/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16684699]

Is free will real?

[Anonymous No.16684715]

You can't choose what you want. Your desires are running the show. So no. If freewill existed you would know precisely what you will be doing in ten minutes.

[Anonymous No.16684733]

It's mostly a DNA program telling you to survive and reproduce. It cares nothing for the individual destroyed in the process.

[Anonymous No.16684746]

Can you make robot noises and roll across the street? If so congratulations you're not an npc

[Anonymous No.16684748]

>>16684699
Yes, but also no. But yes it is.

[Anonymous No.16684749]

Free will only stops existing from an outsider point of view. For yourself, you will always feel as if you have it, and that feeling is not an illusion for you. Everything is ultimately feeling, the living-through of your perspective in the world, which obviously includes both the feeling of having free will and the feeling of not having it.

[Anonymous No.16684775]

Try not eating, breathing, and thinking. Then tell us your conclusion.

[Anonymous No.16684786]

The conspiracy against the human race T. Ligotti

[Anonymous No.16684803]

No, but act like it is. Trust me. It's better for you.

[Anonymous No.16684828]

>>16684803
this, save yourself by not thinking about it

[Anonymous No.16684829]

talking about it is misleading from actual life and living itself, it’s exciting debating the thing but the more I procrastinate this video I’m supposed to edit the more I think I’m a slave

[Anonymous No.16684834]

>>16684699
Depends on what you mean.

[Anonymous No.16684838]

No. In the block universe everything is predetermined.

>b-b-but that means it's ok if I kill people and it isn't my fault!!
Yes.

[Anonymous No.16684842]

>>16684699
Nope. All you have is the illusion of choice.

[Anonymous No.16684858]

>>16684715
>If freewill existed you would know precisely what you will be doing in ten minutes.
I guess you should speak for yourself npc

[Anonymous No.16684867]

>>16684858
Yes, yes anon. You're free. In fact, you're the only free being in this universe. Enjoy!

Feeling better now? Need any more reassurance for your feeble ego?

[Anonymous No.16684868]

>>16684699
Is everything determined? Determined by what, exactly? And what determines this? Logically, there must be something undetermined. But if it exists, then it may exist in some way inside all of us, so that we are not as determined as you think.

[Anonymous No.16684897]

>>16684842
Illusion is a subset of reality. it is batter to say that choose is phenominally similar to every other action in the universe and is simply a terminological thing.

[Anonymous No.16684898]

>>16684868
Consciousness in undetermined and infinite. But it doesn't "exist," in the sense it's not phenomenal. Somehow consciousness illuminates the mind thus giving us the illusion of free will, but the manifested body mind can't really be free.

Also, determined isn't the correct word. This is a dualistic trick between freedom-chains. There's no free or determined will, there's only existence.

[Anonymous No.16684907]

>>16684897
Choice or no choice are terminological games.

[Anonymous No.16684937]

>>16684699
Free will isn't even a coherent concept.

https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/free-will-solution

[Anonymous No.16684938]

Yes, but it's not contained "in" the visible universe, it's a transcendent principle of your soul. You won't find it by looking at matter or trying to think about how matter normally works. That would be like looking for something dry underwater.

You are always tapped into your ultimately free soul, but for most humans it becomes routinised and "as if" unfree, because they attach it to so many unfree things and processes in the world. You have to train it and awaken it before you can sense its reality, and even then only mystical experience can truly reveal the essence of freedom.
https://www.metapsychosis.com/colin-wilson-and-the-robot/

[Anonymous No.16684940]

>>16684867
there i no point talking to an npc like you, everything you say as not deliberately chosen by you, but impose, you have no rationality, no knowledge, you cant separate right frpm wrong because you cant choose what to evaluate and believe

im not trying to talk to you, that would be like trying to talk with my toilet paper, im posting this for players

[Anonymous No.16684941]

>>16684699
Yes but not for everyone.

[Anonymous No.16684959]

>>16684867
>Feeling better now? Need any more reassurance for your feeble ego?
Thats an interesting thing for an npc to say, why would an npc argue about free will if he had the rationality to understand what he says implies no one has opinions let alone can change them?

[Anonymous No.16684963]

>>16684699
Yes, but you can use your free will to disagree.

[Anonymous No.16684966]

>>16684937
>Quoting Big Yud

Unless you're aspiring to scam people out of their money, this is cringe.

[Anonymous No.16684994]

>>16684940
>>16684959
Me... NPC... Anon... Free... Bzzzt!

Need more egotistical reassurance?

[Anonymous No.16684997]

>>16684963
Nah, you were predetermined to bitch about it.

