Free Will

[Anonymous No.19541073]

Any books or authors that try to reconcile modern findings of neuroscience with free will? I'm grasping at straws

[Anonymous No.19541081]

[Anonymous No.19541086]

>>19541073
What does Neuroscience say OP?

[barthbro No.19541098]

>>19541073

[Anonymous No.19541141]

>>19541086
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bereitschaftspotential
>>19541081
What should I read?

[Anonymous No.19541158]

>>19541141
Gravity's Rainbow is about a guy getting tortured by a British psychological research department. They're kinda old fashioned pavlovians.

[Anonymous No.19541164]

>>19541086
Free will is extremely limited, many actions are planned hours in advance, we attribute outside and internal forces performing an action to ourselves doing it. That fuckface Sam Harris wrote a monograph on it but has pretty much zero knowledge of current philosophy on the extent of free will. Worth a read for an overview of the science.

[Anonymous No.19541167]

>>19541141
>1965
>modern
I'd bet a million dollars no one has successfully and meaningfully replicated this "study." It's total bullshit: basically equivalent to astrology.

[Anonymous No.19541193]

>>19541167
Now it's all done under MRI, showing the same pre-activation. Studies showing people can't tell they aren't the ones moving a computer mouse are more damning.

[Anonymous No.19541213]

>>19541098
Sounds comfy, but how does it tackle the problem? I hope you don't mind explaining, I don't feel like reading a whole book that may not even touch the subject

[Anonymous No.19541219]

>>19541167
it's been replicated a lot apparantly.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/09/free-will-bereitschaftspotential/597736/

but there have been other conclusions drawn from the data now.

[Anonymous No.19541223]

>>19541219
can i have that million dollars you owe me now btw please?

[Anonymous No.19541455]

>>19541164
>we attribute outside and internal forces performing an action to ourselves doing it
That actually is ourselves doing it. What the fuck else is "ourselves"? Once you either reach a coherent and holistic definition of self, or disregard the concept all together, free will is inevitable. Anything my brain does is the power of my self, even if I am not completely conscious of it. I also believe even dreams are our will, since there is no determinate line between conscious and unconscious.

>many actions are planned hours in advance
Any unconscientious person can ignore their own plans, but what you really point to is that our will seems determined by cause and effect, as the whole universe is determined in that same way. I believe cause and effect is part of our unconscious free will, and there is no real possible difference between determinism and free will. However, if one wants to believe they are free, they are not technically wrong and there is certainly some merit to that one side of the coin.

[Anonymous No.19541559]

>>19541219
"Other conclusions" is an understatement if (as this popular science article claims lel) a recent paper overturned major assumptions of the original study and no one can shake the lingering possibility that it is all wrong to begin with nor even begin to touch the subject OP asks about: free will. No million dollars for you.

[Anonymous No.19541714]

[Anonymous No.19541777]

>>19541559
There is no need to take free will seriously when nobody can define it meaningfully

[Anonymous No.19541788]

>>19541073
Kant proves the whole question is beyond the bounds of human experience and impossible to answer, so stop worrying about it

[Anonymous No.19541821]

>>19541141
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bereitschaftspotential

He literally says we have the ability to stop an action though, which means there's a choice involved.

And besides, what about actions that are planned weeks in advance, and then you decide not to do it after all?

[Anonymous No.19541867]

>you don’t have free will because your brain is making decisions
Come again?

[Anonymous No.19541912]

>be retarded academic
>segregate the mind into unconscious and conscious
>unconscious thoughts spring up from the brain without our knowing (citation needed)
>conscious thoughts we control (but not actually because they come from the unconscious)
>attribute all agency to the “conscious”
>make word associated with the literal meaning of agency
>then say our thoughts actually all come from our unconscious AKA we have thoughts
>claim this proves we don’t control our thoughts
>say this means we don’t have free will
>ignorant to the fact that free will as a concept doesn’t make sense as what we call free will isn’t even logical in theory
>free will would require we have thoughts which aren’t immediately connected to memory and to outcome
>eliminates the possibility of thoughts at all
Why am I so much smarter than people making hundreds of thousands to work for years on non-problems

[Anonymous No.19541993]

>>19541912
Because "mentally castrated" and "academically gifted" are not mutually exclusive qualities. A lot of the time, quite the opposite is the case...

