feb 1 14:29:20 2018 No.10623692

>>10623639

Then tell me, from where comes the compulsion that acts upon the body? From where comes the action, if not from the brain?

>>10623658

I didn't imply that at all. I'm implying that to commit suicide without feeling any fright is an anomaly. That vast majority of humans (or living creatures) to ever exist feel fear, sickness, or negativity in relation to suicide. If that were not the case, we all would have killed ourselves thousands of generations ago and humanity (and complex life in general) would not exist.

Anonymous Thu Feb 1 14:30:41 2018 No.10623702

>>10623690

You must go more basic. From where comes your desire to be a doctor, if not your brain? From where comes your conception of what actions it takes to become a doctor, if not from your brain? From where comes your decision to be a doctor and not a zoologist, if not from your brain?

Anonymous Thu Feb 1 14:40:32 2018 No.10623747

>>10623692
It comes from the mind that is distinct from the brain. Even if it comes from the brain, if you are the brain, then you make the decision anyway.

>"If there were free will, it would not ever be frightening or sickening to perform suicide"

The vast amount of people feel frightened around suicide because they are relatively in a good position that if we're to die goes to an uncertain position. You are committing an is-ought error.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 14:41:50 2018 No.10623762 >>10622824 he has no proofs but its also an uninteresting debate and wouldn’t result in anything other than me laughing at him for being a subhuman and being forced to annoy me, a higher stock specimen than him

Anonymous Thu Feb 1 14:45:19 2018 No.10623780

>>10623702
so you're saying that my brain has a power that can make linguistic judgments prior to me doing the same in rational space? If all reasoning is accomplished prior to make consciousness of it, wouldn't that mean that my consciousness is just a simulation of the actual process? And therefore rational consciousness is a mere illusion? To me this doesn't sound like an argument against free will but an argument for unconscious processes being hierarchically first or prior to consciousness. An argument against free will would have to show that I'm not in control of my choices, your argument just shows that my choices are prior to my articulation of them.

Anonymous Thu Feb 1 14:55:43 2018 No.10623827

>>10623747

What does being in "a relatively good position" have to do with it, especially if we're proposing that it is one's will to commit suicide?

>>10623780

Your "choices" ARE prior to your articulation of them, AND prior to your recognition of them. They are made unconsciously by the brain. We - our identity, our consciousness - is an after-the-fact representation of all of the interpretations being made by the brain itself.

[will continue this later; have to catch a nap]

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 14:57:21 2018 No.10623840 the idea that the brain is somehow computational and lacks agency or intentionality is one of the biggest faults of modern pop-science

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 14:59:45 2018 No.10623855 >>10622890 Any sources on your mumbo jumbo other than your speculator of choice?

Anonymous Thu Feb 1 15:06:32 2018 No.10623891

>>10623827
>Your "choices" ARE prior to your articulation of them, AND prior to your recognition of them. They are made unconsciously by the brain. We - our identity, our consciousness - is an after-the-fact representation of all of the interpretations being made by the brain itself.
I'm nearly positive that Sellars is famous precisely for showing that this is a bad argument. However, I don't know his argument well enough to defend it so I'll just grant you your claim like I said in my previous post. The problem is that your argument isn't disproving free will in the least. All you are saying is that my choices come pre-rationally, as in all my chioces are made latently. This means that I still make choices though. The only illusion is that what I believe to be my articulation of a rational choice "I choose the red apple", is actually simulation of the choice I had already made. Now, it sounds like what you want to say is that my brain is not me, and you are committing yourself to substance dualism, a surprising result!

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 15:09:51 2018 No.10623911 >>10623613 There is no refuting a bullshit artist. You already broke the most important rule: don't get high off your own supply. But you're high as shit because you have no free will.

Anonymous Thu Feb 1 15:16:11 2018 No.10623952

>>10622898
>Brain chooses what it perceives as more beneficial based on what i have been led to believe to be more beneficial.
>The choice i'd have made anyway is made by my brain before "I" make it.
So, my brain is "naturally" rational. and it has free will, because if it hadden't, the possibility for a better or worse (as the autonomous brain in question gets to choose) path of action wouldn't even be possible.
Are you trying to say that we're any more than our body (and that includes our brain, and many other things ofc, but that's not the level of the debate)? Do you realise that by saying that "your brain makes its own choices" you're actually saying that we make our own choices?

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 15:18:19 2018 No.10623961 >>10623952 >Do you realise that by saying that "your brain makes its own choices" you're actually saying that we make our own choices? He and Sam Harris are surprisingly substance dualists.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 15:30:58 2018 No.10624026 >>10623961 Following what the guy defending Sam Harris speculations "argues", they're not only substance dualists, but also evolutionary psychologists and biological determinists.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 15:32:34 2018 No.10624033 I can do whatever my corporate overlords don't want me to do.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 16:16:50 2018 No.10624244 >>10623376 Look into fasting communities online, bucko. One week is entry level.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 16:21:35 2018 No.10624264 Man has free will to the extent he knows who he is

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 17:30:47 2018 No.10624617 >>10622824 I respond by freely deciding to touch a hot stove with his face

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 17:33:20 2018 No.10624640 punches you in the face oops, sorry, it was fate i guess :)

Anonymous Thu Feb 1 17:35:41 2018 No.10624661

>>10623891

I'm saying the choice part of it is an illusion, not merely an after-the-face articulation. The choice is made unconsciously (without conscious input). In what sense are we making a choice if we cannot consciously intervene in what results?

>>10623911

I don't know what this means.

>>10623952
>So, my brain is "naturally" rational. and it has free will, because if it hadden't, the possibility for a better or worse (as the autonomous brain in question gets to choose) path of action wouldn't even be possible.

This is the illusion I refer to above. It is only naturally "rational" in hindsight because our definition and concept of "rational" is deeply (and probably unconsciously) linked to doing what is conducive to survival.

Do you think a tree has free will when it decides to grow as tall as possible to reach the sunlight it needs to survive?

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 17:38:07 2018 No.10624674 >>10624244 What percentage of the population, would you argue, practices this? Anomalies occur, random variation occurs.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 17:39:12 2018 No.10624677 File: 316 KB, 536x598, 1513315253487.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10623348 Say that to my face, bucko.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 17:40:26 2018 No.10624686 >>10624674 Not too many, but every healthy human is capable of it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 17:41:50 2018 No.10624691 >>10624244 Why don't YOU do it? I would grant you eternal victory in this argument if you just demonstrate that your will is free by doing something that you want to do against the instincts of your brain.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 17:42:53 2018 No.10624695 >>10624686 >healthy What does that mean in this context? And why would an unhealthy person not be able to join such a group?

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 17:43:20 2018 No.10624700 >>10623489 It's things like this that really make me question whether I'm reading the posts of mongoloids or not

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 17:43:40 2018 No.10624701 >>10622973 >than most people will end up doing it You are autistic if you think this. Which is not surprising seeing you like the reddit philosophy

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 17:43:51 2018 No.10624706 >>10624640 ducks leaps to your side kick myself into the air headbutts you from behind* Fortuna favours the bold.

Anonymous Thu Feb 1 17:46:58 2018 No.10624722

>>10624700
>>10624701

Please, someone, anyone in this fucking thread explain to me, at which point in the stimuli-thought-action chain, do you decide to think.

Anyone? Anyone at all?

Or are you just going to cling to philosophical semantics because you're intuitively convinced that free will MUST exist?

Anonymous Thu Feb 1 17:47:54 2018 No.10624728

imagine how much better this board would be if everyone actually had to read or watch what they're discussing.

The amount of people who say stupid shit like "oh well im gonna punch you and its fate :^)" don't realize that this would be proving his points as well.

And yes, the libertarian sort of free will notion is absolutely false. Anyone who thinks otherwise should read a fucking book.

Schopie summed it up most succinctly when he said, "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills."

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 17:48:30 2018 No.10624732 >>10624722 Most people would not let their own kid die, fucking autist

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 17:49:00 2018 No.10624736 >>10624617 >>10623208 These guys get it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 17:49:50 2018 No.10624742 >>10624732 I repeat: Please, someone, anyone in this fucking thread explain to me at which point in the stimuli-thought-action chain, do you decide to think. Anyone? Anyone at all?

