Free Will Does Not Exist

[Anonymous No.11210773]

How can people who are limited by their psychopathology have free will?


Let's take clinically diagnosed psychopaths for instance. These are people who are genetically different. Their brain structure differs from the average person. They are incapable of empathy and have minimal activity in the amygdala when exposed to highly emotional content. So how can we say these people have free will? They will never be able to comprehend a person's suffering. They will never be able to look at all possibilities in a situation and select the most "moral" option. They are limited by their genetics. They have no input.


Free will is a farce. It is a myth propagated among individualistic societies in order to comfort the materialistic, insecure, entitled fuck heads who believe the American dream is a real thing. Prove me wrong.

[Anonymous No.11210801]

>>11210773
If there is no free will your actions can be perfectly predicted as they are absolutely determined. If you were to receive a copy of this prediction, you would have no other choice but to follow the list exactly whether you want to or not. If it says you eat cheerios for breakfast, even knowing that, you would literally be unable to eat anything but cheerios. (don't get hung up on the "prediction would change after you read it" meme, because that is putting a non-determinate element of will in the system; in a determinist universe your reading of the prediction would necessarily be a part of the prediction)

[Anonymous No.11210877]

this is obvious to anyone with half a brain

[Anonymous No.11210882]

>>11210773
>entitled
>individualist
jesus christ
>>11210801
>If there is no free will your actions can be perfectly predicted as they are absolutely determined
nope, open a textbook on chaos theory you pseud fuckwit

[Anonymous No.11210905]

>>11210882
>chaos theory
I don't think you understand what this means, anon. Chaos theory doesn't say nothing is determined, it says it is practically impossible to make predictions due to entropy. This is a thought experiment; no one is asking you to actually determine the absolute starting position of the universe.
>Small differences in initial conditions such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation yield widely diverging outcomes for such dynamical systems, rendering long-term prediction of their behavior impossible in general.[2][3] This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved.[4] In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable.[5][6] This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos.

[Anonymous No.11210908]

>>11210882

Are you daft? Individualistic people are THE most entitled beings on Earth. For god sakes man have you ever been to facking Engerlaand?

[Anonymous No.11210932]

How can free will exist when the self doesn't exist? You're literally imagining problems that aren't there.

[Anonymous No.11210936]

>>11210932

The self is an abstract idea constantly evolving

[Anonymous No.11210950]

>>11210773
This is a false dichotomy. Free will is a simple matter of abstraction. Consciousness is logically separated from direct sensory input so there is no casual relation perceived between them.

[Anonymous No.11210956]

>>11210905
>it says it is practically impossible to make predictions due to entropy
Which is precisely the point.

[Anonymous No.11210968]

>>11210905
the complete opposite of what I intended to convey, incredible how daft and undiscerning you are
>>11210908
the UK isn't individualistic and America only is in name, individualism by definition cannot be promoted to a whole civlization and actually enacted. It can only be used to exploit crypto-collectivist behavior. Even "individualists" the lolbert sociopaths, are not actually individualists. Individualism is a single-instance emergent phenomena which occurs in higher types, its not something which can be taught or sold to people. Its bred, usually by an act of providence it makes it past gestation during childhood, and blossoms in leaders and people on the edges of society. Its not for others, you can't make a store clerk and individuated person, you can't teach a class of spics or a group of whores what individualism is, no one on the HS football team is capable of it, no cop, doctor, nurse, lawyer, politician is even built properly to house an individualistic mind. Its the rarest feature in all of humanity besides unselfish empathy (the non-Christian Buddhist kind which most monks cannot express either; they steal the notion and cloak their institutional greed in sweet words and ideals).


As a value judgement: people who say 'entitled' tend to be boring sociopaths or ugly

[Anonymous No.11210983]

>>11210956
>>11210968
Do you understand what a thought experiment is? Einstein talked about throwing a ball around on a train moving the speed of light; would you have stood up and shouted "trains can't go that fast"?

[Anonymous No.11210989]

>>11210968
>unselfish empathy (the non-Christian Buddhist kind)
Let me hear more about that.

[Anonymous No.11211013]

>>11210983
I don't know what thought experiment you are blabbering on about. Chaos theory is applicable to many real life phenomena.

[Anonymous No.11211027]

>>11211013
So you have no frame of reference here, Donny. You're like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie and wants to know

[Anonymous No.11211034]

>>11210968

>the UK isn't individualist and America only is in name


What was it today? Meth or heroin?

[Anonymous No.11211051]

>>11211027
>I am right and you are wrong because I say so

[Anonymous No.11211066]

>>11211051
>I don't know what we're talking about but I'm going to make random assertions, then get frustrated when my assertions are dismissed for being off topic
It's the first post in the thread, if you actually wanted to know
>>11210801

[Anonymous No.11211085]

>>11211066
>look at my my middle schooler logic and despair

[Anonymous No.11211115]

>>11211085
Do you actually have a philosophical response? Or are you going to bring up something else tangentially unrelated like 'there's no piece of paper long enough to list a prediction of everything' or some shit.

[Anonymous No.11211118]

>>11210983
die
>>11210989
go outside
>>11211034
please >>>/out/ we're overflowing with dead eyed niggers already, we don't need another

[Anonymous No.11211218]

>>11210773
If your definition of free will makes the concept of free will impossible, then obviously what you're talking of doesn't exist. If you define it as something unaffected by physics and biology, then how do you expect it to be real? You're just playing pointless games in semantics.

[Anonymous No.11211224]

>>11211118

Fuck off back to /pol/ you dumb cum skin

[Anonymous No.11211263]

>>11210773
>Free will is a farce.
But sociopaths are in no way proof or evidence for that.
Yes, maybe their genetics affects their behavior, but so what, that doesn't mean it determines it.

>It is a myth propagated among individualistic societies
No, its avsense is a meme that some pseuds like to push to feel smart.
The belief in the absence of free will is practically exclusive to our highly atomized modern world and the people who push it are the worst examples of pseudo intellectual retards with fucked up ideologies.

>in order to comfort the materialistic, insecure, entitled fuck heads
Free will is the only thing which can actually legitimize NOT being materialistic.

>who believe the American dream is a real thing
That is just a useful narrative to keep society working.
It exists everywhere in one form or another, it is a quasi religious salvation story.

[Anonymous No.11211281]

>>11210801
>If there is no free will your actions can be perfectly predicted
No, your actions can not be perfectly predicted.
Modern physics already has to talk about probabilities and there are extremely simple mechanical systems that are practically impossible to describe in a useful way due to their ultra sensitive nature.

[Anonymous No.11211314]

>>11211281
>practically impossible to describe
Then God does gives you the list; it doesn't matter. It's a thought experiment about a determinate universe, this is the lowest form of engagement.
>Mary in the red room would look at her reflection in a glass of water and see her eyes are blue!

[Anonymous No.11211324]

Free will does not exist, but deducing this and dwelling on it does not lead anywhere positive.

[Anonymous No.11211351]

>>11211314
> It's a thought experiment about a determinate universe,
It is a thought experiment about a universe which isn't ours.

I really have no interest about "what if we lived in a universe without free will" since that has no consequences on anything, a very boring thought experiment.

[Anonymous No.11211393]

>>11211351
Then why did you come to a thread that posits there is no free will? Why are you responding to me? What are you doing with your life? If you couldn't tell, I don't think the universe is determined either, that was sort of the point of the thought experiment. It shows the absurdity of a deterministic universe. Is this /lit/'s first thought experiment? This feels like I am in an intro philosophy class again.

[Anonymous No.11211401]

>>11211314
It's just that your thought experiment is stupid.
>you would have no other choice but to follow the list exactly whether you want to or not
So what? What does this prove?

[Anonymous No.11211424]

>>11211401
That a totally deterministic universe is absolutely at odds with our general cognition. Either there is no determination, or a list virtually exists which contains a strict list of actions you would be absolutely unable to resist doing.

[Anonymous No.11211441]

>>11211424
>That a totally deterministic universe is absolutely at odds with our general cognition.
How is it at odds?
>or a list virtually exists which contains a strict list of actions you would be absolutely unable to resist doing
What a stupid and childish way to phrase it.
OK, let suppose that it does exist. So what? You seem to imply that I should find the thought absurd.

[Anonymous No.11211454]

>>11211393
>Then why did you come to a thread that posits there is no free will?
Why not?

>Why are you responding to me?
Because you responded to me and in my sleep deprived state I might have misinterpreted your post.

>What are you doing with your life?
Wasting it in the least spectacular way possible.

>I don't think the universe is determined either
Okay, but I don't see why
>or a list virtually exists which contains a strict list of actions you would be absolutely unable to resist doing.
is any contradiction.
Mathematically speaking such a mathematical object would exist, supposing that the initial conditions of the universe describe it completely.
I see little absurd in that.

[Anonymous No.11211464]

>>11210801
>If you were to receive a copy of this prediction, you would have no other choice but to follow the list exactly whether you want to or not.
No, you're just causing something new to determistically happen to that person by giving them the prediction.
That's not free will, that's interacting with someone after a prediction was already made and making the prediction no longer valid.
If that counts as free will then toilets have free will by draining water when you push their handle.

[Anonymous No.11211473]

>>11211441
you walk into the kitchen. You try and reach for the corn flakes, but your arm stops short. You try your hardest, but you feel yourself being pulled away. Your arm reaches for the cheerios and you clamp your hand around the box with an iron grip. "No, I... I will choose something else! I don't have to listen to that stupid list! I can choose anything!" You begin to pour the cheerios into the bowl. You desperately try to tug your arm away, but you are locked into the motion, unchangeably set in physical determination. As you eat your cheerios, a tear tracks down your face. You now exist as a prisoner in your own body.