[Anonymous No.16685007]

>>16684699
here's one better: are you real?

[Anonymous No.16685015]

>>16685007
solipsism is the greatest comfort

[Anonymous No.16685018]

>>16684937
It is when you stop regarding it as "absolute" free will. This is the problem with most philosophical concepts.

>free will
>morality
>truth
etc.

As soon as you regard any of these as having an absolute form, various logical inconsistencies and pessimistic/defeatist outlooks come into existence.

[Anonymous No.16685023]

>>16684699
Our choices create possible futures. Then God chooses the best possible future. That's the world we live in.

[Anonymous No.16685082]

>>16684699
You have free will prescribed on the basis of your unique temperament and biology.

Free will, broadly speaking, does not exist; but, it's best to behave as if it does, such that personal accountability not be trivialized

[Anonymous No.16685093]

>>16684699
what difference does it make?

[Anonymous No.16685119]

>>16684699
I have, but you don't

[Anonymous No.16685181]

Free will will exist.

[Anonymous No.16685223]

>>16684749
>that feeling is not an illusion for you
Oh boy

[Anonymous No.16685249]

>>16685223
If you believe it, it becomes an illusion. You can believe in UFOs too if you will.

[Anonymous No.16685260]

>>16684699
yes
and the only distinction between free will and determinism is one of perspective

[Anonymous No.16685268]

>>16684699
One must imagine Sisyphus happy.

[Anonymous No.16685272]

>>16685223
>you are an illusion to yourself
It's a pointless exercise that only neuters your instincts.

[Anonymous No.16685279]

>>16684699
Well I don't know what it means. The universe I understand has either things causing each other, or things happening randomly. I don't see where or what free will is supposed to be in this, I don't understand how it is defined.

[Anonymous No.16685337]

>>16684699
You have to define your terms very precisely but yes; by disproving determinism we can necessarily affirm 'free will' or at the least non-determinism. To do so, we need only find something which exists which can not be determined, which we find in existence itself: if existence itself was determined, and may be determined, something before existence must have existed to determine it. Therefore, determinism is merely a paradox. Free will, or non-determinism, can broadly (without any provided definition) account for existence by positing that a will has created the universe which itself is existence (God). Free will, just as existence itself, requires a creator, either that or existence is infinite and thereby paradoxical and deterministic by nature on a scale incomprehensible. The former and the latter are both possible but ultimately cannot be proven beyond logic.

[Anonymous No.16685349]

>>16685337
can you define free will though

[Anonymous No.16685388]

>>16685337
>by disproving determinism we can necessarily affirm 'free will'
Absolutely wrong. Determinism and free will are concepts based on phenomena that depends on their contrariety to be perceptible to the human intellect. If you "disprove" determinism, you also disprove free will because one depends on the other.

[Anonymous No.16685427]

>>16685388
Apparent contrariety, btw. Because none of them is real.

[Anonymous No.16685436]

[Anonymous No.16685454]

>>16684803
>>16684828
fucking this . i went down the rabbit hole anon and i just fell behind because of it. it's great fun though

[Anonymous No.16685469]

Doesn't matter either way.

[Anonymous No.16685512]

>>16685349
Colloquially, 'free will' might be described as the ability to make decisions free from influences other than your own mind. But anyone can immediately see that the human mind is sculpted from birth by biology, society, etc. This however is not 'hard determinism', except in the very broadest sense; by your birth, you may have been determined by your genes to be an alcoholic, and you may have even been determined to quit alcohol or die from it, but you cannot trace those determinations back to anything. It is a regression to infinity and as I stated, it's a paradox.

>>16685388
>Determinism and free will are concepts based on phenomena that depends on their contrariety to be perceptible to the human intellect. If you "disprove" determinism, you also disprove free will because one depends on the other.
I honestly can't argue with you because we have no definitions here and this discussion needs them. Determinism and free will don't gain value merely because of any value that a human might put on either, if humans can even perceive or quantify their effect on actions pertaining to both themselves and existence. I think I agree that determinism and free will depend on one another broadly but again we need to define exactly what those terms mean. Ultimately though, I think we can all agree what this thread seems to have settled on: it doesn't actually matter.

[Anonymous No.16685545]

>>16684699
who cares? Do what you want

[Anonymous No.16685629]

>>16685512
Determinism or free will are defined by situations where you, the so-called doer, feels in command, so you admit "I did it," or when you feel that wasn't under your control and you admit "I didn't do that," but ultimately, that's a conceptual difference based on a multidimensional reality that cannot be accounted by the mere use of words--hence the apparent paradox. There's no paradox in Reality, there's dualism in the mind that needs to be expressed in words. Also, there's no "I" or any "doer" either.