[Anonymous No.19542088]

>strawman
>Why am I so much smarter than people making hundreds of thousands to work for years on non-problems

[Anonymous No.19542111]

>>19541455
All plans you're describing are unconscious and the former is >>19541193. Sorry for not being explicit. We think waving our hand and leaves blowing around in the wind is a conscious act as an extremely obvious example of more subtle things. I alluded to the latter issue with harris being shit at what constitutes free will, you're right that causality and awareness of it is pro free will.

[Anonymous No.19542121]

>its another fart sniffing atheists try to convince people things they blatantly experience arent valid because they defined a bunch of shit into existence that contradicts reality
I felt in control typing this, so I was. And men can't be women either

[Anonymous No.19542130]

>>19542121
Feeling in control is not free will, it is just will. Free will is the assertion that your will wasn't caused by anything itself but just manifested into being somehow

[Anonymous No.19542151]

How does this test have anything to do with free will?

[Anonymous No.19542382]

>>19541141
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bereitschaftspotential
wow, our desires originate in our brains. what a fucking discovery. free will is literally finished

[Anonymous No.19542391]

>>19541455
There is no coherent concept of self. Goffman btfo'd the concept of a singular, historically continuous self. We are different people depending on the social situation in which we find ourselves.

[Anonymous No.19542423]

>>19542382
That's not the point that is being raised. The point is that action precedes decision.

[Anonymous No.19542434]

>>19542391
>Goffman was born 11 June 1922, in Mannville, Alberta, Canada, to Max Goffman and Anne Goffman, née Averbach.[3][4] He was from a family of Ukrainian Jews who had emigrated to Canada at the turn of the century.[3] He had an older sibling, Frances Bay, who became an actress.[4][5] The family moved to Dauphin, Manitoba, where his father operated a successful tailoring business.[4][6]
Sure did lmao

[Anonymous No.19542461]

>>19542423
no, it precedes consciousness of a decision

[Anonymous No.19542518]

If we are composed of matter, and if that matter is bound by the laws of physics, then we don't have free will - or at least our understanding of what we refer to as free will is flawed. Decisions being set by the flow of matter doesn't make them non-decisions, since we would make the same decisions every time because the mechanisms leading to the choice we make will be the same every time. Soft determinism. I think it's hard for people to really grasp what they're even talking about when they say free will. It's hard for them to grasp a lot of things when it's ALWAYS reduced to this or that instead of being able to consider this, that, and the other. It's all got to fit in the stupid little channels prescribed by the information bukkake session that our world has become which has ironically obfuscated accurate information.

[Anonymous No.19542539]

>>19542461
You're correct, not because there is such a thing as decision, of course, but because there is only illusory consciousness of a decision. I don't see how is the fact that action precedes "consciousness" of "decision" is any comforting to defenders of the free will hypothesis

[Anonymous No.19542563]

>>19542539
I don't see how the fact that the decision to perform some inconsequential action such as pressing some button that does nothing precedes the consciousness of that decision is any discomforting to those who think people have free will.

[Anonymous No.19542599]

>>19542563
A simple and inconsequential action such as pressing a button was used as an example solely because it is easy to isolate in lab conditions and tested upon. Are you perhaps suggesting that the this principle (that is, "action precedes 'decision'") does not apply to complex actions, which set of factors we cannot even account for but can still be broken down to a set of simple actions? I don't see why that would be the case.
And I do want to believe in free will. I think I'll become even more of a wretch if I don't, so help me out here

[Anonymous No.19542606]

>>19541073
Retard. The fact that the pic you posted is not true is already pop-sci common knowledge (see https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xwVh_kVVdT4).). How the FUCK are you behind the general youtube consoomer?

[Anonymous No.19542612]

>>19541073
You have to prove individuation first.

[Anonymous No.19542618]

>>19542606
I don't watch youtube videos

[Anonymous No.19542621]

>>19542599
>I do want to believe in free will
>so help me out here
Alright, what makes you want your decisions to be free, and what do you want them to be free of? Did you choose the inclinations you have that make you prefer your will to be free? If you had an unequivocal answer to free will, would it change your decisions in the future either way?

[Anonymous No.19542657]

>>19542130
>your will wasn't caused by anything itself but just manifested into being somehow
That's the definition of free will you're going with?