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 17:51:05 2018 No.10624751 >>10624742 When God tells you to build an ark.

Anonymous Thu Feb 1 17:52:30 2018 No.10624757

>>10624695
Not sick. Sick people may already have too few reserves to refrain from nourishment for an extended amount of time.

>>10624691
I do. I wasn't even the guy you're arguing with, just correcting the ameriburgerpigfatclap notion that not eating for a minute is literally impossible

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 17:52:34 2018 No.10624758 >>10624751 >>10624742 when the angel hanging over your shoulder is like 'wait no don't it was a joke wtf i can't believe u were actually gonna do it lol'

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 17:53:53 2018 No.10624767 >>10624758 That's the binding of Isaac. Kind of. Because in that case it was just God testing Abraham's faith. One of the more psychological 'signs' he has performed.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 17:54:26 2018 No.10624771 >>10624751 >>10624758 A command or injunction from another being is an example of a stimuli.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 17:54:37 2018 No.10624773 >>10624767 wait-- biosemiotics guy again?

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 17:55:39 2018 No.10624785 >>10624771 u r a humorless twit desu and probably have a hard time putting ur pants on in the morning so y should i even care what u think of my jokes?

Anonymous Thu Feb 1 17:55:54 2018 No.10624787

>>10624773
No I actually believe in a real God.

I just assume you're referring to someone who is doing mental headloops to convince himself that through some DMT connections or whatever bullshit we have access to God.

Instead of just embracing the complete abstract nature of immaterial spirituality.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 17:56:02 2018 No.10624788 >>10622824 >punch him the face >sorry bro determinism made me do it

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 17:58:56 2018 No.10624809 >>10624787 >doing mental headloops to convince himself that through some DMT connections we have access to God. >just embracing the complete abstract nature of immaterial spirituality. >has never tried DMT or even a psychedelic

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 17:59:12 2018 No.10624814 >>10624742 Most people would kill the other two kids anon. You just be ignorant, autistic, or genuinely retarded if you still cling on to the idea that most people would kill their own kid other two others from across the globe.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 17:59:17 2018 No.10624815 >>10624787 oh nah, not really, i don't know what i'm doing here listening to 90s butt rock and shit-posting my afternoon away why am i like this?

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 17:59:22 2018 No.10624816 >>10624706 disappears as your head seems to connect with my body reappears behind you slices you in half with a katana heh... you made me use ten percent of my power... not bad, kid...

Anonymous Thu Feb 1 18:01:02 2018 No.10624828

>>10624742
If thoughts are the movement of ekectrons through stimulating different neurons, then it is impossible not to think. Unless you can stop the flow of electrons within your own body.

However, we do have control over the 'pathways' of those electrons resulting in different outcomes of the thought. Therefore, you can look at free will as reactionary multiple choice.

It is like being a human in society is best analogised by a person driving a car. On the road there are lots of cars, and how fast any one car goes is dependant upon the type of road, how many other cars are around, that capactiy of the car, and the driver. The driver doesn't do vary much, just turns their hands and presses some levers, but is able to feel like they are moving a giant weight by doing so. The driver can in some way ,where all the rest of the trafic and conditions allow , choose how fast and where the car can go. So there is some free will within a very tight set of boundaries.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 18:01:55 2018 No.10624837 >>10624814 At what point in the stimuli-thought-action chain does one DECIDE to think.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 18:03:08 2018 No.10624842 >>10624837 Well done in changing the subject you sophist.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 18:03:40 2018 No.10624846 >>10624837 Just admit you were wrong when you said people would choose to let their own kid die. You're changing the subject and it's painfully obvious to everyone in this thread

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 18:03:54 2018 No.10624847 >>10624809 I've tried a bit of DMT once. What is this? Why do you need to DO fucked up things in life? Is this some kind of a popularity contest? That's not how God or the afterlife works, buddy.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 18:04:16 2018 No.10624851 >>10622824 >of course you had to say that >and if i dont have free will, how can i be held responsible for crimes i commit?

Anonymous Thu Feb 1 18:06:40 2018 No.10624861

>>10624828

>However, we do have control over the 'pathways' of those electrons resulting in different outcomes of the thought. Therefore, you can look at free will as reactionary multiple choice.

This is the crux that requires articulation. In what way to we have control over the pathways? At what stage of the steady, never-ending thinking do "we" intervene to overrule said thinking and modify our actions? Also, what makes any of our choices not random?

Anonymous Thu Feb 1 18:07:56 2018 No.10624873

>>10624846

The example of starving oneself started when someone said he could choose to lay down in the street and starve to death. I told him that it would be *essentially* impossible. I haven't heard anyone contradict that yet. I may have missed a post or two.

Anonymous Thu Feb 1 18:09:13 2018 No.10624883

>>10624861
It depends. Can you reduce the entirety of reality into controllable principles and ways of movements? How is this not evidence of God, since everything acts together in the same manner, things maintain their form and don't dissolute because of vibrations, and also how the laws propel matter in certain directions at the same time? How would it be possible for things like the Sun to exist without a divine force assembling and creating these things? You say it's in our DNA, yet if you can reduce everything to predictable principles, this proves the exact opposite, that someone has designed this easily predictable universe!

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 18:09:57 2018 No.10624886 >>10624873 So do you still believe a parent would choose to kill their own child? Just answer the question without changing the subject, reddit intellectual.

Anonymous Thu Feb 1 18:10:10 2018 No.10624889

>>10624846

Sorry, misread your post. People have chosen to kill or let their children die, but it's rare because generally speaking, our scope of knowledge and perceived choices are centred around our family group and local community, not some global calculation. The global calculation (which exists) is the collective wisdom that has shaped our society since we were primitive beings, as selected by the results of certain behaviours.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 18:10:15 2018 No.10624890 >>10624873 Changes the subject again. Can you just say you were wrong about the kids anon. It’s gettig pathetic.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 18:11:17 2018 No.10624900 >>10624889 >If our brain believes that the two lives from across the globe provide a greater benefit, and can only provide said benefit if our own son is killed, than most people will end up doing it. Do you still believe this

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 18:11:44 2018 No.10624903 >>10624889 This is just showing your autism again. The question was would you rather let your kid die or two kids from across the world, you said most would choose the latter, everyone here is saying the former.

Anonymous Thu Feb 1 18:14:05 2018 No.10624916

>>10624883

That's putting the cart before the horse. Are you familiar with the anthropic cosmological principle? It discusses the perception that the universe is finely tuned for our existence, even though "a universe incapable of supporting life will go unbeheld." That is to say, it is not the case that water freezes at *just* the right temperature for us to be able to live off of it, or that the sun is just the right distance from us to allow us to survive year round, but rather that it was under these pre-existing conditions that live came into existence, adapted to the chemistry of water and oxygen and carbon and to the temperature on the earth.

Massive corners of the universe are NOT finely tuned for human life.

Anonymous Thu Feb 1 18:15:35 2018 No.10624926

>>10624886

Some parents have killed their children. Others have refused to. Both have occurred and both represent one interpretation or another by the person's brain. And since no two individuals have experienced the exact same inputs (external stimuli), no two people will necessary react the same way or justify their actions in the same way.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 18:16:41 2018 No.10624932 >>10624926 So most people would kill their own kid?