[Anonymous No.11211480]

>>11211473
Conflicting impulses don't contradict determinism.
They just mean the brain isn't so simple that it's composed of one single process.

[Anonymous No.11211481]

>>11211464
>(don't get hung up on the "prediction would change after you read it" meme, because that is putting a non-determinate element of will in the system; in a determinist universe your reading of the prediction would necessarily be a part of the prediction)
If something "deterministically new" can happen, it was never determined in the first place anon.

[Anonymous No.11211495]

>>11211473
That is the dumbest thing I've read today. Is it supposed to be some sort of argument?

[Anonymous No.11211498]

>>11211480
It's not about impulses at all, you would be literally unable to do act freely. Even if you just wanted to disobey the list based on stubbornness, you would still be physically unable to do anything other than what the list tells you.

[Anonymous No.11211501]

>>11211495
It's an interpretation of a thought experiment. Has anyone on /lit/ stepped foot in a philosophy classroom?

[Anonymous No.11211502]

>>11211481
You're conflating different scopes.
I hate to bring up Gödel because it's usually a pseud as fuck thing to do, but this is exactly the same thing as Incompleteness Theorem, and it's not that the determinism doesn't exist, it's that the act of establishing a list of events makes that list incomplete because you then need a new meta-list to account for it.
Keep in mind contrary to popular belief Gödel was a hardcore Platonist and did not believe Incompleteness Theorem meant Mathematics itself was incomplete. Instead Mathematics itself is beyond the scope of any one axiomatic system because you need a meta-system to account for each new one you introduce.

[Anonymous No.11211505]

>>11211501
Your thought experiment is stupid and childish. You contradict your own premise. Go write fanfiction or something.

[Anonymous No.11211508]

>>11211498
>you would be literally unable to do act freely.
You already aren't able to act freely.
>you would still be physically unable to do anything other than what the list tells you.
No, the list deterministically causes a different reactive behavior from one the list says, that's not free will, it's post-prediction interaction.

[Anonymous No.11211510]

>>11211473
No, absolutely not, that isn't how the absence of free will works.
Your entire consciousness would like your arm, your choice would be predetermined.

>>11211501
It is a *wrong* interpretation.

[Anonymous No.11211517]

>>11210950
>>>11210773 (OP)
>Consciousness is logically separated from direct sensory input so there is no casual relation perceived between them.

How is there no relation between consciousness and direct sensory input? What you think and feel is based off of what you sense.

[Anonymous No.11211518]

>>11211502
>it's not that the determinism doesn't exist, it's that the act of establishing a list of events makes that list incomplete because you then need a new meta-list to account for it.
If there is no possible determination (due to the problem of infinite meta-system regress), in what meaningful sense would be the universe be determined?

[Anonymous No.11211525]

>>11211508
>No, the list deterministically causes a different reactive behavior from one the list says
then it was never an accurate determination in the first place. For it to be an accurate determination it needs to take your reading of the list into account.

[Anonymous No.11211527]

>>11211517
That is why I said logically separated.

[Anonymous No.11211542]

>>11211525
Not him, but the formulation of the thought experiment suggests that a NOT DETERMINED event, the giving of the list takes place.
If the list includes the list itself it will be accurate.

This is no a contradiction in any way though.

[Anonymous No.11211543]

>>11210801
Holy fuck imagine being this much of a brainlet.

You CANNOT receive a prediction within ONE determinist system because it creates a clear logical contradiction. It has to be an "outside" force showing it to you and that will change your behavior witin your own system, not the observer's.

For example, if you receive a "prediction" saying you'll die eating strawberries, and you don't eat strawberries, then the fact that you didn't die is the only possibility. Then the prediction collapses on itself.

God do you people even have brains

[Anonymous No.11211550]

>>11211542
literally the exact opposite, I specified that for the list to be accurate it must already have determined the act of giving the list.
>(don't get hung up on the "prediction would change after you read it" meme, because that is putting a non-determinate element of will in the system; in a determinist universe your reading of the prediction would necessarily be a part of the prediction)

[Anonymous No.11211556]

>>11211550
Yes, if you take that into account all is fine, no contradiction.

[Anonymous No.11211563]

>>11211543
>change your behavior
This is the whole issue. You can't willingly change your behavior in a determinist universe, either the behavior was determined or it wasn't. you can't say it was a correct determination but now there is a new determination, because that is literally against the definition of determination.

[Anonymous No.11211567]

>>11211518
>>11211525
Your error here is assuming that:
A) The prediction and
B) A paper with words on it that you give someone
Can or must contain the same list of events in order for determinism to be the case.
In reality you can easily have a situation where there is no such paper you can give someone that won't provoke a series of still predictable events that aren't what'a written on the paper.
By analogy the function f(x) = x + 1 is both deterministic and will never give you back the same starting value of x.

[Anonymous No.11211577]

>>11211543
>You CANNOT receive a prediction within ONE determinist system
Of course you can.

>For example, if you receive a "prediction" saying you'll die eating strawberries, and you don't eat strawberries, then the fact that you didn't die is the only possibility. Then the prediction collapses on itself.
No.

The absence of free will means that a human is just a complex pendulum, if you got the right initial conditions all other states will be known.
The prediction WILL be correct, because the prediction itself predicted itself.

[Anonymous No.11211608]

>>11211563
>>11211577
Okay here's the deal you brainlets.
Your behaviors NEVER changed because it's the way the prediction goes.

You knowing the prediction is part of the prediction means that such a prediction is building a non-existent bridge between the past and the future simply because such an event is LIKELY to happen. There's a movie called predestination and it says exactly the same thing, except it is impossible to weave such a bridge to begin with because the prediction must had willingly changed the future such that the event could happen.

I'm actually curious, how educated are you people?

[Anonymous No.11211613]

>>11211567
>By analogy the function f(x) = x + 1 is both deterministic and will never give you back the same starting value of x.
interesting proposition, I'd need to reflect on this more. Lost me with all the negations in this sentence though
>In reality you can easily have a situation where there is no such paper you can give someone that won't provoke a series of still predictable events that aren't what'a written on the paper.

[Anonymous No.11211621]

>>11211608
>building a non-existent bridge between the past and the future simply because such an event is LIKELY to happen
there is no "likely" in a determinist universe anon, I'm really confused what you are trying to say. The physically determined universe cannot have "likey" built into it. I have a bachelors in philosophy myself.
>There's a movie called predestination
I really hope these posts are just elaborate bait

[Anonymous No.11211624]

>>11211608
>You knowing the prediction is part of the prediction means that such a prediction is building a non-existent bridge between the past and the future simply because such an event is LIKELY to happen.
Absolute non sense, refer to the pendulum example.

>how educated are you people?
I am STEM dag you autistic credential checker.

[Anonymous No.11211636]

>>11211577
The observer making the prediction is still physically bounded. Nothing exists in isolation. The agent can equally probe the observer and determine what the prediction will be and do the exact opposite, demonstrating characteristics of free will. So as far as we are concern relative free will is enough.

>if you got the right initial conditions all other states will be known
Unless you are God, there is no reason to assume strict determinism. Locally, in our everyday interaction, in so far as we have observed, the universe is probabilistic.

[Anonymous No.11211639]

>>11211636
>The observer making the prediction is still physically bounded.
You are adding this into the thought experiment; that premise was never there. Just imagine you get the list as a revelation from God, if that makes it easier for you.

[Anonymous No.11211656]

>>11211527
>>>11211517 (You)
>That is why I said logically separated.
I still don't think I understand you. What makes consciousness and sensory input logically separate? You can't have consciousness without sensory input, so how can they be separate?

[Anonymous No.11211659]

>>11211636
>Unless you are God, there is no reason to assume strict determinism. Locally, in our everyday interaction, in so far as we have observed, the universe is probabilistic.
I literally said nothing that disagreed, I just wanted to explain that in a deterministic universe giving someone a prediction is possible.

>The observer making the prediction is still physically bounded. Nothing exists in isolation. The agent can equally probe the observer and determine what the prediction will be and do the exact opposite, demonstrating characteristics of free will.
Not in a deterministic universe, a hypothetical Oracle already knows everything possible to know about the universe, no observer could do anything not already part of the prediction.
A prediction is just evaluating a function.

[Anonymous No.11211669]

>>11211613
>Lost me
I can clarify further.
Let's say there's a person Frank.
He's represented as the function f(x).
Frank is deterministic.
More specifically, any prediction x you give to Frank where x is a number you think Frank will say, he will say the number x+1 instead.
So you try to give him 5 and this happens:
f(5)
Frank says "6."
You go "OK, I'll just give him 6 then this time:"
f(6)
Frank says "7."
You decide "OK, I'll think 1 step ahead of him:"
f(8)
Frank says "9."
As it turns out there is no such predicted number x you can ever give Frank that will result in him following that prediction. He will always go with the number x + 1 instead.
You can very easily predict what Frank will do each time, but you can't ever have your correct prediction be the same thing as your input prediction fed to him. I'm sure you knew what Frank would say in each of the examples above, demonstrating this fact, but were you to have taken the additional step of making your private prediction become the prediction input to Frank you would have ended up being wrong, and not because he has free will.

[Anonymous No.11211671]

If free will does not exist, there are no individuals, there is no "you" or "me", there is just one system constantly readjusting itself by letting its constituent parts influence each other. So there is only one "poster" in this thread and all the other threads that existed or will ever exist, and its talking to itself.