[Anonymous No.19542667]

>>19542518
>we would make the same decisions every time because the mechanisms leading to the choice we make will be the same every time
How do you know this to be true?

[Anonymous No.19542670]

>>19542657
What does it mean then? If your will was in fact caused by something else then it was determined.

[Anonymous No.19542697]

>>19541073
i mean, just read compatibilist literature? start with dennett, he has a partially neuroscience background

[Anonymous No.19542698]

>>19542667
Because as I said in that post, they follow the laws of physics just like everything else. Is a particle just going to defy the laws of physics? Of course not, so how could there be variation? Are we not made of particles?

[Anonymous No.19542715]

What would the world look like if free will was true?

What would the world look like if determinism is true?

[Anonymous No.19542728]

>>19542599
>Are you perhaps suggesting that the this principle (that is, "action precedes 'decision'") does not apply to complex actions, which set of factors we cannot even account for but can still be broken down to a set of simple actions? I don't see why that would be the case.
first, that principle doesn't apply anywhere, because we're only talking about consciousness of a decision, not about a decision.
second, yes, there's clearly a difference between doing or not doing random single motor movements that you don't give a shit about either way and, for example, consciously deliberating about which school you're going to go to for weeks before coming to a well-reasoned decision.
>>19542715
they're both true so you can just look out of your window

[Anonymous No.19542757]

>>19542715
Exactly the same.

[Anonymous No.19542997]

You have to be capable of Orwellian levels of doublethink to consider yourself a "thinker" or "philosopher" while denying the most immediate, obvious, and universally shared empirical truth in all of human life
And if anybody in this thread truly believed in determinism they wouldn't be here arguing about it

[Anonymous No.19543045]

>>19542997
>the most immediate, obvious, and universally shared empirical truth in all of human life
What is?

[Anonymous No.19543064]

If those findings are reliable (though the reporting on when a decision is made is suspicious) then it materialism is even more laughable than before.
That's it

[Anonymous No.19543089]

What is 'singularity theory' and what does it want from 'me'. What is the purpose of analysis. Disprove complacency. It works.

If singularity theory puts me in Algeria what is to be gained, and what would I be but a new set of parameters, and their sum.
Why then, should I ever have even found myself here, if not to realize that the mind wants to catapult towards the annihilation of known parameters. Is it instinct? To compile and sample and discard and reapply. Yes, this is how we change. The present re-orders the past to construct the future. In enough time, even that future can become the past. The exact mechanics behind why these specific reconstructions teases itself as an image of thought beyond reasoning. No real change is made. The present simply took hold, you will tell yourself in the future. Then, if you're still there, that future too will come to pass. I cannot say.

But as sure as water rushes to salt, I know we seek dissolution. As sure as water rescinding, I will be the stubborn calcium deposit left behind.

[Anonymous No.19543729]

>>19543045
Freedom of the will

[Anonymous No.19543745]

I've been choosing a lot of important life decisions based on true random number generators just to piss the universe off.

[Anonymous No.19543767]

>>19543745
It's kind of like picking a favorite ice cream flavor, but without any idea of what's inside. What flavor do you choose?

[Anonymous No.19543808]

>Every choice you make is based on your greater desire (e.g. the decision to eat ice cream or not: the desire to taste the ice cream or the desire to stay thin, as a simple example).
>Your greater desire is not chosen by you but is a result of a complex mixture of past life events, experiences, people, and even simply your own nature (Maybe you REALLY like ice cream and so decide to give in, or maybe your father died from eating too much ice cream so you decide not to give in. You get the idea.) None of these things are chosen by you.
>Therefore every decision you make is based off of a complex mixture of things, all outside of your control, and not "free will".

>>19543729
Okay, but why did you decide to start doing that?

[Anonymous No.19543817]

>>19543808
I meant >>19543745 not >>19543729

[Anonymous No.19543823]

>>19541073
Free will debate is a waste of time. Does not matter at all

[Anonymous No.19543900]

>>19543808
>"Uhhh uhhh free will isn't real all your decisions are just based off of all the things you think and believe."
Genius.

[Anonymous No.19544036]

>>19541993
based ponderer

[Anonymous No.19545409]

>>19543900
Yeah, but the reason you think and believe all of those things are because of forces outside of your control. Is that truly free will then?