Anonymous Thu Feb 1 18:16:52 2018 No.10624933

>>10624900

Yes. By your logic, a parent never harms its children. Demonstrably false with millions of example throughout history. And yet, if every parent did this (before their children reproduced), we wouldn't be here to debate the reasoning behind it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 18:18:06 2018 No.10624940 >>10624933 You're strawmanning me. I disagreed with you saying most parents would kill their own kid. Now answer without dodging or strawmanning please

Anonymous Thu Feb 1 18:22:13 2018 No.10624974

>>10624916
>le anthropic principle.
You do realise that if you increase the strong force by 2% quarks wouldn’t be able to form protons and hence no atoms at all.
The universe is intrinsically fine tuned for life. Nobody denies this, it’s either God, some multivierse, or more luck than could ever be comprehended.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 18:26:35 2018 No.10624993 >>10624903 I said if they believed that there was a greater benefit to saving the other two kids, they would. That is why pretty much anyone does anything.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 18:27:17 2018 No.10625001 >>10624993 Autist. Plain and simple. The fact that you say that shows how retarded you are.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 18:27:56 2018 No.10625004 >>10624940 When did I say that MOST parents would kill their kid if it was simply a choice between the two with no surrounding context or conditions? >>10624974 Life if fine-tuned for the universe.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 18:28:50 2018 No.10625010 >>10625004 >if it was simply a choice between the two with no surrounding context or conditions? I never said you claimed that, again a strawman, it's getting really annoying

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 18:28:56 2018 No.10625014 >>10622890 >you will be carried and fed against your will so you just admitted that I have free will?

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 18:29:09 2018 No.10625015 >>10625001 Have to go to hockey game. Please keep thread alive for 5 hrs. Must now go pay $11 for a beer.

Anonymous Thu Feb 1 18:30:39 2018 No.10625022

>>10625014

The point is that if your body is so malnourished that you've lost your strength, you will no longer be able to act by the will of your brain.

>>10625010

That's what you're implying. If that's not what you're implying, then I do not get at all what your point is.

Anonymous Thu Feb 1 18:32:19 2018 No.10625031

>>10624861
Like was kind of demonstrated in the analogy of the driver and the car. There is a lot that is beyond control, but there are some decisions we have to make, the easiest ones to see are the pragmatic and evaluating ones. Outside of that ckmes desires, and fighting against personal nature, in a way.

It is easy to discount everything as random, also kind of romantic too.

The problem with thinking is either that it is analysing the past or predicting the future. And both these scenarios can quickly deviate into the infinite where all posibilities both exist and have already existed which makes everything just mechanism.

That is where random beckme an easy romanticism.

However, there is a lot of study going into outlier theory. Which I think will allow a better search into real randomness, instead of exceptionalism.

This kind of got off topic.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 18:32:31 2018 No.10625033 >>10625022 I did not imply that. I implied that parents would not kill their own kid just because two kids in India would become a doctor and their kid a garbageman. You have to actually know humans to know this though, you don't seem to

Anonymous Thu Feb 1 18:32:40 2018 No.10625034

> thinking the subconscious and conscious are seperate entities
> thinking one rules the other
Not only is it obvious that our ego encompasses both but I honestly believe the soul operates the vehicle of the body and these underlying processes of chemical stimulation do not have more control than I as a soul but help guide this little game/dream of experience.

I don't think this man has enough understanding of consciousness to assert that we have no free will, as if we are just temporary visitors watching and feeling a movie play out predetermined by the organic pulsing of the universe.

As the prophet Peterson (blessed be his name) would say, there are modes of interpreting reality that just aren't practical to live with other people and to deny free will and our agency is simply not practical in a social environment.

I doubt the answers can be found in this kind of intellectual masterbation and listening to someone so close minded tbqh.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 18:32:56 2018 No.10625035 >>10625022 Then why doesn’t your brain physically stop you before you reach that point?

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 18:33:56 2018 No.10625040 >>10622834 Underrated, first thing I think of from all those stupid years I studied CogSci

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 18:34:58 2018 No.10625045 >>10625022 So if you had to kill your child for $10000000 for aids research would you do it?

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 18:43:16 2018 No.10625091 >>10625045 Only if I got to choose the administrators and the researchers too, so the money didn't just dissappear into a pool.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 18:45:57 2018 No.10625106 File: 725 KB, 2400x3281, 1440676117187.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10622824 However the Great Universe Machine has determined :^)

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 18:50:45 2018 No.10625128 >>10625091 You are genuinely autistic lmao, say that to a girl 1 year into dating lol.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 19:18:28 2018 No.10625278 >>10622886 yup. let's move on

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 21:04:26 2018 No.10625951 >>10623433 woah...

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 1 21:20:36 2018 No.10626054 >>10625106 who dis cioran lookin ass?

Anonymous Fri Feb 2 00:38:19 2018 No.10627091

>>10625045

It depends on what kind of research it did, especially since AIDS is a totally preventable disease.

But that is hardly the point. I would need more context. AIDS research does very little to benefit me or the long-term survival of the species. It also does nothing to improve the passage of genes in the 21st century.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 2 01:35:54 2018 No.10627323 >>10622824 "Yes I do."

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 2 01:46:34 2018 No.10627365 >>10622876 This is a real thing, though. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797616641943

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 2 04:59:47 2018 No.10627960 >>10627091 >A disease that has killed millions of people. >research does very little for the species. You sure are doing a lot of mental gymnastics to justify your autism.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 2 05:05:54 2018 No.10628001 >>10622861 you literally have the freedom to kill yourself. what enslaving instinct does that? nothing, there is free will as long as there is death

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 2 09:33:30 2018 No.10628589 >>10628001 >there is free will as long as there is death dumbest thing I've read all week

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 2 09:37:51 2018 No.10628591 >>10627365 >papers references Dennet dropped

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 2 10:39:34 2018 No.10628787 >>10622824 Hi my nephew really liked you in Night at the Museum

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 2 10:42:47 2018 No.10628797 >>10622824 >10622824 That's retarded dood, if I ain't got free will there's nothing you can do to stop me from shoving you in a locker JEW BOY!

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 2 10:56:58 2018 No.10628858 >>10624788 This. Sam is a dyel manlet so you just blast him in the face once for good measure and watch him tear up like a bitch-ass nigga'.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 2 13:31:43 2018 No.10629394 >>10622824 I won't respond. it is my free will to not engage with Sam Harris at this time, though i may wish to do so at another.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 2 13:37:10 2018 No.10629414 >>10629394 Nope. It was determined that way by the Great Universe Machine, as was this response. We are all GUM, and we are schizophrenic, arguing with ourselves in the tiniest corner of our being.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 2 13:57:45 2018 No.10629495 >>10625014 Kek

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 2 14:14:10 2018 No.10629562 >>10622854 Old free will study: My decisions are my own, or at least i perceive them to be New free will study: I didn't decide to age or be hungry or grow old or abide by gravity so therefore free will doesn't exist

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 2 14:23:56 2018 No.10629606 >>10623173 Who says will is just thought?

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 2 14:57:45 2018 No.10629777 >>10622844 You didn't choose to lie down.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 2 15:02:52 2018 No.10629806 >>10622890 Wait, what? 1) You don't even understand the conversation 2) You are absolutely retarded

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 2 15:05:56 2018 No.10629819 Mr. Dennett already summed up how I feel about Sam https://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/dennett/papers/reflections_on_free_will.pdf

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 2 15:16:38 2018 No.10629869 >>10623089 You don't choose to think of naked women. You think of naked women due to some stimuli you didn't choose. And as you never pick those, you never choose anything. You are nothing but an observer.

Anonymous Fri Feb 2 15:23:29 2018 No.10629907

>>10629869
And you're not choosing to type that comment either, or think these thoughts. You're not, in fact, doing anything. You're a tiny sentient corner of the Great Universe Machine, spinning around biting its own tail. GUM is schizophrenic. I'm arguing with myself. Help!
Fuck you.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 2 15:33:08 2018 No.10629951 >>10629907 Yes, you got it. :=)

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 2 16:06:10 2018 No.10630129 >>10629951 Nice!

Anonymous Fri Feb 2 16:10:25 2018 No.10630147

>>10629606

It's not just thought. But the thought is needed to cause the action. The will, therefore, must precede the thought, yet no one has given me a single instance demonstrating how an entity can formulate its will without already thinking.

>>10628001

Killing oneself often involves either psychosis or to alleviate suffering. If the suffering is judged by the brain to be greater than the perceived potential joys of living, suicide becomes an apparent greater good.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 2 16:26:19 2018 No.10630260 Sam Harris is an idiot https://youtu.be/bDkLUBdvOkw

Anonymous Fri Feb 2 16:35:38 2018 No.10630307

>>10630260

He falsely implies the internal sources of stress (such as thinking about a job interview) do not have outside causes.

