Determinism or Free Will?

[Anonymous No.11160011]

So /lit/, do you believe in determinism or in free will? Are our actions produced by our own will, or are they but reactions of past events and, therefore, not actually "our own"? Discuss.

[Anonymous No.11160014]

>>11160011
Neither. It's predeterminism

[Anonymous No.11160016]

>>11160011
that is a man

[Anonymous No.11160019]

>>11160014
I was actually looking for a term for this idea other than "destiny" or "fate". Thanks!

[Anonymous No.11160021]

Does it matter? This question always sounded senseless to me.

[Anonymous No.11160023]

>>11160016
That is a sexy man

[Anonymous No.11160027]

>>11160011
We don't have 100% true free will, but we do have some choices and guilt that can be attributed to us in life. Anybody who says it is one way or the other is deluded.

[Anonymous No.11160030]

>>11160016
He's got a nice ass tho

[Anonymous No.11160039]

The jezebel situation really has reached a level which demands action. Something has to give. These lonely young men cannot be tortured with these gratuitous images any longer. It is simply too much.

[Anonymous No.11160042]

>>11160011
Well, there is no reason for me to assume that we have free will. Unless science is totally debunked everything is predetermined.

[Anonymous No.11160052]

>>11160011
if humans are bound by the physical laws of the universe, and the universe follows a strict chain of cause and effect, I don't see how we would be any different.

[Anonymous No.11160065]

>>11160011
our choices are determined, but they're determined by us; our will is free in the sense we are free to make our own choices, and whether or not that means we have "free will" depends on what definition of "free will" you use.

[Anonymous No.11160289]

The universe is indeterminate, we also have no free will.

[Anonymous No.11160343]

>>11160011
ashley tea

[Anonymous No.11160367]

>>11160027
you're deluded

[Anonymous No.11160370]

>>11160011
Who cares about that nerd shit faggot, gibe more pics

[Anonymous No.11160371]

>>11160065
incorrect

[Anonymous No.11160382]

>>11160065
>our choices are determined, but they're determined by us
*blocks your path*

[Anonymous No.11160386]

>>11160367
You deny that you could of chose to go to the beach instead of the shopping center? That mugger could not have chose to walk by instead of comitting the act? There may have been predetermined events that lead up this situation out of your control, but you have the choice in that moment to alter your fate, no the choices are not unlimited but there are some. So that would mean that we have limited free will.

[Anonymous No.11160396]

>>11160011
false dichotomy, you experience the reactions of past events as your own (to the extent you don't know this)

[Anonymous No.11160411]

>>11160386
The choices we make are determined by our emotions, personality, motivations and other factors. We may not notice it but every choice we make is predetermined, so yes I do deny that I could chose to go to the beach and that mugger chose to walk

[Anonymous No.11160412]

>>11160386
Have you ever thought about how your choices might be just a spook, sir?

[Anonymous No.11160414]

Obviously we don't actually have free will but it feels like we do and that's all that really matters.

[Anonymous No.11160424]

>>11160411
>free will
>the ability to act at one's own discretion.

It doesn't matter what makes up our thoughts, the matter is that we can choose based on them, your instincts and will may be compelling you to do the opposite, but we can reason ourselves to do the opposite.

[Anonymous No.11160425]

>>11160414
>muh fee fees

[Anonymous No.11160453]

>>11160016
hopefully

[Anonymous No.11160514]

>>11160424
That's semantics, the point is that the "choice" will always be the same under the same conditions

[Anonymous No.11160545]

>>11160514
Untrue, we could reason our way to a different solution if we chose to.

[Anonymous No.11160548]

>>11160545
How so?

[Anonymous No.11160576]

>>11160011
Both positions fail on close scrutiny. Some variant of compatibilism is the only acceptable choice

[Anonymous No.11160579]

Compatibilists please go

[Anonymous No.11160585]

>>11160579
Truth can never be put back in the well

[Anonymous No.11160642]

>>11160011
i think that the unique aspect of consciousness allows us to be free the chains of causality. i don't think we understand enough about the brain and consciousness itself to be able to say definitively that all of our thoughts and decisions were pre-determined. since you can't really prove either case, it isnt too important to me - i experience the decision making process either way, and internally believe i am doing so out of my own free will - to deny that would be to deny my self.