[Anonymous No.19545545]

>>19545409
yes. Tabula rasa has free will, and so do I. the fact that you can make statistical predictions based on prior knowledge doesn't mean that the outcome is not free. I wouldn't think that going back to correlation != causation would be necessary when speaking to a determinist, but here we are.

[Anonymous No.19545566]

>>19542997
"Immediate, obvious, and universally shared empirical "truths" is the exact nature of ignorance and complacency: things that you refuse to ponder and question because you feel better believing in them.

>And if anybody in this thread truly believed in determinism they wouldn't be here arguing about it
What if one is predetermined to shitpost on 4chan though?

[Anonymous No.19545572]

>the generation of the entire universe and all corollary, physical facts was an act of my own primordial free will

[Anonymous No.19545607]

>Does a stone falling to the ground due to gravity have "Free will"?

No. It follows the physical laws of the universe based on its given conditions.

>Does the weather, chaotic as it might be, have "Free will"?

No. It follows the physical laws of the universe based on it's given conditions.

>Does a human, living its life have "Free will"?

why would it be any different?

If free will exists, then it's bounded by the rules that govern our reality.

>BUT BOUNDED FREE WILL IS NOT FREE WILL AT ALL!

point
head

[Anonymous No.19546521]

>>19542518
>If we are composed of matter, and if that matter is bound by the laws of physics, then we don't have free will
/thread

[Anonymous No.19546563]

>>19542698
You are quite literally a retarded pseud. There are scientific theories in quantum physics that point to the possibility of all particle interactions being probabilistic in nature. Even if that werent the case, you can never scientifically prove that randomness doesnt exist.
t. Actual Mechanical Engineer major with a minor in math here

[Anonymous No.19546590]

>>19543808
If every choice I make is based on a greater desire, then those desires must be based on something greater. Then you can either go into infinity - which means that human will is infinitly complex, something disturbingly close to randomness, or you can say we hit a wall, where there are no more desires, but the base biochemical mechanisms of the brain, and then I say, these mechanisms are based on other particle interactions, and we go all the way in this way to quantum interactions, which may or may not be random. Even if they are proven not random, then you can claim deeper down that they are.TLDR; you are retarded

[Anonymous No.19546658]

>>19546563
So because quantum physics points to a possibility, that disproves the laws of physics? Because we can't prove that randomness doesn't exist, that disproves the laws of physics? I don't claim to have the technical knowledge to breakdown how the particles in my brain behave, but I do find it pretty hard to believe that any particle anywhere can break the *laws* that govern them. I'm aware of the quantum physics side of this, I'm saying that interesting experiments aren't going to just breakdown reality and give particles license to discard what governs them, like I'm not going to brew a pot of coffee that just randomly turns into arsenic as it passes through the filter. It's undeniable, regardless of what happens in quantum physics, that the material which makes up our world follows laws, and that we are that same material. So how am I going to choose my way around that, especiqlly if it is what composes my choice mechanism in the first place?

[Anonymous No.19546677]

>>19546521

Quantum particles
>implying laws of physics are simple and straightforward
>implying there couldn't be a law of free will when it comes to the assemblage of the human system

[Anonymous No.19546788]

>>19546658
To put it simply, at the smallest scale we see, there is a lot of very unintuitive things happening. First of all, information travels faster then light for some reason. Second of all, you know we can calculate orbits and predict the motion of physical objects to whatever degree of accuracy we want to. That doesnt happen with quantum reactions. Instead of the objects moving to some place in a steady and predictable way, it "teleports" somewhere in the cloud of probability density without any pattern at all. There is no way to predict where the object will exactly be, it can be anywhere in that cloud of probability density, on some places more often, on some less, but never in a defined pattern. If our current interpretation of physics is correct, and there are many interpretations, but most scientist agree that there is no missing variable to turn quantum reactions into deterministic ones, but that they are truly probabilistic. That means that at the most base level of reality, nothing is deterministic anymore, and all deterministic action we see around us is only an average of various different types of bundled true probabilistic reactions. A true random number generator that spits out a sequence of numbers between 0-100 is still random even if it is bounded by an upper and lower limit, and by that logic, so are quantum reactions inherently partly random