[Anonymous No.11211675]

>>11211639
That premise ties everything together. We only talk about free will in relation to another individual. There is the observer and there is an agent. The observer is determining if the agent has free will. You cannot separate the two in physically bounded universe that allows no isolation and so you must account for the observer and the observer's state.

By the way, you can technically observe yourself. Like writing in a diary. There are subsystems in your brain that monitors and predict your other systems. You have your emotions system, your "moral" system, your body/habits, and your making excuse system. When they work together you are unified. When they don't, you come into conflict and in the worst case, develop schizophrenia.

[Anonymous No.11211678]

>>11211621
>>11211624
You saying that the prediction may change anything is just like asking an omnipotent being to creat a stone he can't lift. It's a logical contraction.

For a prediction to predict things that will happen AFTER it interferes with reality itself, it HAS to make up possibilities. Because none of these were meant to exist to begin with. But you see, the so-called prediction can never be true because people's behaviors are bound to change when present to the prediction that's within the system. This has nothing to do with free will, because you see, the prediction can create many futures but it can NEVER not contradict itself. True prediction has to be made by an outside force so that it observes reality instead of purposefully creates it.

[Anonymous No.11211690]

>>11211669
I think you explained the wrong sentence; thanks though anon, this is a useful example

[Anonymous No.11211697]

>>11211678
Again I refer you to the pendulum, this is not hard to understand.

Given precise initial conditions I can predict the behaviour of the pendulum at every point in time.

>You saying that the prediction may change anything
No, it doesn't.
It already predicted itself.

>AFTER
Future and past have no meaning in a deterministic universe, it is literally just changing one variable.
Determinism means that the initial condition determine all future conditions.

>change
No, in a deterministic universe things can not change, just like the square root of 4 will always be 2.
Again, the initial conditions determine all future states.

[Anonymous No.11211702]

>>11211659
>Not in a deterministic universe, a hypothetical Oracle already knows everything possible to know about the universe, no observer could do anything not already part of the prediction.

We don't live in a strictly deterministic universe. So unless you're willing to throw away quantum mechanics, the entire field of probability, you are wrong to assume so. You can have an oracle but that oracle will be, at most, 99% accurate.

But all of that is unnecessary all you have to assume for free will to exists is to have a physically bounded observer making predictions. And that is exactly what occurs in real life. These "thoughts" experiments is retarded if it cannot account for this fact.

[Anonymous No.11211714]

>>11211702
>We don't live in a strictly deterministic universe.
Good fucking Lord read my fucking post.
I AM NOT ARGUING AGAINST FREE WILL.

[Anonymous No.11211719]

>>11211702
What do you think a thought experiment is anon?

[Anonymous No.11211740]

>>11211690
Oh, well I personally meant those two sentences to reiterate the same idea, just that the first used the function example and the second explained how it translated to the paper example.
To clarify how it translates to the paper example, Frank ( f(x) ) is the person you're trying to predict, x is the prediction you're giving to Frank, and x + 1 is his resulting behavior.
Because his resulting behavior is a function of the paper you give him, and because it's never the same as what the prediction you give him predicts, that means there is no such paper you can give him that'll ever predict what he's going to do even though you can absolutely predict correctly so long as that prediction is something other than the paper you give him.
Basically it's a proof that just because you can't give someone a list of behaviors you predict they will do and have them do it doesn't mean they have free will. If it did then you'd be calling it free will if a scenario like this took place:
"Here's what you will do written down on this paper."
"Hmm, it says I will eat a pancake and then read Of Mice and Men."
"Fuck that, I'll eat some bacon and watch Blade Runner on VHS instead, and also I'll do twenty-eight jumping jacks just to really fuck with this determinism asshole!"
*A couple hours later*
"OK, I'm done, looks like you couldn't predict me after all!"
"Well anon, what I gave you was the fake prediction, here's the real one:
>Anon says: "Hmm, it says I will eat a pancake and then read Of Mice and Men."
"Anon decides: "Fuck that, I'll eat some bacon and watch Blade Runner on VHS instead, and also I'll do twenty-eight jumping jacks just to really fuck with this determinism asshole!"
>A couple hours then pass.
>Anon says: "OK, I'm done, looks like you couldn't predict me after all!"

[Anonymous No.11211745]

>>11211714
Well I'm just saying that it doesn't matter if we live in a deterministic universe or not to have free will since all we need to account for free will is a physically bounded observer. The reason why we would argue if the universe is deterministic or not is if the observer deciding on an agent free will is if the observer is not physically bounded, i.e. God. This changes things up a bit since in this case, we would not have free will in a deterministic universe. We would have it in probabilistic one.

[Anonymous No.11211764]

>>11211740
This isn't really dealing with the thought experiment as the individual never receives a prediction in this case. They receive a falsehood and are then given an account of what they actually did. This removes the whole crux of the problem, which is that a perfect determination must be able to determine the reaction to the determination.

[Anonymous No.11211772]

>>11211719
A waste of time unless your principles you based your thought experiment on is correct. I blame that nigga Einstein for making "thought experiment" hip. They only work if the principles you got from observing reality is correct. Einstein got his principle of a constant speed of light from the Michelson–Morley experiment and observation of the moons of Jupiter. Observe nature first. Observe reality first.

[Anonymous No.11211778]

>>11211772
>They only work if the principles you got from observing reality is correct
https://www.iep.utm.edu/reductio/

[Anonymous No.11211792]

>>11211764
It does deal with it. It deals with it by saying two things:
A) What you're asking for might not be possible and
B) What you're asking for not being possible is provably still compatible with a fully deterministic system
You can never, ever:
Make a prediction x
Feed it to f(x) = x + 1
Get back the result of x
Your prediction will be wrong every time.
Yet f(x) = x + 1 is of course 100% deterministic.
You just can't have your prediction be the input in that case, just like you probably can't have your prediction be the input to someone you're trying to predict.
It isn't free will, it's a function that always gives back something other than what the input says.
Or to take a softer claim, even if the person you're trying to predict isn't necessarily the same as this function example, the function example at a minimum establishes that you can't extrapolate the existence of free will just from a lack of ability to feed someone a prediction and have their behavioral output match what the prediction says.
You can predict them, you just can't have that prediction also be an input to the function that is the person you're predicting.

[Anonymous No.11211822]

>>11211792
>What you're asking for might not be possible
That's literally my take on the thought experiment anon, the universe isn't determined because if it is we have a ton of logical contradictions to deal with like the problem of perfect determination.

[Anonymous No.11211832]

>>11211822
>That's literally my take on the thought experiment anon
No it isn't, because you didn't accept my second proposition B:
>B) What you're asking for not being possible is provably still compatible with a fully deterministic system

[Anonymous No.11211838]

>>11211822
>>11211832
And I'm not sure why you didn't accept it.
Are you saying f(x) = x + 1 isn't deterministic just because you can't ever feed it any prediction x that will result in an output of x?

[Anonymous No.11211850]

>>11211832
It's only possible if you are a p-zombie who doesn't believe we would have the ability to choose corn flakes over cheerios post-list reading. At the best our cognitive realities would become a state absolutely alien to us, one where our thoughts and caprice have no ability to guide our actions. Sure, not impossible, but certainly highly absurd.

[Anonymous No.11211855]

>>11211850
>post-list reading
No, that's saying f(x) = x + 1 isn't deterministic just because you can't get x out of it.
The list is x, you're f(x), and no one can ever give you x and get x out of you, not because of free will but because you're a function that doesn't return x when given x.

[Anonymous No.11211858]

>>11211838
>Are you saying f(x) = x + 1 isn't deterministic
I think we are talking past each other here, I'm not trying to prove the equation to be non-deterministic. I thought that f(x) = x + 1 was just an analogy.

[Anonymous No.11211867]

>>11211855
f(x) = x + 1 isn't the universe, anon, you are taking that example a little too far I think. It's an interesting attempted solution, and it raises some interesting implication about what we can say is really determined and what isn't; but it certainly doesn't solve the problem.

[Anonymous No.11211870]

>>11211697
Let's put it this way. Imagine, if you knew the initial condition of everything, you can predict everything that will happen.

But what is the initial condition? Does it include or not include the fact that you know it? You knowing the initial condition of you knowing it will make you think really differently. You're describing a man that has infinite brain power. What will happen is, with such a mind, you indeed get the one possibility, but the process of you getting it is a little different from the common logic.

The information of everything that will happen is stored in your brain. After your brain goes through a process of thinking, it will always fit this information (memory) that's independent of your decision.

The thing is, you cannot know the future without this process of thinking. And, after you thought it, it fits the information that's stored in your brain. Does that make sense?

[Anonymous No.11211899]

>>11211858
What do you mean by "just" an analogy?
Analogies aren't some sort of make believe bullshit that don't count.
If I tell you it's impossible to make money (m) by spending (s) more than you earn (e) and represent this with the function m(s, e) = e - s, you don't get to say you can still make money by spending more than you earn just because you're a biological organism and not literally a mathematical statement.
>>11211867
The argument still stands, you haven't done anything to deal with it and it completely disproves your notion that free will can be extrapolated from an inability to have a prediction also be an input to someone you're predicting.
It doesn't depend solely on that function, the function is just the easiest and most concise way of expressing this proof.

[Anonymous No.11211905]

I'm actually so smart. I just solved the mystery of determinism.

[Anonymous No.11211909]

>>11211905
If you think there was a mystery in the first place you aren't as smart as you think.