[Anonymous No.16685686]

Define the kind of free will.
Libertarian free will? The kind that says the will must be a prime mover, a cause that caused itself that in turn causes action? Sure, of course we don't have that.
Or do we mean one of various compatibilist definitions of free will?
One compatibilist definition from Frankfurt that I enjoy is that the will is free when it easily acts out second order volitions. Second order desires are desires about your desires. A volition is the will acting on a desire as to make it actual which would only be impeded by perhaps a physical restraint. A drunk who wants alcohol but doesn't want to want alcohol is in a sense less free that someone who can learn to not want to want it.
The big question becomes, well, you may in a sense have chosen your first order desires given your second order desires, but did you choose your second order desires? And of course while we could go into twelfth order desires or something absurd like that, the answer eventually has to be no. But the question should then become, should that matter to you? Should you care that there are things you inherently value, and that it wasn't your choice to value them? Is not the struggle to live in accordance with your values enough? Is not our ability to mold ourselves slowly to approximate our ideals enough, wherever they may have come from? I say yes. But of course, others may disagree.

[Anonymous No.16685950]

>>16684715
>If freewill existed you would know precisely what you will be doing in ten minutes.
I'll probably still be on 4chan in 10 minutes

[Anonymous No.16685959]

>>16684838
So, does quantum mechanics prove free will doesn't exist?

[Anonymous No.16685990]

>>16684937
>Recognizes that Islam is terrible
Yikes!

[Anonymous No.16686003]

>>16684940
>im not trying to talk to you, that would be like trying to talk with my toilet paper, im posting this for players
B A S E D

[Anonymous No.16686009]

>>16685007
I think and therefore I am.

[Anonymous No.16686018]

>>16685093
I want to know the answer so my curiosity can be satisfied.

[Anonymous No.16686025]

>>16685181
Wait a minute are you saying Hegel thought that free will was real?

[Anonymous No.16686440]

>>16685512
>it doesn't actually matter.
Pretend that it does matter and come up with something

[Anonymous No.16686459]

>>16685686
>One compatibilist definition from Frankfurt that I enjoy is that the will is free when it easily acts out second order volitions. Second order desires are desires about your desires. A volition is the will acting on a desire as to make it actual which would only be impeded by perhaps a physical restraint. A drunk who wants alcohol but doesn't want to want alcohol is in a sense less free that someone who can learn to not want to want it.
So, is this how you define free will?

[Anonymous No.16686726]

>>16684699
No - physics is entirely deterministic of everything even at the lowest level of your conscious. Free will would imply that you get to "choose" your favorite color to be green instead of blue but in reality there is some combination of neurons in your brain that make you feel that way

[Anonymous No.16686737]

>>16684867
Wow, I'm amazed, you really are an NPC,

[Anonymous No.16686839]

>>16686737
But of course. And I'm amazed why you care so much about NPCs. Identity crisis, perhaps?

[Anonymous No.16686875]

You see anon, it does not matter whether free will is real.

[Anonymous No.16687582]

>>16686459
It's how I think about free will in an every day context, yeah. Mostly because it covers everything that matters to me with regards to the will.

[Anonymous No.16687598]

>>16685337
>something before existence
>time
is an illusion, your argument is bunk

[Anonymous No.16687606]

>>16685268
there you go anon

[Anonymous No.16687702]

>>16684803
This guy gets it.

[Anonymous No.16687731]

>>16684699
Yes, and the choice is between to live according to the nature of things or death. So actually no.

[Anonymous No.16687751]

Yes, and the choice is between to follow God or death. So actually no.

[Anonymous No.16687788]

>>16684699
you cant answer that question philosophically bc it's existentially fundamental (thus predicable but not provable, analogical to a mathematical axiom), but belief in free will takes precedent over the contrary stance on moral grounds
take the petersonpill

[Anonymous No.16687804]

>>16687606
Nice, it also fits perfectly with the pajeet's ideology. The bhagavad gita is basically old school Myth of Sisyphus

[Anonymous No.16687812]

>>16687804
>The bhagavad gita is basically old school Myth of Sisyphus
i dont know if this comparison is galaxy brained or room temp iq but either way i dont get it

[Anonymous No.16687813]

I am, therefore I think

[Anonymous No.16687823]

>>16687813
How did you establish your ego before thinking?

[Anonymous No.16687831]

>>16687823
he just does

[Anonymous No.16687841]

>>16687831
Conceptualizing without thinking? He must be good. I wish I knew this magical technique.