He then goes on to make another fallacy: he says "if you were just a brain, you would not have free will. But cause you are something that HAS a brain, you can deliberate." This is demonstrably false because you must ask yourself, if it is anything other than the brain doing the so-called 'deliberating,' what would happen if you took the brain away? Would your brainless body be capable of doing any kind of deliberating whatsoever? Of course not.

Making considerations about taste preferences, level of hunger, dieting, etc., IS the brain interpreting millions of stimuli, including past memories of prior eating experiences and how you felt after you ate at one restaurant (or type of restaurant or type of food or with certain company) in the past. There is essentially no type of restaurant option about which the brain can not make SOME assumptions and judgments.

I like the video, though. Even though he does not successfully separating deliberating abilities from the functions of the brain, I think he's at least arguing honestly.

The mind is the brain's conception of itself.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 2 17:07:16 2018 No.10630443 >>10622824 Of course I don't, nobody does.

Anonymous Fri Feb 2 18:24:41 2018 No.10630838

>>10624661
When i put "naturally" under quotation marks it's to signify irony, there isn't a "natural" state of the brain, the brain is always more than the brain (do not mistake with brain/soul-mind dualism), it's many other things that interact with it, in the same way the enviroment is never static, the brain doesn't have a "preset" state, the brain suffers continuous transformations.

I think you and your beloved speculator make a retarded presumption and raise it to the level of an axiom.
The notion of free will: free will is not the capability to act freely in the void, as if any entity could act without the participation of many other things that facilitate or hinder "your" actions. You live in a reality, you're always interacting with many other things and you are never fully in control of your own agency (but not because the "the brain has already made a choice" but because there are those many other things making you do things in the same way you make many other things do things).
I don't think i need to argue that all we do is somewhat oriented towards suvival. Just stop reading unfounded garbage and look at the history of humanity and even contemporary events. It's pretty obvious that humans don't live to survive.
Things stablish relationships with many other things, when those relationships weaken or can't sustain life anymore they cease to live. There's not a hardwired survival program in anything. That's just an interpretation and a pretty stupid one.

Anonymous Fri Feb 2 18:45:50 2018 No.10630956

>>10630838

>free will is not the capability to act freely in the void

That's certainly how it's framed in discussions such as this by those who believe we have it.

>you are never fully in control of your own agency

Of course, that's my point. The brain, however, IS the agency. It is the only thing which interprets external stimuli and then spits out a reaction to it. It collects billions of pieces of information in various forms and interprets it in such a way that an action results. The only way that we make others do things is by providing inputs (external stimuli) for the 'brains' of other entities, to which they respond after the calculations occur in the brain.

>It's pretty obvious that humans don't live to survive.

That's a fair statement, but that premise is not what my argument hinges on. Survival and procreation is the general lens through which our organs developed. Such a principle relies on the paradigm of life vs. death. The dead cannot pass on genes any more. Those that survive and procreate create a mathematically greater chance for the genetic traits and random mutations that exist within their genes to continue on existing. This, I think, is where most people inject intent into the situation where there isn't any. It is just probability. The genes that facilitate life and procreation exist more frequently than those which are not as helpful to life and procreation.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 2 19:06:13 2018 No.10631030 File: 69 KB, 820x550, Untitled.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] blocks your path

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 2 23:24:48 2018 No.10632125 >>10622824 we have no idea about what consciousness is no idea at all

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 2 23:33:41 2018 No.10632163 File: 477 KB, 1640x673, 1514930770877.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] B E G O N E E G O N E

>>	Cornelius Fri Feb 2 23:36:04 2018 No.10632169 >>10622824 By punching him in the face.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 2 23:38:57 2018 No.10632174 >>10622890 This is literally false though, people have willingly starved themselves to death accross human history.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 2 23:48:57 2018 No.10632207 You are repeatedly proved wrong and you keep giving the most pathetic excuses Stop

Anonymous Sat Feb 3 00:14:42 2018 No.10632292

Why is it so hard for people to understand, given certain general (and quite plausible) assumptions, the "free-will" cannot and does not exist:

(1) That the "mind" supervenes upon the brain, and therefore that "mental states" are the consequence of "physical states" in the sense material causality. I.e. supervenience of the mental upon the physical.

(2) That physical forces are the only forces at work, i.e. that everything which exists is ultimately composed of physical matter, and that this forms a causally closed system governed ultimately by physical force (namely the 4 fundamental forces of physics - electromagnetism, the strong force, the weak force, and gravity). In other words, reductionism is true, AT LEAST IN THE ONTOLOGICAL SENSE, even if epistemological reductionism is practically or even metaphysically impossible (I, in fact, believe the latter is the case). I.e ontological materialism.

(3) That the empirical domain of physics is purely deterministic, i.e. that physical phenomenon are governed by a finite number of physical laws, and only these physical laws. Furthermore, such laws are sufficient to fully and unambiguously predict the evolution of a physical system. I.e. causal determinism with respect to physical phenomenon.

These three premises necessarily lead to the conclusion that the physical state of the universe (or some segment of the universe) at time t2 is fully determine by the physical state of the universe (or some segment thereof) at the prior time t1. Furthermore, insofar as mental states are caused by physical states, ones mental state at time t2 is fully determine by their physical state at time t2; but since their physical state at time t2 is determined by the physical state of the universe at t1, their mental state is also determined by the physical state of the universe at t1.

The fact that you want free will to exist doesn't entail that it actually does, so stop letting your biases affect your judgement.
. . .
That being said, there are several ways of avoiding the obliteration of free-will, e.g:

- Eliminative materialism: equating "mental" or phenomenological "states" with neurological states allows one to say the the "decisions" made by your brain precisely are the "decisions" made by the self.
- Free-will as a normative category:considering the problem of free-will from a pragmatist and sociological perspective. Thus viewing free-will as actions committed by an agent that satisfy certain tacit criteria and conform to certain discursive norms. For example, the action must not be committed under the threat of coercive force.
- Substance Dualism + a Preestablished Harmony: If you accept substance dualism there does exist a way out - but only if you also accept something like the classical Rationalist notion preestablished harmony, so that the physical universe has been constructed so as to conform to the commands of the soul, so to speak.
- And, of course others which I have not yet identified. . .

Anonymous Sat Feb 3 00:22:08 2018 No.10632310

>>10632292
t. Autistic pseud

This is pure autism, from your numbered premises and unnecessary precision used to create the impression of clarity and insight, to your retarded use of variables and subscripts to basically say "an event follows another event if it happens at a later point in time".

Also Buridan's Ass completely defeats your argument.

Anonymous Sat Feb 3 00:37:38 2018 No.10632372

>>10632310
First of all, that wasn't even the point I was making in the portion of my argument that referenced two distinct points in time, t1 and t2. My point was that the physical state of the universe at any point in time is determined by the physical state of the universe at some prior state in time.

Secondly, your point of Buridan's Ass is irrelevant. The thought experiment is of some metaphysical interest, and in could potentially apply in some hypothetical scenario given certain parameters and assumptions about the universe, which aren't in fact true. However, Buridan's ass is irrelevant IRL because the human brain is so complex (or even the CNS of the most primitive animals) that given two goals or outcomes of identical value, as it were, and behavioral dispositions or tendencies which entail that neither outcome is preferred over the other, what "decides" the behavior of the agent is just some potentially quite insignificant, even microscopic, discrepancy in neurological states. It probably involves some really intricate complexity theory (i.e. "non-linear dynamics") that we don't yet fully understand, but basically their will be some slight discrepancy in their neurological state that result in a cascade which eventually generates a significant enough difference to make an arbitrary decision. In fact, the agent could at some other time and in an otherwise identical scenario be in a functionally identical mental state and yet make a different decision in virtue of a slight difference in the underlying brain state on which their mental state supervenes (keep in mind that the relation between brain states and functional, or "mental", states is many-to-one, i.e. a single mental state can be produced by many slightly different neurological states.