[Anonymous No.11160671]

>>11160642
You don't need to understand the brain, only logic is necessary, if it were true that we have broke causality then the same profiles of people that tend to act in a certain way wouldn't exist and their choices could not be explained.
In order to have free will we would need to either operate outside of the laws of the universe or to have choices that are completely random

[Anonymous No.11160745]

>>11160382
the molecules, atoms and neurons that make up our brains are (a part of) us, therefore to say that they are what determine our decisions is to say that we are what determines our own decisions.

[Anonymous No.11160766]

>>11160745
The same logic can be applied to robots and all other organisms.

[Anonymous No.11160768]

>145. From the narrow, restricted viewpoint of the present, you always have infinite choices (= free will), because choice is a mental process we use to imagine and decide upon possible courses of action, and hence can make as many of them as we want — whereas at the level of the universe you only have a single one: the one you'll end up making (= determinism), because the concept universe includes the concept time. Thus does the Overman solve, in a single sentence, problems that have frustrated mankind's greatest thinkers for millennia.

>489. What lies at the bottom of the HBD advocates' denial of free will? "You have no free will, not because you have no will, but because I control it — because I control you" — this is the reality of what's happening, even if the HBD retards seem incapable of grasping it. The more they discover how to affect human behavior by pushing buttons in the brain, the less they are inclined to accept the freedom of the Other's will. And indeed, when we have at last discovered all brain functions and hooked the brain up to a machine, and are pumping chemicals into it non-stop and jolting it through electrical convulsions in order to manipulate it into doing exactly what we want, then yes, to US, the OTHER's will will be effectively zero, since WE determine exactly what he does — BUT ONLY BECAUSE WE'VE HOOKED HIM UP TO OUR GODDAMN ASPHYXIATINGLY OVERPOWERING MACHINE (to which the brain's possessor would have presumably struggled to avoid being hooked up to, if he had had any sense in him, thereby expressing in the strongest terms his unwillingness to be completely controlled by you and your fuckin' cutting-edge sci-fi ubermachine). Newsflash: The more you control the Other, the less free he will seem. Their mistake lies in thinking of freedom as an absolute value, as if everyone could be "free" at the same time. But it is relative: the more free one person is, the less free those around him must be. They make the test subject do something, and then give him a dopamine hit to make him feel good about what he just did, and then they say he is "unfree". WELL DUH, AFTER YOU INJECTED ALL THESE CHEMICALS INTO HIS FUCKING BRAIN OF COURSE HE IS. There is no arguing with these asshats. They really are that stupid. Stupid and smug, like all half- and quarter-educated people.

Are there any good arguments against this?

[Anonymous No.11160775]

>>11160514
>That's semantics, the point is that the "choice" will always be the same under the same conditions
that's true but that's not the same as saying that we are not acting at our own discretion.
the thing people don't realize is that, when talking about the will, would and could are the same thing.
we could never make a choice we wouldn't make because we would never make a choice we couldn't make

>>11160766
so what if it can?

[Anonymous No.11160781]

>>11160768
In the first, the concept universe does not include the concept time necessarily, since time is an internal determination of a unity of conscious states. The second is more straightforwardly wrong, this person conflates metaphysical freedom with lack of constraint. Someone who makes this glaring a false conflation should not be calling others "half- and quarter- educated."

[Anonymous No.11160792]

I agree with Tolstoy in his last rant in War and Peace. One experiences freedom of choice in his everyday life but once you analyze an object, the more you analyze the local and temporal aspects along with its causality, the less free you will think it is.

[Anonymous No.11160824]

>>11160781
>the concept universe does not include the concept time necessarily
If it does not include time necessarily then relativity would not be possible. Spacetime is a continuum.

>this person conflates metaphysical freedom with lack of constraint
Define "metaphysical freedom." Because, my guess is that you are referring to a type of freedom outside perspective, i.e. a type of freedom that does not exist. But in that passage it regards freedom as something that must be perceived by a perspective, which means it is relative.

[Anonymous No.11160838]

>>11160775
>so what if it can?
There's no distinction between a robot acting on algorithms and a human acting on desire in terms of freedom of will. They're both predetermined by the laws which regulate their parts. The only meaningful difference is that the human thinks he is free. If A.I. became so advanced that it believed it were free, and closely resembled humans, would that change your view on our freedom of choice, or lack thereof?