[Anonymous No.16687858]

>>16687841
you already do anon
thoughts flow in your unconscious and are summoned to consciousness at your beck and call
you cant help but be an ego
do you think about your foot before walking?

[Anonymous No.16687880]

>>16687858
Your consciousness cannot be a "you," because this is a concept. So there's no "me" before thinking.

[Anonymous No.16687884]

Who cares?

[Anonymous No.16687896]

>>16687880
throwing bendy linguistics at me does nothing to refute your existence anon
lets go the whole circle
>your (you) cannot be a consciousness, because this is a concept. so there is no "consciousness" before thinking.
>i think therefore i am

[Anonymous No.16687913]

>>16687896
No, no. You don't understand. There's no "you." Existence doesn't require the ego. The Self is silence. The "I am" is mentation.

[Anonymous No.16687919]

>>16687913
>The Self is silence
bugman wordy words i dont see it
self doesnt exist if you have to think about it

[Anonymous No.16687920]

>>16684699
Nope, you're completely bound to the physical reality.

[Anonymous No.16687921]

>>16684699
Free will is recursive.

[Anonymous No.16687930]

>>16684699
Free will was disproven ages ago by people who inevitably ended up in the ground. The limitation of time determines this. No one cares what you do while you are dancing between the periods.

[Anonymous No.16687936]

>>16687919
The Self IS existence.

[Anonymous No.16687945]

>>16687936
and my cock is massive
you think and say so much about the self
if it exists (or is being itself as you insist) how come you fail to convince me of this

[Anonymous No.16687949]

>>16686839
Oh my goodness look! It's even programmed with the
>if you're opposed to thing you secretly love thing
response

[Anonymous No.16687950]

>>16684699
No but it might as well be

[Anonymous No.16687956]

>>16687945
Who's the thinker behind the thinking?

[Anonymous No.16687961]

>>16687956
Not you

[Anonymous No.16687965]

>>16687949
Anon, do you need a hug? I can give you a virtual one:
*hugs*
Feeling okay now?

[Anonymous No.16687971]

keep going! I just made popcorn.

[Anonymous No.16687973]

>>16687961
Definitely.

[Anonymous No.16687974]

>>16687956
the thinker thinking the thinking that thinks the thinker probably idk

[Anonymous No.16687977]

Also, can't we assume the Whitmanian self as a different self than the self's self? Seems fair enough to me. Multilayered self. Bit more interesting than arguing that your right is my left.

[Anonymous No.16687980]

>>16687974
There's no thinker.

[Anonymous No.16687993]

>>16687980
but you just implied there was
>whos the thinker behind the thinking
little weird to ask "who" does the thinking if theres no thinker innit

[Anonymous No.16688011]

>>16687980
>>16687993
Excuse me anon, but I believe anon means that there is no anon that is doing the thinking, the 'who' was just a formalization of human language. We are actually figments and ideas floating around in the dormant brain of a braindead extra-dimensional beast. Also beast doesn't quite say it, because - you know - ain't no word for what it is that ain't.

[Anonymous No.16688013]

>>16687993
That's the point. There's no "thinker," all that comes before thinking is consciousness and consciousness is silence. All you concepts are mentations. If you can't conceptualize it, good--that what it Is.

[Anonymous No.16688024]

>>16688011
yeah i get his line of reasoning having read nondualist theory i just think its bunk and im being intentionally dense to show his rhetoric as untenable and unconvincing

>>16688013
>thinking is consciousness and consciousness is silence
refer to
>your (you) cannot be a consciousness, because this is a concept. so there is no "consciousness" before thinking.
>if you can't conceptualize it, good--that what it Is
but you just conceptualized it as what can't be conceptualized

[Anonymous No.16688033]

>>16687965
How long have you been on 4chan friendo, don't no fibs

[Anonymous No.16688042]

>>16688024
hm. well, carry on, just passing through. Seems like a real battle of egos. Just imagine when the Chinese finger puzzles come out, we'll have to bolt our shoes to the floor.

[Anonymous No.16688051]

>>16688042
>Seems like a real battle of egos
exactly
>you cant help but be an ego

[Anonymous No.16688057]

>Is free will real?

when you ask a question you have already answered it because you are not generating anything new, you are merely picking a point in the eternal circle and keep going around it.

[Anonymous No.16688065]

>>16688057
ahah, appeal to infinite regression. I like that. This circle rocks!