Anonymous Sat Feb 3 00:43:27 2018 No.10632392

>>10622985
>>10623534
As I've read more and more about this dickhead over the years, I've come to realize that what you're saying is correct and the reason for his popularity.

I'm paraphrasing, but I saw somebody sum up Stiller once by saying he makes what are controversial claims when taken literally - science determining morality being the example. But then he dickies arond and obfuscates things so that once you've explored what his argument for science determining morality is, you realize it's not science at all.

So he gets the popularity that is par for controversial statements, but also gets to fall back on "oh well that's not what I meant, you're misunderstanding me." His argument for science/morality isn't controversial at all once you get past how he defines science and realize he knows little about/refuses to engage with philosophy.

Anonymous Sat Feb 3 02:20:14 2018 No.10632752

>>10622844
that wouldn't be an indication of free will. this thread was created by someone else. for whatever reason it caught your eye. maybe some combination of your personality type (nuture, which you didn't control) or your brain configuration (nature, which you didn't choose) made this thread appealing to you. the descision to "rebel" agaisnst the notion you have no free will was instagated by happenstance. assuming you managed to actually starve yourself to death, surmounting all the biological impulses reminding you to eat, this again would not be any indication of free will. it would only be the outcome of antecedent condtions that drove your particular biological configuration to death.

Anonymous Sat Feb 3 02:20:21 2018 No.10632753

224 posts in and no one has even attempted to explain what causes a person to DECIDE to have a thought and what determines will, if not prior thoughts.

You'd think with free will being patently obvious, someone would have explained that basic requirement already.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 3 03:45:30 2018 No.10632924 >>10622824 With the predestined kick in the nuts the gods have determined him to recieve

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 3 04:29:30 2018 No.10632990 >>10622824 punch him in his smug face

Anonymous Sat Feb 3 05:43:27 2018 No.10633140
File: 13 KB, 635x295, free will.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10622824
"Free will doesn't exist. But I act like free will exists"

>But I act like free will exists

You realize that this statement is precisely the exact same thing as saying that free will exists.

Let's say for instance, we are coming up with our own mathematical system. We have this "1" symbol, and we can say that 2 ACTS LIKE it equals 1+1

You might try to say: 2 doesn't really equal = 1 + 1. But it acts like it does. For instance, if you added 5 to both sides, 2 would still act like it equals 1 + 1.

(2) + 5 = (1 + 1) + 5

7 = 7

Notice that this mathematical system is completely divorced from reality. You can think of it as a completely different universe with it's own rules, rules that we come up with ourselves. We tried to say that "2 doesn't REALLY equal 1 + 1" there must be some rule within the system that when applied to (2) and (1+1) they produce a result that distinguishes them. We can define f() such that f(2) = 634, and f(1+1) = 3.

In that case we can have (2) and (1+1) not being equal, hooray. But our second premise that 2 acts like 1+1 has been violated. In order for 2 to still act like 1+1, we need to have every single rule in our math system to treat 2 and 1+1 the same. So we can get rid of the function f(). But in THIS system of rules we have created, we can't say that 2 and 1+1 aren't "really" equal to each other.

By the same logic, if WE act like we have free will, and also EVERYTHING else in the whole universe (the whole system) also acts like we have free will, then there is no rule within the universe that you can use to show make the distinction between having free will, and just looking like you have free will.

You can say that we don't "truly" have free will, but this would have to be a statement that you are making OUTSIDE of our system of reality. You would have to accept because there is no measure that that shows that we don't have free will (because the entire universe acts like we do), NOW you have to invent a measure, call it "p", that shows that humans don't have free will but also by definition cannot be measured in this universe.

If it cannot be measured in this universe, then it has zero interaction with every real thing, therefore it's just not real.

There is no function f() within the logical system of the universe. There is no measure "p" that actually exists.

Therefore free will is real.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 3 09:06:14 2018 No.10633631 >>10633140 Oh my God, I think he's solved it

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 3 09:27:04 2018 No.10633708 >>10622824 I break his nose and ask him if he still thinks I have don't have free will, if he says no, I continue to punch him in his broken nose until he concedes.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 3 09:28:07 2018 No.10633710 >>10633708 >if he says no I meant if he says yes, I'm retarded

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 3 09:37:19 2018 No.10633758 >>10633710 it's cute but not an argument

Anonymous Sat Feb 3 10:37:03 2018 No.10633979

>>10630956
Well, even if the notion of substantive freedom existing as an absolute is wrong, that doesn't mean that different things, humans included, don't have genuine effects over reality.
Innovation or science are a proof of this. Every time we modify and transform the state of certain things (which we do all the time in every field of practice) a new shape is being produced, one that wasn't there before. This of course can happen through the articulation of interactions between only trees and soil, or between those two and a human. Thus freedom should better be understood as the hability of an actor to transfom "force" or to add it's genuine "force" to it.
>The brain, however, IS the agency
No, the brain isn't the agency. The brain is an articulation of many other things, there isn't a brain isolated of all the other things that are more than synapses. The agency is the outcome of all those interactions. BUT the brain considered individually is not only a vehicle that carries the energy of the input and spits a equivalent ouput without changing anything. In the process something genuine happens and adds something new to the whole thing.
But yes, more control (this is: more "power" or hability to displace other things "goals", equals more freedom). Who has more freedom, the rock i can kick, the slave i can exploit, the wall i can jump or me, being able to impose my action over the other things actions?
>B-but your brain has already made a choice.
Fuck no, in the same way strategies always see themselves displaced and new choices have to be made all the time, the "brain" makes new choices all the time. And those new choices are cointained in "styles" of thought. take rational thought as an example. The brain is only capable to think rationally as long as it has "interiorized" the rules of rational thought. If i have to apply my thought to a totally new situation, i'm in some way "betraying" the old model, making a new use of the model, thus transforming it, thus creating something new and different.
If i as a creative individual observe a set of qualities that i can group under the notion of "national identity" and begin trying to recruit people and to convince them into thinking that they're part of that new creation of "us the french". Do synapses explain this? What's the previous input that made me do this? Is it so determined that you can say that this isn't in some way or another exercise of free will? Does me being a protestant, married man, etc. explain what i did there? Does my animal nature or my search for survival explain this?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 3 11:56:08 2018 No.10634275 >>10632125 We have many ideas https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFjY1fAcESs

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 3 12:24:09 2018 No.10634403 >>10632753 The answer is so obvious anon it doesn't deserve saying.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 3 12:46:31 2018 No.10634486 >>10622824 You know what Sam you're just a big bully I WON'T BE BULLIED ANYMORE

Anonymous Sat Feb 3 14:09:51 2018 No.10634899

>>10633979

From where comes the decision to have a thought that forms the 'interiorized' rules of thought? Where in the chain of stimuli/input-thought-response does an influence over the brain come that is not merely part of the brain's reception of and response to stimuli?

Where/when/how does this "something genuine" happen and what is it, if not the brain? If it isn't the brain, then tell me what the source of it is. Further, where does it exist if not in the brain?

>>10634403

Nice cop-out.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 3 14:11:21 2018 No.10634903 >>10622824 ppl who cling to the idea of free will are the modern version of people who thought leaving milk outside your door affects the weather

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 3 14:25:31 2018 No.10634974 >>10634899 >hurr durr most of our actions are reactions to stimuli therefore we have no choice in the matter. >what is it? The mind.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 3 14:28:38 2018 No.10634993 >>10634899 How can you even coherently cling onto the notion that you are right about anything if you are merely determined to do so by prior stimuli? You are literally saying “I’m right even though I have no control over my thoughts”

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 3 14:29:49 2018 No.10635002 >>10634993 >how can a calculator get the right answer if it has no free will this is u m8

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 3 14:31:47 2018 No.10635007 >>10635002 >i'm a robot lol WHY ARE YOU NOT CONVINCED YET this is u m8

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 3 14:32:17 2018 No.10635011 >>10635007 we all robots m8. my robot clearly works better lmao

Anonymous Sat Feb 3 14:32:18 2018 No.10635012

>>10634993

The statement that there is no free will is correct. It has nothing to do with me.