[Anonymous No.11160860]

>>11160011
both

[Anonymous No.11160890]

>>11160838
>The only meaningful difference is that the human thinks he is free.
The thought alone is not what defines one's freedom of will. Other people's wills do too. This is why your robot analogy doesn't make a difference in the argument.

[Anonymous No.11160911]

>>11160838
>The only meaningful difference is that the human thinks he is free.
No, the most meaningful difference is that the humans have wills of their own whereas robots are extensions of other people's wills.
Also, decisions are mental events, so if robots lack minds (which your use of the word seems to imply) then by definition they can't make decisions.
>If A.I. became so advanced that it believed it were free, and closely resembled humans, would that change your view on our freedom of choice, or lack thereof?
No. If a robot were made which had a will of its own then it would be as responsible for its own decisions as humans are.

[Anonymous No.11160917]

>>11160414
i say this but its not enough to undo the knot in my brain i got when i submitted to determinism

[Anonymous No.11160929]

>>11160860
This
true determinism has as much influence on your practical everyday life as any other random fact

[Anonymous No.11160932]

>>11160917
It's only created a knot because you haven't grasped relativity far enough. "We do not have free will" is not a fact, but an interpretation.

[Anonymous No.11160942]

Free will is a man made invention the same way that time is a man made invention, it exists, but only because we need a word to explain our perception of reality as we move through it. Every action is determined by actions that came before it.

[Anonymous No.11160981]

>>11160911
>humans have wills of their own
Not true. Aliens/gods could be our creators, or just the laws of nature could be our creator. To have a will of your own is to not be influenced by anything but yourself. But your self is composed of matter, which follows the laws of nature. Therefore your behavior follows the laws of nature. If you could prove that particles can behave non-randomly without being caused by anything else, then it's not a stretch to say that humans are also free.

[Anonymous No.11160982]

One should question the perspective upon which determinism is founded. That is, what questions does determinism answer?

[Anonymous No.11160990]

>>11160981
>To have a will of your own is to not be influenced by anything but yourself.
How does that make any sense at all? A will cannot be influenced? What is being influenced then if there is no will to BE influenced?

[Anonymous No.11161020]

>>11160990
There's a difference between "will" and "will of your own" as implied by>>11160911
Wills cause action, but a will is just a will; it isn't free. A will of one's own is free, but a will of one's own doesn't make sense because your will is created in ways you have no control over. You only transform will into action.

[Anonymous No.11161042]

>>11160011
Man is condemned to be free.

[Anonymous No.11161147]

>>11160838
>There's no distinction between a robot acting on algorithms and a human acting on desire in terms of freedom of will.
how come the thread didn't end here?

[Anonymous No.11161152]

>>11160981
>Aliens/gods could be our creators, or just the laws of nature could be our creator.
At most that just passes on free will to those aliens or gods, it does not disprove free will.
Anyway, it is not being created which makes one an extension of another's will, it's to have all of one's being crafted by other beings to act in a specific way and to be unable to evolve beyond that in ways that are not to the design of any other being.
>To have a will of your own is to not be influenced by anything but yourself.
Nonsense. If a house you own is vandalized that doesn't make it any less your property.
And it's only through the influence of things other than ourselves that we have choices to make. The only way for nothing else to have any influence on is is for us to not be able to perceive anything else, as any perception of something other than ourselves would have an effect on us which was not instantiated by us.
>But your self is composed of matter, which follows the laws of nature. Therefore your behavior follows the laws of nature.
You talk about the laws of nature as though they were abstract forces which compel things to behave in certain ways, but in truth the laws of nature are only descriptions of how things behave which we have deduced from observation. When you say "the laws of nature" you're actually talking about the behavior of a thing, or the nature of the thing. To say that a thing follows the laws of nature is to say that it behaves a certain way which is congruent with its own nature, not that it's forced to behave that way by external forces.
>>11161020
>Wills cause action, but a will is just a will; it isn't free.
Free from what or free to do what? You're saying the will isn't free as if there were only one type of freedom the will could possibly have, or only one type of freedom worth having. In discussions on "free will", at least three different types of freedom are discussed.
The type you're talking about is freedom from causation, which is wrongly assummed to be a requirement for the freedom to make one's own choices, or if you prefer, the freedom from having decisions forced onto us