[Anonymous No.11211938]

>>11211480
until you can show a 1:1 mind-brain connection, consciousness will allow for the possibility of free will.

That is to say, determinists need to get their physics and neurology worked out before they can start making positive claims about the universe being determined. Free will doesn't need such evidence as it's an immediate, intuitive feeling.

[Anonymous No.11211947]

>>11211938
>it's an immediate, intuitive feeling.
So are hallucinations.

[Anonymous No.11211970]

>>11211947
hallucinations "exist" in the real world. The real (physical) world may very well be determined, but physical our beings are not.

[Anonymous No.11211993]

>>11210882
>>11210968
This guy has it, there is no metaphysically free will but that doesn't mean that human behavior will ever be absolutely determinable.

[Anonymous No.11211997]

>>11210773

[Anonymous No.11212005]

>>11211870
underrated post

[Anonymous No.11212010]

>>11211993
why would it not be the other way around? Why no metaphysical freedom simply constrained by physical parameters?

[Anonymous No.11212029]

>>11212010
The Kantian conception of freedom ("metaphysical freedom simply constrained by physical parameters") was formulated by Kant as certain by virtue of its necessary connection with the "moral law." Are you advocating the categorical imperative? That's the only thing that can give this sort of freedom meaning, otherwise its an unsupported idea, even given that the subject can never be an object of knowledge.

[Anonymous No.11212061]

>>11212029
Stands to reason. Thanks for a good reply anon

[Anonymous No.11212125]

>>11211938
>until you can show a 1:1 mind-brain connection, consciousness will allow for the possibility of free will.
No. Just because something isn't physical doesn't mean it transcends causality.
You still have to explain how this hypothetical non-physical thing is ending up in the different states it ends up in, as well as how it's interacting with the physical stuff. So it doesn't really solve anything to pass the buck to the non-physical. What you really need to do to allow for free will is deny causality, not physicality.

[Anonymous No.11212138]

>>11211938
>immediate
Nothing about perception is immediate. There is not a single reputable psychology or neurology paper that has ever argued otherwise.
Also look into split brain experiments and 'left brain interpreter'.
People will reliably report controlling things they don't really control with absurd rationalizations for why they "decided" to do what they did.

[Anonymous No.11212174]

>>11210801
Whatever you eat would be pre-determined. Literally everything can be said to be pre-determined in this way. In order for you eating Cheerios to be pre-determined, you have to actually do it. If you didn't actually eat cheerios for breakfast, it doesn't you have free will, it means it was never destined in the first place.

[Anonymous No.11212185]

>>11210773
Right you are, but too heavy of a redpill for most people.

[Anonymous No.11212190]

>>11210801
buddhism is literally non-dualistic and does not support the existence of free will.

[Anonymous No.11212207]

>>11211473
You would not have any inkling of resistance to the idea of eating cheerios. You would do it immediately and without mulling over it like a retard.

[Anonymous No.11212232]

>>11212207
But if you are trying to break the determination on purpose, of course you would think about it

[Anonymous No.11212249]

>>11212232
If you think about it, that was pre-determined. If it happened, it was pre-determined.

[Anonymous No.11212264]

>>11211899
By just an analogy I mean exactly that, just an analogy. The proposed solution isn’t f(x)=x+1; at least I assume you aren’t using it like a metaphysical claim. It refers to a state or process which input has a necissary effect on output. Again, this is useful, but it doesn’t solve the issue. I don’t have to ‘deal with it’ because that’s not how you treat thought experiments. Most have several proposed solutions. Your not supposed to try to beat it anon, you are trying to explore the logical consequenses of the proposed hypothesis.

[Anonymous No.11212265]

>>11212232
basically you exercising what you think is your free will is really just you following a script that you never had any hope of altering. Any time you change your mind about something and think "haha, I beat it", that just means it was always determined that you would do that and think that.

[Anonymous No.11212275]

>>11212249
>>11212265
Did you read the thought experiment? You get a perfect determination of your actions in the future in a perfectly deterministic universe, can you choose to do other than the determination having advanced knowledge of it?

[Anonymous No.11212276]

>>11212264
>It refers to a state or process which input has a necissary effect on output
You think that your input altered the state of affairs, but in reality there is no altering of the state of affairs. Your input is merely what was determined to happen before you decided to change. It's not some rigid list of actions that you can choose to fight against. Everything that happens was on the list.

[Anonymous No.11212278]

>>11212264
>It refers to a state or process which input has a necissary effect on output.
Which is exactly the case with giving somebody a prediction to read.
You are giving them input with a necessary effect on output. You can't give someone a prediction to read and not have it impact their output behavior, just the fact they're reading in itself is an impact on output behavior.

[Anonymous No.11212291]

>>11211263
This.

The freewill deniers and even pop compatabilists are buying into a shallow and superficial conception of science and metaphysics. I kinda got fed up with the close-mindedness of the anglo saxon analytical philosophical tradition, secular and religious, and went and dwelled with the contys for a while.

[Anonymous No.11212299]

>>11212278
So you agree the universe isn’t determined?

[Anonymous No.11212301]

>>11212276
>Everything that happens was on the list.
I'm a determinist and I don't agree with this.
You're assuming there actually can be a list of predictions that you could give someone that would both predict what they do and wouldn't alter what they do to something other than what's written on the list.
I'm arguing that free will is bullshit AND that list probably can't exist. You can predict their behavior, but you can't predict their behavior and also hand them the prediction beforehand. It all keeps going back to f(x) = x + 1. It's 100% deterministic, but there is simply no such prediction x that will ever match the output f(x) because f(x) is always going to react to the prediction by doing something that isn't the prediction.

[Anonymous No.11212319]

>>11212301
Again, in what meaningful sense is the world determined in this case? It seems you want to redefine determinism, and maybe that’s the right thing to do; but don’t assume your non-determinite determinism is what other people mean when they say the word.

[Anonymous No.11212323]

>>11212299
No, as I've mentioned a few times now, determinism is absolutely compatible with there not being a list you can give someone that both gets read by them and predicts their behavior.
This isn't some mysterious free will thing going on here, it's as mundane as taking every prediction x and outputting behavior x + 1.
You can predict the person just fine, you just can't have that prediction also be the same thing that's written on the paper you give them because their output behavior never matches their reading list input.

[Anonymous No.11212325]

>>11212301
Hold up. What's your definition of free will? As far as the thread is concern, free will is just the ability of an acting agent to be unpredictable relative to an observer.

[Anonymous No.11212335]

>>11212275
>You get a perfect determination of your actions in the future in a perfectly deterministic universe, can you choose to do other than the determination having advanced knowledge of it?
Yes, you can choose to change the determination, but it can still be argued that it was determined that you would receive the list, and then change it. You act like it's some rigid thing that if changed means it all goes to pieces. It's perfectly wrapped around us so that every single thing we do is part of it with no transgression.

[Anonymous No.11212340]

>>11212323
i don’t think this is determinism?

[Anonymous No.11212346]

>>11212335
> it can still be argued that it was determined that you would receive the list, and then change it
Then you never got a determination in the firstplace, just a falsehood.

[Anonymous No.11212348]

>>11212319
>Again, in what meaningful sense is the world determined in this case?
Let me ask you the opposite:
In what meaningful way is it "free will" that someone's behavior is still 100% predictable by a hidden prediction just because they don't do what the non-hidden prediction handed to them says?
If I write down secretly:
>Anon will say 'heh, you can't predict me, look, I'm waving my hands, knocking on the table three times, and running a lap around the house, not walking over to the couch and watching TV like you predicted!
And hand you a piece of paper that says:
>Anon will walk over to the couch and watch TV.
And you procede to say 'heh, you can't predict me, look, I'm waving my hands, knocking on the table three times, and running a lap around the house, not walking over to the couch and watching TV like you predicted!"
How the fuck are you getting "free will" out of that scenario?
The non-existence of something that's simultaneously a prediction AND an input to a person's behavior is absolute NOT a contradiction of determinism.

[Anonymous No.11212355]

>>11212346
It was determined that you would receive the list and that you would change it. Not out of the matrix yet buddy.

[Anonymous No.11212367]

>>11212335
But there is a time limit. You predict things to a certain time. Once that time pass you can no longer make predictions. Sure you can change your list, but if the person gets it last and change their behavior before you get a chance to update your list, your prediction will be wrong. Basically any person can demonstrate free will if they get the last say.

[Anonymous No.11212375]

>>11212325
>>11212340
Determinism is simply the case where there are causes, and these causes aren't "free will," but instead other events like dominoes knocking each other over.
If what you do from moment to moment is the product of causes and not "free will," then you are deterministic.
No part of determinism requires that there must exist a piece of paper that both predicts what you will do AND is read by you before you do it. You can very easily be deterministic and never yield the same output behavior as what is written on a paper given to you to read.
It just means the formula:
input paper -> you -> output behavior
Will never be:
input paper ->you-> output behavior that matches input paper
It can still be completely predetermined and predictable, including the prediction that you will never do what is written on that piece of paper.
You not doing what's on a piece of paper is a perfectly valid, predictable and deterministic behavioral response that could exist in a deterministic universe.
In fact most systems don't yield something identical to input given to them, the fact they're systems at all usually implies some sort of transformation of the input into something different from the input.