[Anonymous No.19546830]

>>19541167
Neuroscience isn't a soft science you stupendous idiot. The replicability crisis is only true for "sciences" like sociology

[Anonymous No.19546848]

>>19546658
Forgot to say, the laws of physics are rules humans made up to describe the behaviour of particles and bodies. A lot of the "laws" are merely rules made up from empiric data to approximate how something happens, and are literally in no way scientifically or logically proven. Best example is thermodynamics, not the three general laws, but the more in depth laws that govern the motion and change within gases. It is more likely that we made a mistake, and that not all laws can be expressed with mathematics, or at least not without the use of statistics. TLDR: Laws of physics are invented, not discovered and are only expressions that we use for practical purposes. Nature doesnt have to obey them

[Anonymous No.19546870]

Just a little advice, stick to books, you arent a scientist, you dont know jack shit, please be quiet and dont talk about things you like because they seem edgy and le scientific to you. Go solve a double integral retard

[Anonymous No.19546872]

>>19546788
Sure, but how does that apply? How can we so reliably manipulate matter to keep airliners in the sky or any other very complex mechanism behaving how it should? Again, I recognize the implications but it's still not going to negate the fact that particles ARE governed by laws, otherwise everything would just go haywire, our brains most of all. I have a pet theory that quantum physics is really an expression of faults in our methods and models, that is to say, it's not a proof of anything in itself, but an artifact. Again I'm not speaking from a place of technical authority by any stretch. It just seems like a much more probable explanation than, "the laws of physics, the foundation which we've built our advanced civilization on are completely wrong." It seems more likely that we're getting quantum physics wrong in one way or another.

[Anonymous No.19546947]

>>19546872
No it wouldnt go haywire. The scale is so small you cant even imagine it. If there is one drop of blue paint in a ocean of red, you wouldnt notice a difference between the stained and the purely red ocean. But it could go haywire, that much is true, and we have experimental evidance that it does sometimes at small scales. Our world, what we see and feel and interact with, it could be argued that it is practically deterministic, and I would agree. But to deny free will as a philosophical concept because you think everything can be reduced and explained by purely deterministic particle interactions comes from a lack of understanding of physics as a science. One of the first models we used for physics was the Aristotelian model, which seems absurd in retrospect because of how obviously inaccurate it is to us moderns. But it worked for practical reasons, and we sticked with it. Just because something is inaccurate, doesnt make it not usefull, and that is the case for most scientific theories. Nothing but math can really be logically proven, and even that is a strech because math falls to Godels incompleteness theorem as soon as you use Peano axioms, which must be used if you want to use natural numbers.

[Anonymous No.19547056]

>>19546947
I do lack understanding of physics. So where's the point of demarcation between purely deterministic particle interactions and haywire? You say that our world is *practically* deterministic, so how would that not enter the realm of a philosophical concept? What's more applicable to this question, the practicality you describe in our application of physics, or the tiny phenomenon observed at the quantum level? I've been keeping my posts very high level because as I've said I don't have technical knowledge, but I'm still not convinced that the laws of physics don't matter in this context, even if they aren't *purely* deterministic. My basic statement is, again, we're made of matter, matter follows laws, and even if those laws aren't purely deterministic or even accurately modeled by us, we are bound by those laws. More specifically, the material that comprises the mechanisms by which our brains function. How can that leave room for free will?
I appreciate your very informative answers, btw.

[Anonymous No.19547192]

>>19546848
>Laws of physics are invented, not discovered and are only expressions that we use for practical purposes. Nature doesnt have to obey them

peak midwit take.

The laws of reality exist. Our knowledge of said laws may be incomplete or flawed, but at the very core of it, there is "something" that behaves like "itself", from which all other behavior in our reality could be derived from. Gödel says this "thing" is unknowable, but that doesn't preclude its existence.