[Anonymous No.16688069]

>>16687813
>>16687823
if forgot what the argument he made was but unamuno does this in tragic sense of life. dunno if anon is referencing that, probably not

[Anonymous No.16688073]

When the souls arrived at the light, they had to go to Lachesis right away. There a Speaker arranged them in order, took from the lap of Lachesis a number of lots and a number of models of lives, mounted a high pulpit, and spoke to them: “Here is the message of Lachesis, the maiden daughter of Necessity: ‘Ephemeral souls, this is the beginning of another cycle that will end in death. Your daemon or guardian spirit will not be assigned to you by lot; you will choose him. The one who has the e first lot will be the first to choose a life to which he will then be bound by necessity. Virtue knows no master; each will possess it to a greater or less degree, depending on whether he values or disdains it. The responsibility lies with the one who makes the choice; the god has none.’”

[Anonymous No.16688074]

>>16688024
Thinking is not consciousness. Thinking is thinking. Consciousness is the background of existence that illuminates your mind without being absorbed by it.

>but you just conceptualized it as what can't be conceptualized
We try our best, but fail miserably. Thus the reason why my description barely explain anything, as you probably already noticed. The only way to truly understand is via zazen.

[Anonymous No.16688106]

>>16684715
>If freewill existed you would know precisely what you will be doing in ten minutes.
>free will giving you the power to see into the future
wut, isn't free will the power to choose between at least two things? or do you define free will as you can do everything you want and without consequences

[Anonymous No.16688124]

>>16684748
maybe?

[Anonymous No.16688130]

>>16686009
Thinking doesnt equate being and identity isn't correlated with thinking

[Anonymous No.16688136]

>>16688130
why the hell not

[Anonymous No.16688140]

>>16688130
Not if he's talking about his conceptual identity, i.e. the ego.

[Anonymous No.16688141]

>>16685249
>thinking only earth has carbon based flying beings

[Anonymous No.16688159]

>>16688024
Nondualism is retarded that's why.

[Anonymous No.16688167]

>>16684699
No. My shitposting is preordained and so I will continue.

[Anonymous No.16688189]

>>16684699
It all depends on how you define 'freedom'. While most would agree that we have this power, to exercise free will, in order to be able to make decisions and be responsible for our actions, we have to be able to freely make choices that are compatible with the laws of our own universe.

This is why we're familiar with the question 'why am I here?' – the purpose and the reason for existence. I find that all humans should seriously consider asking this question in their – in order to choose this existence, we need to be able to freely make decisions. The best example is of course the choice between getting into a helicopter and a car.

If you feel like it's the wrong choice, just put the helicopter back. If you feel like you're in the wrong situation, just turn around and walk back to where you started. In the same way, even if we decided that all of this was an illusion, we would still be free to make the decision to leave it and begin a new life.

[Anonymous No.16688192]

>>16688159
>Living in delusion
Oof.

[Anonymous No.16688197]

>>16688159
ech nondualist theology isn't so much retarded in itself as it is retarded to espouse it as the be-all end-all weltanschauung imo
what did plotinus say that makes him relevant to nondualism? genuine q

[Anonymous No.16688212]

>>16688136
Because 99% of the time you are unconsciously identified with the mind and its incessant thoughts. That does not mean the mind/ego/the emotion is you. It's difficult to be present but you can be conscious without thinking, where as to think you need to be conscious

[Anonymous No.16688283]

Metaphysically? No.
Phenomenologically? Eh, maybe.

[Anonymous No.16688363]

Consciousness is an illusion
Individualism doubly so
Free will is so removed from ontic experience you may as well be playing hungry hungry hippos.

[Anonymous No.16688385]

I WANT TO EXIST WITHOUT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF CONSCIOUSNESS
I WANT AUTOMATIC KNOWLEDGE, INSTINCTIVE ACTION, INTUITIVE CERTAINTY
I WANT TO LIVE LIKE A SAVAGE ANIMAL

[Anonymous No.16688402]

>>16688385
you can do this
disinhibit yourself through tantric practice or smt
always let your feelings seize you
angry at someone for skipping in line? bash their skull in immediately
fuck your dog
youll have to get over the fear of death but if you can convince yourself the end goal of unconsciousness is worth it youll get over it p quickly

[Anonymous No.16688413]

>>16684699
Who knows

[Anonymous No.16688429]

>>16688197
He literally was a non-dualist, one of the most influential within the western tradition, I don't know why he was posted with that statement

[Anonymous No.16688831]

>>16684699
The correct answer is, unironically, 'who cares'.

[Anonymous No.16689707]

>>16684699
Free will is a meaningless phrase. If the universe isn't deterministic then it's random. There is no freedom in either system.

[Anonymous No.16689822]

>>16684699
You have a will. It is always under certain influence but for the most part has the final word and thus makes you responsible of your actions.