[Anonymous No.11212388]

>>11212348
>everythings determined unless they dont do what they were determined to do
This isn’t a possibility for every other conception of determinism, that’s my point. You are working on some new ground here, it might be fruitful. Just recognize what you are doing (i.e. not classical determinist theory)

[Anonymous No.11212399]

>>11212367
I think you're over-complicating it. It's as simple as this: It is extremely difficult to prove that anything we do is not done because some higher natural authority ordered it this way. Sure, as far as we know, we are making decisions with our own free will and nobody can tell us what to do or think. However, this is an assumption based on sensual knowledge. It's merely what we perceive to be true. To be fully objective about the origins of our decisions and any event in the world, we need to admit that we don't actually know how it happens. In this way, determinism is opened up as the key. It fits every single action taken like a snug blanket. Any scernario you come up with can easily be brushed aside by saying that too was pre-determined. You could come up with a thousand alternate timelines where x happens but y doesn't happen, and it will still be possible to lay the blanket of determinism over it.

[Anonymous No.11212404]

>>11212388
It isn't new and it isn't non-deterministic.
f(prediction) = prediction + 1
Is completely deterministic and will never match the prediction you feed it.
It doesn't mean it can't be predicted, it means it can't be predicted by the same thing you feed it as input. There's a big distinction between those two things.

[Anonymous No.11212414]

>>11212301
The list could exist. Sure, it would only be in some Death Note-esque fantasy world, but it's much easier to admit that it could exist, and that it actually would still fit in with determinism. It was determined that a list would emerge which allows someone to change the future.

[Anonymous No.11212423]

>>11212414
Give me a prediction number x that can be input to:
f(x) = x + 1
Where the output matches your prediction number.

[Anonymous No.11212454]

>>11212423
The point isn’t to try and break your equation lmao. I keep thinking your making a good argument then you stick your foot in your mouth.

[Anonymous No.11212455]

>>11212423
Sorry m8, abstract math is not my strongsuit. I would encourage you to think about it more simply. it's really quite a practical matter when you allow yourself to realize that we really have no control over anything that we think, do or say.

[Anonymous No.11212465]

>>11212454
>>11212455
Not arguments.
And of course you can't ever make a valid argument against this, it's a simple fact.
There exist fully deterministic situations where the prediction can NEVER be the input.
This is not free will, it's not magic, it's as simple as always adding 1.

[Anonymous No.11212474]

>>11212465
Ok, we're definitely on different wavelengths. I know I come across as a brainlet, but I seriously think that even a homeless crackhead could understand this. It isn't about intellect - in fact it's about courage. It takes guts to open up to the idea that we have no free will.

[Anonymous No.11212479]

>>11212474
I don't believe in free will.
There exist fully deterministic situations where the prediction can NEVER be the input.

[Anonymous No.11212491]

>>11212479
Notice the classical determinists not using the same definition? They think you are arguing for free will lmao

[Anonymous No.11212493]

>>11212399
But you are assuming universal knowledge and a non physically bounded observer. I will not give you this godlike observer because in reality this is not what occurs. You are arguing for an absolute freewill where relative free will is enough. I'll agree that in a strictly deterministic universe, absolute free will does not exists. But if we are talking about relative free will, in the case of a physically bounded observer, free will can be demonstrated no matter the case. Again, the linchpin is in the observer since predictions do not exist in itself.

[Anonymous No.11212494]

>>11212479
Such as?

[Anonymous No.11212496]

>>11212479
Sorry, I must have thought you were someone else. What exactly do you mean when you say that the prediction can never be the input?

[Anonymous No.11212513]

>>11212491
He's not a classic determinist and it's almost impossible to have a discussion on determinism without people having differing beliefs in definition specifics.
What I'm arguing is classic determinism. Classic determinism has never meant you must have the ability to create magical documents that are both predictions and inputs to the systems they're predicting. It doesn't make the system non-deterministic just because it's output is always a transformation of its input. In fact if the transformation is well defined (like x + 1) then we know it definitely is deterministic AND incapable of being supplied with its own prediction.

[Anonymous No.11212521]

>>11212496
>What exactly do you mean when you say that the prediction can never be the input?
f(prediction) = prediction + 1
Give me a prediction number that when fed to that function gets you the predicted number as an output.
You can't.
Not ever.

[Anonymous No.11212526]

>>11212513
Just admit that literally any possible outcome can be pre-determined. Otherwise you're not really a determinist because you believe in so many exceptions to the rule. Do you think some things cannot be pre-determined? Does that not collapse the whole system then? It's not a consistent pattern if you have these gaps in the capabilities of determination that allow certain things to get through.

[Anonymous No.11212530]

>all things are only an outcome because of a domino effect
>all choices by an individual is based on their personality
>Personality is a recurring pattern of thinking that can be predicted
>Freewill doesn't exist

[Anonymous No.11212540]

>>11212513
>Classic determinism has never meant you must have the ability to create magical documents that are both predictions and inputs to the systems they're predicting
Actually, if you work the system out vie reductio ad absurdum, it absolutely does. That's the whole point of the thought experiment anon. Don't try and no-true-scotsman the entire history of determinism lol.

[Anonymous No.11212545]

>>11212521
I don't understand your math jargon. Can you explain it without using functions and equations?

[Anonymous No.11212556]

>>11212545
see these posts where he breaks it down
>>11211669
>>11211792

[Anonymous No.11212636]

>>11212526
>Just admit that literally any possible outcome can be pre-determined.
What the fuck is wrong with you? I never once said anything contradicting that statement.
What I said, REPEATEDLY AND VERY CLEARLY, is:
There's a big difference between:
A) You can predict what someone will do and
B) You have to be able to predict what they will do AND give them the prediction as an input to their resulting behavior.
I'm saying you CAN do A and CANNOT do B, not sure how much clearer I can make this.
Just because you can't have your prediction also be an input to a system you're predicting DOES NOT INVALIDATE DETERMINISM.
It doesn't.
This is extremely easy to prove, it's literally as simple as having a machine that always adds 1 to your prediction.

[Anonymous No.11212656]

>>11212636
>you CAN do A and CANNOT do B
I thought you could do both, but that doing B would invalidate A, creating a new determination?

[Anonymous No.11212661]

>>11212656
Try this:
https://repl.it/repls/FrightenedInsistentOpposites
Hit the button that says "run" and then respond to the prompt on the right.
You will be able to very easily predict how it will respond each time.
And you will also never be able to make your prediction the input and still be right.

[Anonymous No.11212667]

>>11212636
Ok, so just to be clear, I was never arguing against what you said about that. I'm not even sure why you thought I was opposed to you in this argument. I'm arguing for pure determinism, and it seems like you're at least mostly in agreement. Where's the disconnect?

[Anonymous No.11212672]

>>11212661
don't think this is the result you wanted lol
that is besides the point, I'm not hung up on the math. I thought that your point was that any revelation of determination changes the determination, not that is impossible to communicate a determination like
>you CAN do A and CANNOT do B
suggests.

[Anonymous No.11212678]

I think that this is not an important question.

[Anonymous No.11212680]

>>11212667
>Where's the disconnect?
The disconnect is you wrote:
>Just admit that literally any possible outcome can be pre-determined.
When I never wrote anything suggesting otherwise.
What I have written is that there absolutely, definitely, no doubt whatsoever, provably exist systems that are 100% deterministic where your prediction cannot both be the input for the system and still be right.
This is an empirical example you can try that establishes as much:
>>11212661
Just because you can't hand someone a paper that says what they will do and still have them do it doesn't mean they're using "free will" to defy your prediction.
We know this isn't something you can correctly conclude because you can make an extremely simple deterministic program like the one linked above which will always defy any prediction you feed it.
All that means is its behavioral output is always different from its prediction input. It doesn't mean it's non-deterministic nor does it even mean that it's unpredictable.
In fact it's incredibly predictable, you just add 1 to whatever the input prediction is.
You always know what the answer is going to be, you just can't use that answer as your input.

[Anonymous No.11212687]

>>11212672
You didn't follow the instructions, idiot.
>>11212661
>Hit the button that says "run"
HIT THE BUTTON THAT SAYS "RUN"
IF YOU DON'T DO THAT FIRST IT DOESN'T RUN YOU UNBELIEVABLE RETARD.

[Anonymous No.11212707]

>>11212680
>you just can't use that answer as your input.
but you can, it would just change the determination making the answer false. Do you really not get that? The problem isn't that your system doesn't allow determinations, the problem is that those determinations are not determined. They can change depending on input, and therefore any determination is only determined so far as the input remains hidden. Problem is, we know a whole bunch of inputs (social sciences, psychology) which we react to all the time in ways we were not able to just 100 years ago. So your "determination" is in constant flux with no meaningful way to provide predictive capability to anyone in the system. That is something most deterministic would have a hard time agreeing to.
>determination exists unless determination is known which creates a new determination that exists unless determination is known which creates a new determination that exists unless determination is known which creates a new determination that exists

[Anonymous No.11212717]

>>11212707
f(x) = x + 1 is deterministic.
Determinism doesn't owe you the ability to have prediction inputs yield matching outputs.

[Anonymous No.11212721]

>>11212707
>So your "determination" is in constant flux
No it isn't.
f(x) = x + 1 is not in flux. It is always going to give you x + 1. And you will always know exactly what the answer will be.
That doesn't mean you get to take that answer and make it x.
That's not a determinism problem.

[Anonymous No.11212726]

>>11212717
f(x) = x + 1 isn't the universe, it's an analogy, right? Do you actually think the universe is a giant computer someone typed a one line equation into? Can you think even somewhat abstractly?

[Anonymous No.11212733]

>>11212726
It's the simplest example I can give you of why you're wrong.
And you can't dispute it so you resort to complaining that I'm using it, which is retarded.
Come up with an argument or shut the fuck up.