[Anonymous No.19547195]

>>19547056
Okay, I think I understand your opinion better now. The line of demarcation doesnt exist, it is more like a gradient between probabilistic and deterministic, with larger objects and phenomena tending towards determinism. When I say that free will exists philosophically, I say it because I believe that I am the cause of those proballistic interactions, even if they are unconsciously made by the matter that composes me since my unconsciousness is a part of me. I believe myself to be the product of all that makes up parts of me, so in my opinion, I am truly free, because at the most basic level the matter which I consider me behaves non deterministically in some aspects, and is thus partly not bounded. The laws are just rules that describe my behaviour that I myself decided, since my matter decided at the quantum level "freely" how to act. When I say I practically believe in determinism, what I mean is; I cannot know everything about myself, and I dont know all my decisions, even if I make them myself, and so to counteract this problem of not knowing myself, I think the most usefull thing is to treat yourself as if you didnt do those decisions yourself. I dont know enough about neurobiology to claim I know how much of self aware conscious randomness the human mind can exert, and even if it can consciously exert randomness. I think this argument boils down to the definition of self. Also, thanks for the compliment

[Anonymous No.19547247]

>>19547192
I agree with your point, when I said the laws of physics I was thinking of the formulas we use. Those are just partly inaccurate and incomplete representations invented for practical reasons in my eyes. Also some laws are straight up invented to try and explain how something behaves on purely empirical evidance in some defined conditions, and after that, they produce very inaccurate or impossible results .

[Anonymous No.19547251]

>>19547195
we don't know if quantum effects are deterministic in our universe simply because it's impossible to make the same experiment twice at those scales.

[Anonymous No.19547315]

>implying we even know if the universe is deterministic

[Anonymous No.19547323]

>>19547195
>I think this argument boils down to the definition of self.
Agreed. What's the band within that gradient you mentioned that contains the self, right? It's obviously also a discussion about the hard problem of consciousness, I think that sort of encompasses all of it. Our rationale and logic are ultimately the hard limits. So would you describe your conception of free will as soft determinism? Imo it's still a pretty weak case for free will proper and more of a technicality.

[Anonymous No.19548211]

>>19546788
This does nothing for free will though. All you’ve done is introduce an element of randomness. This doesn’t make my choices any more free. Either they are predetermined by the material conditions of the universe or they are influenced by random events. Either way, I am not freely making these choices.

It seems obvious to me that free will is a nonsensical idea that means nothing. The fact of its existence or nonexistence has no effect on anything. I just find it fun to consider, especially because so many people seem inexplicably committed to defending the concept.

[Anonymous No.19548410]

>>19547323
I guess soft determinisam is a fine description. Though the problem with free will is what the fuck it means at all since if it has a pattern, its not free, and if its random, its just random, as you said. Still, I feel like it exists, so I unironically believe it is true because of this in the lack of a proper argument. Shit may just be uncomprehendable. You cant look at yourself with yourself and etc.

[Anonymous No.19548446]

>>19541073
>free will doesn't exist because the freaking science says so

[Anonymous No.19548455]

>>19548446
massive cope

[Anonymous No.19548502]

>>19545566
Scientific theories are the last thing to trust next to direct empirical observation and secondhand accounts thereof, the purpose of critical examination is to find empirical truths not deny them

>Can't prove X wasn't predetermined by some intangible all-powerful force that exists but nobody can see or interact with
>Therefore we don't have free will
This is a theological dead end

[Anonymous No.19548507]

>>19548446
>free will does exist because i feel it should

[Anonymous No.19548523]

>>19545607
>I can't fly like superman
>Therefore nobody has free will

[Anonymous No.19548731]

>>19548410
Well I like to remember that everything we are is evolved, including these aspects of our consciousness. They may be simply emergent, but they did emerge from something useful in some way. The action of choice can't be discarded as totally tangential, surely. But most of all it's good to remember that there is a vast ocean of things we simply aren't equipped to parce or even detect. The notion of a beginning is useful for us because of how we perceive time, but the possibility that the universe/reality doesn't have a starting point - because how could it - is firmly outside of our grasp. It HAS to have begun, but from what, and where did that begin, so on. It's all just us attempting to apply our mental tools that have helped us evolve to things on which they can't really find purchase.
It is funny that free will debates always get so heated.

[Anonymous No.19548745]

>>19544036
shouldn't it be imponderable?

[Anonymous No.19548749]

>>19541164
Are you possibly referring to the sub-conscious mind and how that most actions are done unconsciously? Well we can willfully impress on that part of our mind and change our behaviors in advanced.

[Anonymous No.19548764]

>>19541912
I figured that out too, and with no formal training in philosophy. How are they so blind to these obvious errors?