If you want to pick a fight about pronouns, you missed that ship.

>>10634974
>the mind

Where does the mind exist? How does it function independently from the brain? At what point in the chain does it intervene, and what is its source?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 3 14:34:31 2018 No.10635027 >>10634993 Don't bother. I'm starting to think they're retarded. They don't grasp the fundamental disconnect between their professed belief and them arguing for it, and the absurdity of the latter.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 3 14:37:35 2018 No.10635041 >>10635027 >them arguing for it also caused by prior stimuli btfo t f o

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 3 14:42:20 2018 No.10635063 >>10635027 Are you arguing that because a person argues for or against something, or has a belief, that it must be free will?

Anonymous Sat Feb 3 14:43:57 2018 No.10635071

>>10635012
>where does the mind exist?
Independent of the brain, similar to how thoughts are independent of the brain in the sense that nobody who isn’t retarded says that “Neurones firing = subjective thought”
>what is it’s source.
God(if religious), the brain (if property dualist) etc
>what point in the chain
After the stimuli the mind can think and respond.

>>10635027
Considering they espouse the notion that they would kill their own kid to save two kids from across the globe they’ve never seen for “muh genes” it’s pretty simple to see.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 3 14:45:20 2018 No.10635080 >>10635071 psht. we wouldn't do that because that behavior wouldn't evolve. evolution gave us heuristics for determining the relatedness of people to us. your situation would never have occurred and therefore is irrelevant to the evolutionary calculus

Anonymous Sat Feb 3 14:45:58 2018 No.10635084

>>10635012
It has everything to do with you anon since you consistently say that everything is just “stimuli then thought then action” then you own thoughts on free will stem from nature or nurture and hence can never be stated to be true. Or your claim that it’s just “stimuli then thought” is nonsense.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 3 14:47:54 2018 No.10635093 >>10635080 >Your situation would never have occurred. And if it did?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 3 14:48:56 2018 No.10635095 >>10635093 it would have to occur regularly enough for a chance mutation to take advantage of its existence lad be honest with me, have you ever even read a book about how evolution works

Anonymous Sat Feb 3 14:49:19 2018 No.10635099

>>10635084

I don't want to bog this down by venturing towards the nature of truth.

But if thoughts don't follow stimuli, what does the chain look like to you? Where do thoughts come from and what causes them to occur?

>>10635080

Still can't answer a simple fucking question that, if free will existed, shouldn't take more than a short paragraph.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 3 14:50:32 2018 No.10635104 >>10635095 Way to dodge the question. It’s unlikely to happen to me but it’s pretty easy the answer I would give.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 3 14:52:40 2018 No.10635115 >>10635104 you're not listening. It would have to occur regularly for us to evolve behavior adapted to its occurence. If it had happened a lot, then you would be inclined to do it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 3 15:00:18 2018 No.10635138 >>10635099 I do believe that stimuli triggers thought, I just don’t believe that every thought is triggered by a stimuli. I really don’t have a good way to describe it. Hylomorphic dualism is probably the best approximation to my beliefs though.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 3 15:01:24 2018 No.10635145 >>10635138 >I really don’t have a good way to describe it. lmao I wonder why

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 3 15:01:43 2018 No.10635146 Talk to the Hand!

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 3 15:01:57 2018 No.10635150 >>10635115 So if it happened would you freeze like a deer in headlights or would you take an action? You are dodging the question again. Would you kill your son to save two other kids from across the world you’ve never heard of for “much genes”?

Anonymous Sat Feb 3 15:03:20 2018 No.10635159

>>10635145
Neither do you when it comes to answering two very basic questions even a toddler would answer. The difference is that my thoughts are pretty complex but my questions are so simple that a retard could answer it, which I think must be pushing above your iq.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 3 15:03:54 2018 No.10635161 >>10622824 Freedom isnt free!

Anonymous Sat Feb 3 15:04:50 2018 No.10635166

>>10635150
No I would not. Because that behavior would never have evolved. What are you not understanding about this idea?

You know who basically do do things like that though are bees. Theyll kill themselves for the sake of their queen, because it is evolutionarily beneficial.

A lot of animals will starve their runts and feed them to the other children as well, which is the same idea

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 3 15:04:57 2018 No.10635167 >>10635145 Why did I say hylomorphic dualism anon? For shits and giggles?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 3 15:05:52 2018 No.10635174 >>10635159 which two questions

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 3 15:06:25 2018 No.10635179 >>10635166 >no I would not. >I’m still not gonna answer lmao. So what would you do? That won’t happen to me (probably) but I can still give an answer.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 3 15:06:52 2018 No.10635183 >>10635167 same reason people used to say 'god' when asked why they had free will

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 3 15:07:47 2018 No.10635188 >>10635174 >would you kill your son for aids research? >would you kill your son to save two kids you’ve never heard of. Still waiting for a response.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 3 15:07:58 2018 No.10635189 >>10635179 I just did answer, I said no

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 3 15:08:29 2018 No.10635191 Punch him in the face, "lol too bad I didn't have any free will".

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 3 15:09:00 2018 No.10635193 >>10635188 no and no

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 3 15:09:09 2018 No.10635196 >>10635080 Evolution isn't deferent from religious belief. Replace "Evolution" with "God" in any sentence and nothing changes. Both can explain everything while explaining nothing. Now, go away.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 3 15:10:11 2018 No.10635200 >>10635183 >Approximation is hylomorphic dualism Geeze what a vague answer it’s not hylomorphic dualism is an advanced position instead of a vague answer.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 3 15:10:34 2018 No.10635202 >>10635196 except evolutionary theory has predictive value

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 3 15:12:34 2018 No.10635214 >>10635196 I feel like you stole that sentence from a Bill O'Reilly book written circa 2004. It's a fatuous, ignorant, and intellectually lazy argument.

Anonymous Sat Feb 3 15:12:50 2018 No.10635215

>>10635193
But why? Surely giving money to a cure for cancer would save way more genes than one kid. And saving two kids is way more beneficial for the survival of humanity than saving one.
It seems that you are a pussy who cannot even commit to his own philosophy. Sad!

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 3 15:14:02 2018 No.10635219 >>10635202 And God has a much bigger explanatory power than science. What’s your point?

Anonymous Sat Feb 3 15:14:07 2018 No.10635220

>>10635215
>But why?
because those situations didn't occur regularly enough for us to have evolved behavior adapted to them

also it is only if the people are related enough such that the chance they have of having the same gene as you is high enough. it can't be two random people, it isn't about the survival of humanity, but about individual genes

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 3 15:15:09 2018 No.10635224 >>10635219 god has no predictive power. 'these animals will behave this way because of scripture' has never been right

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 3 15:15:23 2018 No.10635229 >>10622824 I would cold clap at the irony of a puppet telling me I didn’t have free will. Then I would get Burt’s autograph and probably Earnie’s too if he were there.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 3 15:15:25 2018 No.10635231 >>10635215 [Not the same guy] It is obvious to a parent that protecting THEIR offspring (and therefore, their genes) is more useful and practical than the mere possibility of protecting some two other offspring in a faraway land.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 3 15:20:04 2018 No.10635267 >>10635231 Tell that to this pseud >>10635231

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 3 15:21:52 2018 No.10635280 >>10635202 Sure, theology also has predictive value. The width of it's terms can make it so everything fits the a priory analysis. Any case examples?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 3 15:23:08 2018 No.10635289 >>10635224 I didn’t say “predictive” but “explanatory”

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 3 15:24:04 2018 No.10635296 >>10635267 I'll be sure to let myself know.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 3 15:26:41 2018 No.10635320 >>10635280 theology doesn't have predictive power lol >>10635289 That's nice for you. I said that the difference between 'god' and 'evolution' in those sentences is that evolution has predictive power

Anonymous Sat Feb 3 15:28:14 2018 No.10635331

>>10635214
Nah, it's just a very simple case. Evolutionary theory applied to thought and habits is nothing more than a reified speculation. As a grand scale holistic analysis of how things persevere, natural selection is obvious and doesn't add nothing to knowledge of things appart from its participation in the "providence" vs "chance" debate.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 3 15:29:53 2018 No.10635344 >>10635320 You keep repeating "evolution has predictive power". You didn't read the second part of the response >>10635280 I'm still waiting for a case example.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 3 15:30:55 2018 No.10635347 >>10622824 free will cannot be observed