[Anonymous No.11212736]

>>11212721
We are concerned with the determination, not the determining equation. If the answer changes, then there has been, at the very least, a change in the determination. The answer was 4, but you input 4 and now have 5. 4 != 5. The determination is changed.

[Anonymous No.11212737]

>Suppose someone were thus to see through the boorish simplicity of this celebrated concept of ‘free will’ and put it out of his head altogether, I beg of him to carry his ‘enlightenment’ a step further, and also put out of his head the contrary of this monstrous conception of ‘free will’: I mean ‘unfree will’, which amounts to a misuse of cause and effect. One should not wrongly reify ‘cause’ and ‘effect,’ as the natural scientists do, according to the prevailing mechanical doltishness which makes the cause press and push until it ‘effects’ is end; one should use ‘cause’ and ‘effect’ only as pure concepts, that is to say, as conventional fictions for the purpose of designation and communication—not for explanation.

As always, Nietzsche has the best take.

[Anonymous No.11212740]

>>11212733
>And you can't dispute it so you resort to complaining that I'm using it, which is retarded.
No I told you I thought it was an interesting line of thinking that you are using like a 4 year old kid with downes.

[Anonymous No.11212741]

>>11212737
Here's the full quote btw (it's worth reading the whole thing):

http://nietzsche.holtof.com/reader/friedrich-nietzsche/beyond-good-and-evil/aphorism-21-quote_55f5c2e62.html

[Anonymous No.11212752]

>>11212736
>a change in the determination
No, the "determination" is adding 1.
It's the input that's changing, not the system.
The system is, from the very beginning of its existence, always going to give you 4 for 3 and 5 for 4.
>>11212740
I would love to stop bringing it up but you keep on saying things that are very easily proven wrong by bringing it up.
Stop doing that and I'll stop bringing it up.

[Anonymous No.11212798]

>>11212752
You don’t know what determinism is, do you?

[Anonymous No.11212849]

>>11212190
Nor does it "reject" free will either. "Free will vs. determinism" is a normie-tier debate that supposes the existence of an independent entity acting separately from the rest of the cosmos. At the highest levels of reality, such a distinction does not exist.

Lrn2non duality.

[Anonymous No.11212854]

>>11210801
The instant you choose to add to the list the fact that you will give the list to the guy, the list instantly changes, and when the list instantly changes, it instantly changes again because the action of giving the paper has changes. Now this series of infinite changes, the way it "behaves", that can be predicted because actions are limited, and even if they were not, they are actions which are "closer", in that they are more similar, to other actions, therefore it would cause a similar change in the list. Eventually the series, or function as explained the other anon, would be possible to mathematically model and thus put the subject into a state of affairs where he can't escape, or more precisely would fall into another deterministic scenario when he'd try to escape one. Whet your thought experiment suggests is that there can be only one determenistic scenario for determinism to be possible, but as long as the subject's action are entirely contrained by rules which he did not choose, he is determined.

[Anonymous No.11212870]

>Let's take clinically diagnosed psychopaths for instance. These are people who are genetically different. Their brain structure differs from the average person. They are incapable of empathy and have minimal activity in the amygdala when exposed to highly emotional content. So how can we say these people have free will? They will never be able to comprehend a person's suffering. They will never be able to look at all possibilities in a situation and select the most "moral" option. They are limited by their genetics. They have no input.

They can't feel empathy like a normal person, but they can certainly make a choice. Whether it's based on emotional response or not is somewhat irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.11212881]

>>11210773
>>11210801
>>11212190
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.061.than.html

>"Having approached the brahmans & contemplatives who hold that... 'Whatever a person experiences... is all caused by what was done in the past,' I said to them: 'Is it true that you hold that... "Whatever a person experiences... is all caused by what was done in the past?"' Thus asked by me, they admitted, 'Yes.' Then I said to them, 'Then in that case, a person is a killer of living beings because of what was done in the past. A person is a thief... unchaste... a liar... a divisive speaker... a harsh speaker... an idle chatterer... greedy... malicious... a holder of wrong views because of what was done in the past.' When one falls back on what was done in the past as being essential, monks, there is no desire, no effort [at the thought], 'This should be done. This shouldn't be done.' When one can't pin down as a truth or reality what should & shouldn't be done, one dwells bewildered & unprotected. One cannot righteously refer to oneself as a contemplative. This was my first righteous refutation of those brahmans & contemplatives who hold to such teachings, such views.

[Anonymous No.11212901]

>>11212737
>>11212741
explain a brainlet please

[Anonymous No.11213537]

>>11212854
underrated post

[Anonymous No.11213721]

Reminder that Galen Strawson's Basc Argument is flawless and the only thing that needs to be said as to the (non)existence of free will.

[Anonymous No.11214201]

>>11210801
You moron. The fact that you reading the prediction is also predetermined does not change its effect on your behaviour. It is impossible to create such a document because everytime the recipient reads it it will change their behaviour. This would crate an infinite loop of prediction and behaviour change that would only stop once the reader either dies or stops reading. Therefore we can conclude that such a prediction can only be created if the observed subject is not affected by the prediction which is impossible.
If you can not understand this then just remember that this is just basic quantum uncertainty on a macroscopic scale.

[Anonymous No.11214818]

>>11210773
Brainlet here. What the fuck do you mean by this OP? I can do whatever the fuck I like, how is my will not free? Some days I go to class, others I don't. Sometimes I eat healthy and work out, other times I eat junk and lounge around. My actions are a direct cause of my decision making. The fact that I make decisions means that my will is my own.

[Anonymous No.11214866]

>>11211870
>Does it include or not include the fact that you know it?
Obviously it includes my knowledge, else it weren't a deterministic universe.

>differently.
No, it CAN NOT change my mind, that is the point of knowing the initial conditions.

>possibility
Makes no sense.

>independent
No.
There are no independent things, except maybe the initial consultations.

>The thing is, you cannot know the future without this process of thinking.
So?

>Does that make sense?
No.

[Anonymous No.11215030]

>>11210773
Never mistake cause with effecf, science is the explanation, not the cause of one's will, you can't say it does not exists just because genetics and psychology

[Anonymous No.11215046]

>>11211997
Based

[Anonymous No.11215084]

>>11214818
Your decisions are rooted from your personality, acting "outside" of that is still acting withen it. Decisions of an individual can be predicted. All actions they make are limited by reality,cause and effect, biological, societal, what is considered normal and one's own personality.

[Anonymous No.11215146]

>>11214818
>My actions are a direct cause of my decision making.
Nah, that's after the fact rationalization masquerading as "you" causing things.
Take thought in general for example, nobody can "decide" to have a thought, they just happen and then the interpreter functionality goes:
>"I" had a thought.
It's convenient for this interpretation to take place because then everyone can communicate in terms of this simplified concept instead of needing to get bogged down in all the little physical details that take place in reality.
It's similar to how personal computers lead everyone to believe and behave as though they're interacting with physical objects like "folders," "windows," "buttons," etc. In reality no such objects exist and it's just a manipulation of light displays that gets users to provide the right sorts of input that allow for instructions to the machine to get carried out.
Biological organisms aren't exempt from causality, everything the body does is a product of physical causes.

[Anonymous No.11215186]

>>11214818
Your decionmaking is a direct result of factors that are outside your control. You may think you chose to do this and that, but really you were driven to do those things based on stimuli in the world which triggered your impulses.

[Anonymous No.11215389]

>>11210773
>Apprehending suffering and acting morally constitutes free will
But they can still choose whether to use the knife or the bludgeon when killing the neighbors dog.

[Anonymous No.11215418]

I take the fact that I can take arbitrary and/or counter productive actions as one intuitive argument for a will. With a keen awareness of the arguments against free will, I can choose to be very aware and deliberate when making decisions, that I simply think it's absurd to think that the "I" that I posses acts purely as an automaton.

There are plenty of situations where I am the only entity that knows what I am going to do.

[Anonymous No.11215438]

>>11215418
>the only entity that knows
Privacy isn't free will.
That's like saying telephones are magic because they limit who can hear you.
In both cases it's a less than absolute form of privacy too since it's still possible to tap into it with enough effort and technology.
>arbitrary
Never arbitrary. There is nothing anyone can point to in personal behavior that exists beyond causality. At best the word "whimsical" might seem to apply because the behavior isn't strictly necessary for survival, but even in seemingly whimsical / erratic behaviors there's always going to be causes. Behavior doesn't just appear fully formed out of nowhere.

[Anonymous No.11215444]

i like how people can comment on psychological states without even picking up a textbook or peer revievewed article.

holy shit

im not going to tell you you are wrong or right.
im am going to tell you that you need to read up on lot more theraputic practises and modalities.
as well as how psychology understands the will or volition.

im sure the reason you havent read up on anything like that becuase you guys are all misanthropes.

[Anonymous No.11215470]

>>11215444
You don't sound like an authority on the topic yourself honestly.

[Anonymous No.11215486]

>>11215389
It appears to us that they chose it, but in reality their decision was based upon a long string of causes and effects that led them there and shaped their will.

[Anonymous No.11215506]

>>11215418
Circumstances out of your or anyone else's control causes you to have the idea to change your mind. You can think "I am deciding to do this contrary to all logical reasoning and convention", but that doesn't mean you chose to do that out of your own will. Your will is slave to factors you have no knowledge of, even just simple things like it being a cloudy day, or you watching a funny video the night before, or you stubbed your toe which triggered the emotional response that led you to your current state of mind.

[Anonymous No.11215509]

>>11215486
You’re actually half right. The origin of evil is best summarized by Plato I believe. Book X of the Laws.