[Anonymous No.19548769]

>>19541073
Surfing Uncertainty.
Basically, PPM account for a structure where input/outputs are so intertwined and capable of reversal that the system is functionally unpredictable.

[Anonymous No.19548787]

>>19541777
There are lots of things we can't meaningfully define. Not sure how we could meaningfully define determinism either.

[Anonymous No.19548798]

>>19542130
>your will wasn't caused by anything itself but just manifested into being somehow
Is something being caused by itself free? What does that even mean? Something causing itself sounds like something negating itself, which to me doesn't sound free.

[Anonymous No.19548805]

>>19541912
>Unconscious thoughts spring up from the brain without our knowing

No, unconscious thoughts are beliefs and actions we consciously incorporated and no longer need adequate attention so we do them without thinking.

[Anonymous No.19548823]

You're missing the point, OP. Why do you wonder about this, why are you unsure, why do you lean one way or the other, why do you want answers?

[Anonymous No.19548840]

>>19541073
There is no free will, give me any sound empiricism to support the notion and I will change my mind instantly.
Just as the rock didn't choose to roll down the cliffside, you did not choose to post this comment. It was set in motion years ago.

[martineconnor No.19548860]

>>19541073
I USually just goto an academic library or browse through pubmed...happy christmass freewill

[martineconnor No.19548939]

>>19548523
>>19548523
this pepe on dolar wine.
>inb4trainingwheels

[Anonymous No.19549697]

free will is just a proxy arena where soulfags try to peddle their dying worldview through more "scientific" means.

The only way humans could have free will of a meaningful denomination is through metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.19550782]

>>19545572
based

free will is only contradictory when viewed from within time, then one appears as a segment bereft of a future becoming. one is not a cross-section, but is a volume, taking up the dimensions of space and time etc. one exists in simultaneity with all other existence. this is why god is omniscient: because all choice is already willed, and was never not willed. one is free to be what one is. free will is being.

[Anonymous No.19550795]

>>19541073

[Anonymous No.19551030]

>>19542997
>And if anybody in this thread truly believed in determinism they wouldn't be here arguing about it
A determinist would know that a person's belief in free will, like all beliefs, depends on prior experiences, including past arguments about free will vs determinism, and so the determinist will argue in favor of determinism. If anything, it is the free willer who shouldn't even bother arguing, because according to him, anyone could simply freely choose to believe whatever, whatever it means to even choose freely in the first place, and so any argument with the goal of convincing anyone is just a practice in futility.

[Anonymous No.19551141]

>>19551030
You seem to be implying that freedom of will is distinct from freedom of thought, surely you don't mean to imply that you lack freedom of thought

[Anonymous No.19551178]

>>19551141
Not only do I lack it, but you lack it too and everyone else as well.

[Anonymous No.19552156]

you can't think about a thought before thinking it

[Anonymous No.19552231]

>>19541098
>>19541213
>Dude read Sabbatical again except it's bloated with cringe shit this time
No thanks. Actually don't even read Sabbatical as it kind of sucks. Read Letters, Sot-weed, Funhouse, Goat-Boy, or Chimera, they are all leagues better than TWT and Sabbatical imo. They all deal with the notion of destiny and free will to varying degrees.

[Anonymous No.19553262]

Reminder that freedom of will is not freedom of action, and that a truly free will is also free from choice.

[Anonymous No.19553314]

>>19541073
my diary.
tldr; determinism is somewhat true but due to nature of souls we have windows of opportunity where free will applies and we can make meaningfull actions that change our fate but can never be sure if certain timeframe is that window or not.
Source: God revealed it to me in dream.

[Anonymous No.19554214]

>>19542997
Im a combatibilist ninja

[Anonymous No.19554319]

>>19550795
Thanks

[Anonymous No.19555147]

>>19545607
because the laws of physics aren't the rules that govern our reality, just the physical reality

[Anonymous No.19555451]

>>19555147
then free will is bound by the rules that govern our reality (Which aren't physics)
same problem

[Anonymous No.19556307]

>>19541141
>about 0.35 seconds earlier
How does the fact that human reaction time can be considerably less than 0.35 seconds factor into this? If I press a button upon hearing a tone in ~0.15 seconds, did the potential fire off prior to my hearing the tone?

[Anonymous No.19556308]

>>19541158
>Gravity's Rainbow is about
There's no one thing GR is about.

[Anonymous No.19556333]

>>19545607
>why would it be any different?
Because living organisms experience a fundamental phenomenon that transcends the physical properties of the universe: consciousness. Unless you believe consciousness can be found somewhere in the physical body or that it is some sort of illusory side effect of the processes of the brain. But that's a much easier talk to have because of the obvious absurdity in taking those positions.

[Anonymous No.19556358]

How does something originating earlier conflict with free will? Aren't you presupposing the locus of decision is the brain rather than a higher essence? Maybe the limitation of your viewpoint is being a physicalist, in which case this all should have been evident to you much sooner. Otherwise, how is this proof it isn't just showing earlier footprints in the snow of the same invisible (to modern scientific methods) man?

[Anonymous No.19556366]

>>19556333
>phenomenon that transcends the physical properties of the universe
Nothing can happen that can't happen. Nothing that happens is unnatural because nature is the law governing existence. There's nothing transcendent about consciousness. We may not understand it well, be it scientifically, spiritually, philosophically, etc., but that doesn't mean it's somehow supernatural.

[Anonymous No.19556418]

>>19556366
The point is peoples' conception of nature is generally synonymous with "physical," and this reverts to the Hobbesian "incorporeal bodies" argument which is a ridiculous argument. If you are saying transcendent-of-physicalism things can happen and should be considered a part of the larger Nature, then fair but it really seems like an unnecessary argument to make beyond saying physicalism is not an established firm boundary of what is. If you are arguing some analog of no bodies can be incorporeal because being corporeal is the essence of being a body, that is really just a super gay and obviously flawed argument over linguistics which tries to legislate the entire discussion out by forcing definitions and even if the definitions are accepted, all you need to do is create new terms. Hobbes was the biggest brainlet in the history of Philosophy.

[Anonymous No.19556433]

>>19556418
By physicalism I really mean hardline materialism.

[Anonymous No.19556505]

>>19556418
>it really seems like an unnecessary argument to make
What isn't? No homo shit here. There's just no such thing as "supernatural." There's just possible and impossible; existent and inexistent. On top of all of that we layer a bunch of purely human complexity because that's what we do, but the universe at its most basic closure is binary: something exists or it doesn't. Granted, I believe it's more likely that everything exists than the possibility that there's some cosmic hand delineating the distinction between the two, but that's beside the point. Transcendence itself is, in my opinion, a silly distinction. If we care about the nature of reality as it exists in and of itself, we must try to do the impossible: to abandon contemplation of its nature with respect to what we, with our puny, flawed brains and senses can perceive, and contemplate its independent existence. If we abandon these anthropocentric ideas of the physical and the transcendent, we admit fully our inability to fully conceive analytically the nature of existence because everything we think and perceive is inextricably linked to the experience of our own basic humanity, through which filters reality as it knows itself. In my opinion, it's far more likely that there exists beyond human conception a rich and nuanced world of things we can never understand, altogether swirling around, everything interlinked, as one big system. Maybe through reaching a pure, meditative state we can shed enough of our humanity to glimpse it for a moment, but if we can, it's purely experiential. You can’t take any of it back with you.

[Anonymous No.19557320]

>>19541073
Microtubuli inside of Neurons that somehow magnify Quantum effects. Probably BS.

[Anonymous No.19557794]

>>19542997
>denying the most immediate, obvious, and universally shared empirical truth in all of human life
Explain your reasoning bro, This whole post is literally empty unless you back that shit up with your thinking.

[Anonymous No.19557904]

>>19546563
Imagine calling others retarded pseud when you’re a meceng normie in a mediocre universities pretending to understand quantum physics.
Probabilistic particle behaviour still rules out free will as your choice will be random instead of predetermined.
The only way to prove free will is to prove dualism, which is the same as proving god, something that everybody to this day has failed to do.
Go back to the office, wagie.

[Anonymous No.19558056]

>>19541073
the weighting of perceived consequences is free will.
>no its not, its subject to determinism and biology
and? if you need any more, you will only find solace in cultural metaphysics. go find GOD.

[Anonymous No.19558067]

>>19541073
>Look! The hands move! There is no free will!