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 3 15:31:53 2018 No.10635353 >>10635331 >Evolutionary theory applied to thought and habits is nothing more than a reified speculation. incorrect, It has predictive value, it's called 'sociobiology'

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 3 15:32:56 2018 No.10635360 >>10635344 because that post is just explicitly wrong. You can't make useful predictions with theology. That isn't even what theology is, its value is completely different than science's

Anonymous Sat Feb 3 15:46:58 2018 No.10635461

>>10635353
Yep, and also evolutionary psichology, both counterparts of "reified speculation". They can't predict shit. and their a posteriori analyses are shit.
>>10635360
And still, nothing of value was said. please, the case example so we can debate about something more than the doxa.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 3 15:48:03 2018 No.10635466 >>10635461 >They can't predict shit. They can though. https://teoriaevolutiva.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/edward_o-_wilson_sociobiology_the_abridged_editbookos-org.pdf Here is an overview

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 3 15:48:18 2018 No.10635468 File: 790 KB, 857x1202, freewill.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 3 15:56:56 2018 No.10635516 >>10635347 Neither can thoughts.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 3 15:58:28 2018 No.10635522 >>10635320 And God has greater explanatory than evolution. What’s your point?

Anonymous Sat Feb 3 16:01:56 2018 No.10635539

>>10635522
What do you mean? That the concept of God can be applied to more things than the concept of evolution?

Either way, most metaphysics have God defined such that he doesn't really help in explaining anything. He just kind of fills a certain structural role

Anonymous Sat Feb 3 16:05:06 2018 No.10635550

>>10635539
Evolution only explains one thing, that about how life is as it is, but God explains a lot more shit, “why is there something rather than nothing? Why does life exist? Why do we have set laws of physics and not chaos”
I’m pretty sure that God explains the metaphysical grounding of literally everything, which does a lot of explaining in and out of itself.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 3 16:07:29 2018 No.10635562 >>10635550 well yeah, all that is clearly true. But what does that have to do with evolution explaining behavior

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 3 16:07:47 2018 No.10635564 >>10635468 What is the third one trying to say? Has anyone philosopher claimed this?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 3 16:08:51 2018 No.10635571 >>10635550 those people who wrote the bible and various religious texts are not the words of God anon just so you know

Anonymous Sat Feb 3 16:13:19 2018 No.10635594

>>10635550
>Evolution only explains one thing, that about how life is as it is, but God explains a lot more shit
>why is there something rather than nothing?
>because God, lol.
>Why does life exist?
>because God, lol.
>Why do we have set laws of physics and not chaos
>because God, lol.

That's not explaining anything. And what exactly do you mean by God? There's a serious gap in your explanatory power if you can't predict anything. You should really go learn mathematics, logic, do some proofs, and learn some elementary physics before you open your mouth.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 3 16:14:08 2018 No.10635600 >>10635571 That must seriously contend for the most pointless and irrelevant comment posted on this board. Congrats anon!

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 3 16:17:55 2018 No.10635623 >>10635594 t. Has never studied basic metaphysics. >hey atheist why does the universe exist? >dude it just does lmao

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 3 16:18:59 2018 No.10635627 >>10635594 Even then evolution cannot even explain the points presented. God has more explanatory power regardless.

Anonymous Sat Feb 3 16:53:08 2018 No.10635794

>>10635623
So atheist are as retarded as theist. Seriously go learn some mathematics.
>>10635627
No fucktard, you are trying to explain observed phenomena. Viruses, bacteria, the brain are all concrete objective phenomena that must be explained. Everything else is based on representations and language. Metaphysics is a question about representations. Everything that you have to use language in order to explain are questions about language.
And I've yet to see any explanatory power of this "God" of yours.

Anonymous Sat Feb 3 17:06:28 2018 No.10635884

>>10635794
>So atheists are as retarded as theists.
No, they are even more retarded.

>No fucktard, you are trying to explain observed phenomena. Viruses, bacteria, the brain are all concrete objective phenomena that must be explained. Everything else is based on representations and language. Metaphysics is a question about representations. Everything that you have to use language in order to explain are questions about language.
Says the person who believes in determinism, meaning that all knowledge has been determined by the brain as a reaction to stimuli, and hence has no ground to say he knows anything but somehow has a knowledge of observed phenomena.

Anonymous Sat Feb 3 17:11:56 2018 No.10635920

>>10635884
> person who believes in determinism
No, I'm probabilistic. I'm a patternist. I believe in chaos and order, randomness and regularity as the starting points. Everything must be viewed through these lens including evolution, sexual reproduction, morality, religion, and everything else.

Anonymous Sat Feb 3 17:19:22 2018 No.10635963

>>10635600
>I’m pretty sure that God explains the metaphysical grounding of literally everything, which does a lot of explaining in and out of itself.
god doesnt explain as he/she/it cannot talk anon
again those kikes who claim to know the word of god are their own words not gods
i know its hard but try to understand this

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 3 17:20:12 2018 No.10635965 I respond by saying we can't know whether or not we have free will. Move on to another subject.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 3 17:33:36 2018 No.10636022 >>10635063 No.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 3 17:34:04 2018 No.10636024 >>10635963 What has God got to do with religion anon? You can be a deist who believes in God but not religion.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 3 17:37:55 2018 No.10636047 >>10635920 Sounds interesting. Got any books or links to the philosophy?

Anonymous Sat Feb 3 18:20:07 2018 No.10636289

>>10635623
>Hey theist, why does God exist.
>dude he just does lmao

There must always be an unexplained explainer. At least in the case of a naturalistic world view, our explanation is simpler, by Occam's Razor. Moreover, it's probably the case that nothingness is logically impossible - i.e. that something must exist, that something has always existed, and that "before" our universe, there was an infinite number of other universes, and that many other universes "currently" exist besides our own.

Anonymous Sat Feb 3 18:38:16 2018 No.10636402

>>10636289
>Our explanation is simpler, by Occam's razor.
It's more retarded.
>Dude this finite universe just exists just because lmao.
>I mean this could be the only time anything ever exists but it just does for no real reason lmao.
>I mean an intelligent mind that created this intelligent universe is completely retarded what makes more sense is an infinite number of past universes that also seem to just exist for no reason other than just existing roflmao.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 3 18:42:14 2018 No.10636433 >>10636289 >Le multiverse theory Nice "scientific" theory you got there kid that is exempt from the scientific method.

Anonymous Sat Feb 3 19:10:34 2018 No.10636613

>>10636433
I didn't say it was scientific. Obviously the idea of multiverses or the claim that they exist is not scientific in the sense that it can't be subject to empirical testing (well, actually from what I understand, strictly speaking under certain condition and given a certain particular type of "multiverse" theory, the existence of such "multiverses" would be subject to empirical testing - namely in the case of multiverse that coexist with this universe in a higher-dimensional space and are capable of being detected by means of their gravitational interaction with space-time - but I'll admit that those aren't really what we're concerned with, since we're really talking about universe that are causally cut-off from our own). That being said, that obviously doesn't entail that the claim is false, anymore than the non-scientificness of claims for the existence of god are unscientific. That being said, at least a multiverse "theory" is more consistent with naturalism that theistic accounts of existence. (Additionally, if our best scientific theories did come to be committed to the existence of a multiverse as a theoretical entity, and no alternative could be found, then we would be ontologically committed to the existence of other universes, even if their existence or lack thereof was not subject to empirical testing. Keep in mind that the existential commitments of a scientific theory extend beyond just observable entities)

>>10636433
>>10636402
If both the theistic theory of "God" and the metaphysical theory of multiverses are equally capable of accounting for this universe, while only the latter is consistent with naturalism, then theoretical parsimony suggests that we should assume the latter to be true. Furthermore, I'm guessing that you did not arrive at you theistic beliefs because they are the most scientifically and philosophically plausible and convincing, but largely because you want them to be true (perhaps because you fear death or the absence of a predetermined "meaning" to life).