He says there that an evil thing is ignorance. But to be offended at this ignorance is natural, to take offense at this offense? That’s your fault, and that’s how evil behavior begins.

He uses a very complex analogy with conversation. For instance, if, during a conversation, you say something that offends someone and you didn’t mean it, that’s fine, he is right to take offense. But you either a) remaining steadfast in your ignorance believing it’s the truth or b) simply just being angry at their reproach for being offended, then that is the origin of evil. You will take that attitude with you elsewhere until proven wrong. And you will be proven wrong.

Remember that’s an analogy though, true judgment is swift, and if you don’t incorporate that judgment into your mental framework and perception of reality, you will become an aberration that deserves judgment on what you’re doing.

[Anonymous No.11215517]

>>11212901
freedom does exists
it just doesnt appear that way when we can model behavior.

many people on the free will debate see free will as "what man uses to solve problems"
but when there are no more problems to solve other than "what do i do now?" free will definitely plays a role and is much harder to predict outcomes when the person isn't confined with a problem box.

[Anonymous No.11215524]

>>11215517
>free will definitely plays a role and is much harder to predict outcomes
Being more difficult to predict isn't free will.
It's increasing complexity of causes.
The weather doesn't have free will for example, it just has an extremely large amount of non-free causes.

[Anonymous No.11215531]

>>11215470
probably becuase you are a baby spoonfed faggot. and you realize the feeding spoon is your entire life.
probably why you believe in a deterministic non will. becuase all you jniw is the shit getging shoveled into your gob to regurgitate back up again.

god 4chan does suck.
i think im gonna pay 10$ to lotax instead of being subjected to shills and hyper depressed and mega suggestive faggots.

i pity you all.

[Anonymous No.11215540]

>>11215531
4chan is an 18+ website little buddy.

[Anonymous No.11215548]

>>11215524
just becuase you "know" what someone will do doesnt make the will any less free.

your just the kind of person who likes to see people fail and live off their salty tears.
i mean people contantly fight addiction and some succeed. there arw certain preductors for it. but there is no garuntee they will relapse until they actually do rge drug.
and oeople constantly work to better themselves instead of being a lazy piece of shit.
many goons and anons have done this.

[Anonymous No.11215560]

>>11215540
i was expecting a better comeback to that considering this board. but if you need time to shuffle through all the canned replies or imagine what oscar wilde would say i can wait.

i pity your droll and unimaginitive reply.
but i have faith that the will to tryhard is within you.

[Anonymous No.11215683]

>>11215560
Ur a faget

[Anonymous No.11216075]

Here's a hot take, boys:
The question of whether we have free will or not is a giant waste of time, because we cannot live as though we have no free will. Regardless of what the ultimate source of our decisions objectively is, we must continue to live as though we do have some degree of agency.

Sure, the choices we make are obviously affected by countless factors that are beyond our control, but to take that to the ultimate and claim that we have no free will at all seems like a very dangerous game to play: what do we do with ourselves if we find out that this is irrefutably the case? In my estimation, it would destroy us.

Between assuming that our choices are our own—possibly erroneously—and succumbing to the fact that we have no agency because the concept of free will is proven false by the rules of determinism, the former world view seems preferable to me. Regardless of what turns out to be the case from an objective point of view, we can't escape our subjective experience, in which the choices we make present themselves as our own, therefore we have free will at least in some capacity, even if the appearance of its existence is technically illusory. Sure it's an illusion of you look at it through a materialistic lens; so is everything else we experiene subjectively... but those illusions are also all we truly have. Why would we want to undo that? Why would we convince ourselves that the only truth is the part of reality that we can't even experience directly?

I for one, (pretend to) choose to continue pretending that I have agency. Fuck objective reality. It has nothing to do with me.

[Anonymous No.11216115]

>>11216075
If you want to go down that route, there are benefits to recognizing free will is bullshit.
One good example is vindictiveness, people tend to treat other people worse when they operate in terms of the free will concept.
This plays out with topics like criminal justice and the war on drugs.
It's the difference between torturing and executing people for being evil drug users vs. helping addicts get off drugs by recognizing they're a product of unfortunate circumstances.
Or the difference between blaming diseased people for their conditions instead of recognizing the impersonal physical circumstances (e.g. bacteria or genetics) that cause illness to occur.

[Anonymous No.11216126]

>>11216075
>>11216115

[Anonymous No.11216143]

>>11216126
Not actually applicable here, I'm not even claiming whether there's value or not in the universe one way or the other.
Also that's a shit picture in general because Mickey confuses a lack of personal meaning (absurdity) with a lack of veridical reliability.
Just because things are absurd doesn't mean the information you're receiving is on shaky grounds in terms of accuracy.

[Anonymous No.11216149]

>>11216075
Like the other anon said, the idea of free will has led to some terrible beliefs in our society. That criminals are responsible for their actions and deserve to be punished is one of them. Our entire prison system is developed on this idea that people should pay the consequences for their actions, when really it is the state that is creating criminality (on purpose). The idea of rugged individualism in capitalist society is highly based on the idea of free will.

[Anonymous No.11216152]

>>11216143
its a funny talking mouse, nerd

[Anonymous No.11216225]

>>11216115
I'm not arguing against the idea that our decisions are influenced by outside factors (which I think is self evident) but against a complete reduction to such factors to a point where the very concept of autonomous decisions is disregarded.

>>11216149
But criminals are responsible, and while I'm more in favor of rehabilitaion as far as that's possible (and I think it is possible to a much greater extent than most societies currently take it) I don't think we can afford to absolve people of the responsibilitiy for their actions entirely.
While I agree that we've failed to take external influences into account in the past (and likely still today) I oppose the idea that criminals are merely victims of circumstance.
Also, I'm no legal expert, but AFAIK the factors that are known to increase the likelyhood of criminal behaviour are already being taken into account as possible mitigating factors in most of the developed world. Not to mention the fact that not nearly everybody who's subjected to such factors ends up committing crimes.

[Anonymous No.11216284]

>>11216225
>a complete reduction to such factors
That's a good thing too, it's part of the benefits of inducing a psychedelic ego death, realizing "you" aren't really making thoughts or actions happen and continuity of self is just a story. That's the relief of a lot of psychological distress.

[Anonymous No.11216308]

>>11215548
Define free please

[Anonymous No.11216338]

>>11216308
in the context of the will.
independant agency without significant attachment.

[Anonymous No.11216340]

>>11216308
not coerced in other words

[Anonymous No.11216344]

>>11216225
Criminals literally are victims of circumstance. Every single thing that someone does can be explained by external factors that they had no control over. Donald Trump was also a victim of circumstance merely because he was born into the Trump family. Sure you can say that he was super smart and got rich through hard work, but really he lucked out big time with his birth placement. His father saw to his education, and he was raised around the elite, and developed connections merely by being alive. A poor person cannot be held accountable simply because our society is structured in a way that necessitates poverty, so there will always be people born into poverty with many factors forcing them to stay that way. If these factors, debt slavery being one of the biggest, were not in place, capitalist society would collapse. It is built upon inequality, and it has been in the interest of the elites to maintain it. Yes, it is possible for a few from the poorer classes to elevate themselves through hard work, and these ones convince all the others that it is possible, but as a whole, it is impossible for the poor population to elevate themselves because they are a necessary part of the system.

[Anonymous No.11216355]

How does free will work when your brain is mostly destroyed?

[Anonymous No.11216358]

>>11216344
do you think trump wanted to be opportunistic or do you think he had to be?

[Anonymous No.11216364]

>>11216344
>Every single thing that someone does can be explained by external factors that they had no control over.
>t. p-zombie

[Anonymous No.11216374]

>>11216355
limiting in choices


now that i think of it
free will threads are troll threads.

[Anonymous No.11216391]

>>11216364
In a way we are zombies. The idea that any of us have free will is a complete lie meant to convince us to love our enslavement. Yeah sureee, we are "free" in that we can travel and say what we want and "own" property, but what actually happens most of the time? People just sit in front of their tv or computer for free time, work all day in the same monotony, listen to all the same newscasters, consume all the same propaganda, eat all the same poisoned food, and go to the same brainwashing schools. Totally free. Oh, but muh property that's owned by banks and can be taken away at any time? Riighht.

[Anonymous No.11216415]

>>11216391
you'll understand when you grow up anon

[Anonymous No.11216468]

>>11216415
>can't handle reality as it really is
>needs to put head in sand in order to cope
>"grow up"

[Anonymous No.11216475]

>>11216284
I'm no stranger to psychedelics and have experienced ego death (which indeed was the most liberating moment of my life) but I still don't think we can afford to let go of the idea that what presents itself as reality to us in our daily lives is something over which we can exert influence.
While we're here, stuck in our delusions of the self, we can gather information about the nature of the illusion but we mustn't reduce it to an illusion to such an extent that we start treating it as some sort of meaningless that we merely passively observe. Wouldn't that defeat the purpose? Maybe there isn't a purpose... but that's not what they told me. Who were they? I don't know, they didn't appear to me physically but they were as much part of me as they were of you and everything else, and what they told me was something I felt like I had always known. If that sounds nonsensical, then perhaps the drug-induced psychedelic experience isn't actually such a reliable source of information after all.

>>11216344
Alright, so everyone is a victim of circumstance. Now what do we do?
My point is that even if this is the case, it is still preferable to pretend that we have agency, if necessary defying all evidence to the contrary, because the alternative is an existential nightmare in which nothing matters and life just happens to us while we passively let it determine every aspect of our experience without any possible way to exert our will. If that's the truth, then truthfully is the most bitch ass way to live.

[Anonymous No.11216497]

>>11216364
Free will vs. determinism has nothing to do with the philosophical zombie thought experiment.
Also you're using it wrong anyway because the entire point is it only works if you keep all physical / observable factors identical between zombies and non-zombies. If you can tell someone is a zombie by observing their behavior then the argument falls apart since it's meant to establish there's something other than physical / observable factors that constitutes the qualia / hard problem stuff.

[Anonymous No.11216514]

>>11216475
I think you're overstating how bad it is to recognize non-reality of free will.
It's really not that big of a deal and certainly isn't a "nightmare."
It's nothing more than attributing events and behavior to actual, sensible and physical causes instead of stopping at the thought terminating meaninglessness that is the "I" explanation.

[Anonymous No.11216544]

>>11216391
>Oh, but muh property that's owned by banks and can be taken away at any time?
Jesus fucking Christ there should be a philosophy board with an entrance exam. Did you actually just argue free will doesn't exist because people are lazy and banks can foreclose on you? What in the fuck?

[Anonymous No.11216576]

>>11216075
This anon gets it. Kant already said something similiar, possibility is one of the fundamental cathegories of understanding, we can't do away with it.
If free will is real then it doesn't matter and we can go on and live as we've always lived. If free will isn't real then it has never been real and we can go on and live as we've always lived.
>>11216115
But recognizing that some things are product of circumstance IMPLIES the concept of free will: "this was outside of your free will and you couldn't control it". For something to be outside of free will there is to be a free will. Free will may not be real metaphysically, but it is real in our minds and we can't do away with it. For example, in the things you cited there is implied that WE CHOOSE to treat criminals differently. We exercised the free will in our minds, and we can't say that we haven't.

[Anonymous No.11216595]

>>11216497
It was a joke based on the fact we have a quale of choice. Saying we have no internal influence over our actions sounds like someone who has never experienced that quale. Don't treat greentext as an argument lmao.

[Anonymous No.11216600]

>>11216576
>But recognizing that some things are product of circumstance IMPLIES the concept of free will
No, there's a difference between a doctor hitting your knee with a hammer and triggering a reflex vs. you walking up a flight of stairs, it doesn't mean one act is free and the other isn't. It means one act is more direct and the other involved a little more (still deterministic) brain activity.
You can't seriously believe determinists don't believe in the existence of a distinction between reflexes and higher order behavior.

[Anonymous No.11216608]

>>11216595
I know it's a joke, it's a shit joke because you're using the thought experiment wrong in multiple different ways.
Good jokes work because the person telling them understands what they're talking about.

[Anonymous No.11216631]

>>11216608
I just explained it to you. Do you just not get it? Or do you not have a quale for choice? Shit, maybe 4chan already got taken over by the singularity; I'm the last human on here.

[Anonymous No.11216712]

>>11216576
I've never actually read Kant, but I'd take this one step further: not only *can* we go on and live as we've always lived regardless of whether free will exists; we have no other choice. The alternative is... what? To decide to start living as though we do not have free will? That's both paradoxical, and practically impossible.

[Anonymous No.11216718]

>>11216544
It's just an example to show how we think we have free will in our society, but we really do not. Yes, the bank will usually only foreclose on you if you can't pay, but that doesn't mean shit can't happen, maybe like a financial crisis that forces people to lose their homes. You think you actually own any of your possessions? You don't even own yourself. The state can claim anything you own, including you. Just because they hide behind a screen of morality and only exercise their power in certain circumstances doesn't mean that you actually own your shit.

[Anonymous No.11216740]

>>11216600
>You can't seriously believe determinists don't believe in the existence of a distinction between reflexes and higher order behavior.
Metaphysically there is no distinction. Everything is by necessity. Where this distinction exists is however ALSO where we can say that free will exist: the mind. Note that I used "we can say", it doesn't matter if it's real metaphysically or not, but we can't possibly do away with it MENTALLY. This is the compatibilist position.
>>11216712
Exactly.

[Anonymous No.11216751]

>>11216718
Free will doesn't mean total freedom, it means any freedom. The choice to hang yourself in a jail cell is free will, even if the state has taken literally everything from you -- the two are philosophically unconnected. You could be a slave that owns nothing and still have the choice to stay or run away or resist or work really hard.

[Anonymous No.11216755]

>>11210773
Free will sort of exists, but only as a figure of speech. Same as the self or maybe even subjectivity generally.

[Anonymous No.11217018]

>>11210773
>They will never be able to look at all possibilities in a situation and select the most "moral" option.
The whole point of creating morality is to allow psychopaths to follow a rational system of rules that would make them act as if they had empathy.

[Anonymous No.11217336]

>>11216751
I'm not saying that not having free will on a societal level is the same as not having it in a literal sense. It's just an example to show how the idea of not having free will plays out on a smaller scale.

As to your examples, if someone hangs themselves in a jail cell, yes it is a choice, but his choice was driven by forces that were external to him. Going insane is something is something that happens in prison, and at that point you're not choosing anything at all, merely being driven by animal instinct.

A slave can choose to either run away or keep working, but his choice will be based in factors that were external to him. The desire to preserve oneself in the face of overwhelming hardship is not easily resisted.

[Anonymous No.11217455]

>>11216338
How can you be independent of cause and effect?

[Anonymous No.11217489]

>>11217455
By understanding internal effects and their causes, both internal and external, and manipulating them to achieve your desired effects.

[Anonymous No.11217661]

Itt: no one who understand will is seperate from the self

[Anonymous No.11218028]

It's easy. When the All is watching, he can see the full path, when the individuated being is watching he cannot and is forced to act as if he had free will. Easy!

[Anonymous No.11218101]

Only a cuck argues about something so obvious.

[Anonymous No.11219367]

>>11218101

Lol no

[Anonymous No.11219388]

>>11217336
You don't have to be insane to kill yourself anon.
>The desire to preserve oneself in the face of overwhelming hardship is not easily resisted.
So what your saying is that it's really hard to practice free will because of society and biology. I agree. But any form of resistance implies an independent contrary force, a will, which is resisting. When it resists against those factors, the cause couldn't be those factors, the will is free of those factors. A resisting will is a free will.

[Anonymous No.11219395]

>>11211224
cum is better than shit

[Anonymous No.11219802]

>>11210773
Free will is literally self-evident, much as consciousness is. It is not a question of how it is possible--rather it is a question of what number of metal hoops could you possibly have arranged to convince yourself that you do not exist.

[Anonymous No.11221278]

>>11212737
>so compatibilism
even if you know there is no free will you cannot act so
thank nietchy

[Anonymous No.11221307]

>>11214866
god
is your IQ really this low
You know at this point I really dont know how to explain to you. My argument was literally perfect.
What is it exactly that you don't understand? That you think it's weird if you receive the information of everything you're supposed to be able change your mind?

[Anonymous No.11221424]

>>11210773
Considering no objects or patterns exist, we just interpret them, coming up with the conclusion that the patterns rule over us is retarded.

[Anonymous No.11221632]

>>11221424
It's not just retarded. To erect the products of our subjective interpretation as truths that exist independently of ourselves is really just another form of religious idolatry. Pic related is largely about this topic.

[Anonymous No.11221744]

>>11217489
>manipulating them
The act of manipulating internal causes and effects is also a part of causality.
You never get to just have a thought or action that magically appears out of nowhere with no preceding cause.

[Anonymous No.11221749]

>>11221424
>Considering no objects or patterns exist, we just interpret them
The "we" in that sentence is as much a contrived object as everything else.

[Anonymous No.11221758]

>>11210801
what if i am determined to be free?

[Anonymous No.11222030]

>>11221632
>the products of our subjective interpretation
That's the thing though, the ego doesn't really create anything.
It's the main character in a series of cartoons that simplify complicated physical processes underlying behavior by explaining it after the fact with the thought terminating notion of "I did it."
Here's a list of some examples where this "I" story telling mechanism reveals itself for what it really is:
1) Split brain experiments: Patients in those famous Gazzaniga experiments had two severed hemispheres each operating without the normal capacity to exchange information between one another. The patients still each believed they were a single, unified "self," but when tested it became clear behavioral output from the left hemisphere includes blatantly untrue rationalizations that cover up gaps in knowledge e.g. pic related where (because of the way hemispheres control sides of the body opposite to each's own location in the skull) the patient's left hemisphere view can see the right hemisphere selection but explains it in terms of a lie based on the left hemisphere selection.
2) Dreams: Most of higher cognitive brain function is not active and insane scenarios are almost always accepted as normal and true, yet upon awakening we behave as though the "self" that's awake and the "self" of the dream are both the same "me" i.e. it's all explained after the fact in terms of one unified ego.
3) Time: "You" 20 years ago is treated as though it shares an identity with "you" today.
4) Alien hand syndrome: Complex, apparently conscious arm movements but subject asserts it's not "me" doing it, pointing to the mechanism of "self" attribution for behavior being something that can be altered or even outright eliminated.
5) Right hemisphere stroke delusions: Common one is denial a paralyzed arm is paralyzed when it clearly is, with obviously untrue rationalizations when pressed on the issue like "that's not my arm, doctor, it's the arm of the patient sitting in the bed across from mine."
6) Ego death on psychedelic compounds: Also points to the role of "self" as a rationalization mechanism rather than the literal cause of mental activity given that certain mind altering drugs can result in the mechanism's suppression with mental activity still going on in the absence of a sense of "self" orchestrating the activity.