Also. . .
> It's more retarded
isn't an argument.

Anonymous Sat Feb 3 19:23:53 2018 No.10636704

>>10636613
>A multiverse theory
You mean hypothesis anon.

>That being said that doesn't entail the claim is false.
Except it renders it improbable by the very definition of science "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment." How can we simply state we are ontologically commited to a scientific theory that has no empirical backing just because the theory looks pretty as Feynman said "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, if it doesn't match the experiment then it is wrong". It's just with the multiverse we will never get an experiment to even test it, so the multiverse hypothesis will always be a hypothesis.

>At least a multiverse is more consistent with naturalism.
That's just begging the question.

Anonymous Sat Feb 3 19:31:04 2018 No.10636726

>>10636613
That's ok anon, I'm guessing that you did not reach your atheistic beliefs because they are the most philosophically and scientifically plausible and convincing, but rather largely because you want them to be true (perhaps because you fear being judged in this life, or afraid that you have some metaphysical responsibility other than a disguised hedonism masked under a contrived morality, or simply your parents were theists and you decided to tip to desire to display your "intellectual superiority")

>If the theistic theory of God and the hypothesis of the multiverse are equally capable.
Except that they aren't, God is way more simpler and believable.

Also "it's more retarded" isn't an argument, that's just a statement I made before the argument.

Anonymous Sat Feb 3 19:38:46 2018 No.10636765

>>10636289
An infinite number of universes before our universe would mean that an infinite number of universes would have had to come before our own universe, however that would mean our universe would never exist, otherwise we would have a finite number of prior universes before our own, or an uncaused universe.
But hey what's simpler, a finite number of universes before our own, or God.

Anonymous Sat Feb 3 20:31:54 2018 No.10637047

>>10636704
I didn't say that we're ontologically committed to a theory that doesn't have empirical support. I actually said the opposite of that, but obviously you didn't pay attention to what I wrote.

I said that we're ontologically committed to the unobserved entities postulated by a theory if the theory otherwise provides an adequate description of all observable entities (and I said nothing about how "beautiful' or "elegant" the theory is). This is actually something that Feynman and other physicists DO generally accept. In fact, that's why we thought that the Higgs Boson (and the various particles whose existence we also had to experimentally confirm) did exist. Initially there was no empirical evidence for the Higgs Boson, but physicists assumed that it existed because it's existence was predicted by their theoretical models of "fields" - in other words, they were ontologically committed to the existence of an UNOBSERVED entity because the most accurate theoretical account of OBSERVED entities entailed the existence of such particles as the Higgs Boson.

>>10636726
Regarding your point, I actually have arrived at my atheistic beliefs in virtue of the fact that such beliefs appear to me to be the most plausible and convincing. That being said, I could have made a mistake in my reasoning, or could be judging the matter on the basis of insufficient information (which of course I am).

Honestly though, how can you say that your theistic beliefs don't simply derive from what you WANT to be true, but are rather based on what you genuinely consider to be the most scientifically and philosophically plausible scenario? What evidence for you beliefs (I assume you're Christian) do you have over and above other religions? None really, besides theory-internal arguments based or Christian doctrine and official Church history, bbut you don't have any robust scientific or philosophical arguments that point to your belief system over and above Judaism or Islam, for example

As for you're speculated motives behind my beliefs, (1) is a moot point because I believe that if God does exist, then everyone must "go" to heaven, although like many theistic scholars, I don't believe heaven to be a literal place, regarding (2) I don't believe in moral relativism and I think that we do have moral obligations - in fact, I think that moral obligation is literally more important than anything, in fact it is the only thing of importance, and I think that ethics and aesthetics are what breath meaning into life, so to speak, finally regarding (3) Admittedly, my parents were theists, and I've always found their beliefs somewhat silly - not because they're theists, however, but rather because they're so philosophically primitive (my mom is a New Age type who believes in a lot of pseudoscience bullshit and quantum woo). I do, however, have a deep respect for philosophically serious theology, as found in Catholicism and Orthodoxy, e.g. Kierkegaard, Augustine, Dosteovsky, etc.

Anonymous Sat Feb 3 20:44:14 2018 No.10637119

>>10636765
This is actually a very insightful and perspicuous remark, however. . .

That would only be true if each universe followed a prior universe - that is, if one universe could, so to speak, give birth to another, AND every such universe had a parent. In other words, tathematically speaking, what you're saying is true if the set of universes "leading up to" and including our own can be subsumed under a linear ordering. In this case, since our universe is assumed to have an infinite number of predecessors, it would correspond to a so-called "inaccessible cardinal".
However, if one can only apply a partial ordering to this set, then what you're saying isn't necessarily true. Under such conditions, you can have an infinite set with a maximal element (which in our example would include this universe), but such that every element has a finite number of predecessors in the ordering.

Anonymous Sat Feb 3 20:58:14 2018 No.10637195

>>10636765
>>10637119
Sorry, correction, I meant to say a well-ordering. In fact, you can have a linear ordering with an infinite number of predecessors - e.g. the natural numbers, where the number 0 (or any other number in the set) has an infinite number of predecessors, namely the negative integers in the case of zero.

So in fact, what you're saying isn't even true for a linear ordering, let alone a partial ordering (as the case cited above of the integers demonstrates), but it would be true for a well ordering. Actually I was confusing the two when I made my previous post, since the two are very similar - in fact a well-ordering is just a linear ordering in which every subset has a minimal element (the natural numbers are an example).

Anonymous Sat Feb 3 21:19:29 2018 No.10637308

>>10637047
I didn’t arrive at my Christianity because I wanted Christianity to be true, on the contrary I came to it wanting it to be false.
Before I became a Christian I was an atheist, and it was comfier than being the Christian I am now. If I wanted to be content I could have dabbled in new age, hedonism, alcohol and sex and rock and roll. Christianity hasn’t brought me comfy existence it’s brought me a lot of worry.

>what evidence do you have over other religions.

Well a lot really, but considering you’ve already shut yourself off to the argument (“none but theory based and official church history” seems to be indicating you are one of those Jesus didn’t exist types, or what are to history as creationism is to science)

>over Judaism and Islam

There is a big difference between Christianity and the other two religions, in both theology and history.

>1 is a moot point because I believe if

God exists everyone must go to heaven.. heaven is not a literal place.
Heaven is a literal place, in the metaphysical space not in the material (besides the end goal of Christianity isn’t heaven, that’s a Protestant error that has become mainstream). I’m not sure where you derive the former from.

>I do believe we have moral obligations

To ultimately who? To society? That’s a malleable and fickle thing, and history has shown that humanity has lacked a real inherent moral code. I cannot really see how true moral obligations can ever exist in an non metaphysical worldview, you end up with a pseudo religion espousing the worship of genes and carrying them on which leads to a justification of any horrendous act in the name of genes.

Anonymous Sat Feb 3 21:28:46 2018 No.10637350

>>10637047
But what you are doing is saying that if the theory is beautiful and elegant (provides an adaquate description) then we are ontologically commited to its empirical end results.
This is not true. First of all comes examples in history where the theory has held up and explained the universe, hence it was taken to be true. One example is the geocentric model which actually had a well functioning theory behind it. This got destroyed by the empirical findings of Copernicus. Another example was quantum theory which Einstein write off because it was dent in his relativity theories, but was experimentally confirmed.
Even the Higgs boson was denied by Hawking who bet against its existence, he clearly wasn’t convinced by the theoretical evidence until he saw the hard data, he wasn’t ontologically committed to the Unobserved entity as you state that all physicists were.

Anonymous Sat Feb 3 22:14:44 2018 No.10637586

>>10637350
>>10637350
Yes, and they took those results to be literally true - they thought that the sun was at the center of the solar system (and universe). People who believe in relativity fully believe in the presuppositions of the theory. A biologist would not say that germs aren't real. The people who were fully committed to the theory (and who are committed to it now) believed in the overall picture described by the theory not just some segment of it like the formal mathematical description.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature