[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 38 KB, 320x320, Free-Will.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4887899 No.4887899[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Let's have an ACTUAL discussion of free will, since every single thread about it thus far has been a shitfest with no conclusion.

Free will will be defined as
>Free will is the ability of agents to make choices not (entirely) determined by external factors.

Your goal is to convince the opposing side that what you're arguing for is the truth, not to prove how smart you are or show off how much you've read on the subject. Calling people uneducated faggots is not a good way to guide them to the truth. Conversely, keep an open mind and accept that you may be wrong on the subject too.

Go.

>> No.4887903

So, is depression defined as the lack of free will?

>> No.4887907

Go fuck yourself.

>> No.4887909

i'm right because everyone else is an uneducated faggot
i win

>> No.4887914

>>4887903
what
you're saying depression is "the belief that all choices are predetermined"?

>> No.4887922

>>4887899
>not (entirely) determined by external factors.


not if you start like this. you completely ignore interntal factors. also you will have to accept tht you cant find an answer to everything but at least asking the right question is what we can do

>> No.4887927

>>4887914
No, I read OP's text before I responded.

This is /lit/.

>> No.4887930

>>4887899
If I say "clap in three seconds!" You have a choice that is free will. Unless you count reading those words as 'external factors'. So. It depends. As always.

>> No.4887931

>>4887922
Internal factors like what?

>> No.4887934

>>4887927
Depression is not the inability to make your own choices.

>> No.4887938

>>4887934
Calm down.

>> No.4887939

>>4887899
define agent
define external factors

>> No.4887940

>>4887930
why would that NOT be an external factor?

>> No.4887943

>>4887899
>Free will is the ability of agents to make choices not (entirely) determined by external factors.
so what, internal factors?

>> No.4887945

>>4887899
>Your goal is to convince the opposing side that what you're arguing for is the truth, not to prove how smart you are or show off how much you've read on the subject
I REJECT THIS PREMISE

>> No.4887946

>>4887940
It's the whole "I'm not touching you" argument.

>> No.4887947

>>4887938
...What?

>> No.4887949

>>4887940
Because thought is everywhere and everything?

>> No.4887952

>>4887930

In what possible world is a clearly external factor NOT an external factor?

>> No.4887954

Free will has to exist for the possibility of souls to go into Heaven.

Therefore, free will does not exist. We're all the product of our environments, yet you are a pleb who will not admit this.

>> No.4887957

>>4887952
a schizophrenic one

>> No.4887959

>>4887939
>define agent
An entity which is capable of action.

>define external factors
Any kind of action or event that affects (i.e. provokes a response) from an agent.

>> No.4887960

>>4887959
Everything has inertia.

>> No.4887961

>>4887949
so that makes a visual stimulus that one responds to not an external factor somehow?
explain.

>> No.4887968

>>4887960
>Everything has inertia.
Can you elaborate on how this relates to the subject?

>> No.4887973

On a related note you really can't have a proper discussion about free will without discussing determinism

>> No.4887974

>>4887968
*pats head*

>> No.4887976

>>4887959
>Any kind of action or event that affects (i.e. provokes a response) from an agent.
like the firing of certain neurons in the brain?

what counts as internal/external?

>> No.4887977

>>4887946
no it's not. not even relevant at all.

>> No.4887981

>>4887976
>firing of certain neurons
That's a pop culture term, not scientific.

>> No.4887992

>>4887931
genetics

you know that you cant just do what you want. a lot of the things you are doing is based on genetics. how you feel and act in certain situations is all thanks to your parents.
kids have free will. they know no boundaries but the older they get the more similar to their parents they become. their looks, their intelligence, the way they behave; it's all genetics AND external factors

>> No.4887999

>>4887992
>kids have free will

kek

>> No.4888003

The actual philosophical literature on free will is a shitfest with no conclusion, it's doubtful that we're going to improve on that on /lit/

>> No.4888006

>>4887992
>implying you can pass down acquired traits genetically

>> No.4888009

>>4888003
That's proof we don't have free will.

>> No.4888020

>all these emotionally charged arguments

>> No.4888022

>>4888009
Either that or it's proof that the technical notion of free will is meaningless, and therefore our common sense notion is restored, i.e. that we have free will.

Basically it can go any way you want it to based on your preconceived conclusions

>> No.4888024

>>4887981
durr the propagation of voltage down an axon channel.

are you high? your definition of free will sucks balls.

>> No.4888025

You have the will whether or not to believe in free will.

>> No.4888027

>>4888024
You have the free will to perceive linear conversations that aren't there.

>> No.4888028

>>4888022
So the illusory assumption that we have free will somehow trumps any kind of solid mechanical construct that would say otherwise?

>> No.4888031

The term free will does not even have any meaning, really: if it is not deterministic (ordered), it is random (unordered) --such is the dichotomy; and then what justification for punishing arbitrarity, and, further, what even is arbitrarity?

>> No.4888032

>>4888024
>your definition of free will sucks balls.
How would you define it? :)

>> No.4888033

>>4888032
I would define it as being heterosexual.

>> No.4888040

>>4888028
I would distinguish between the common sense notion of free will and the technical notion.

The common sense is folk psychology derived from introspection. It's something that can't be explained mechanistically. Until the technical notion is made clear and the mechanism is explained, the common sense is all we have.

>> No.4888044

>>4888033
Thanks for showing that you have nothing important to say.

>> No.4888047

I make the choice to ignore what guides me.

>> No.4888049

>>4888040
Common sense is the vaguest concept possible.

>> No.4888050

>>4888027
then answer my question

>Free will is the ability of [an entity which is capable of action] to make choices not (entirely) determined by [any kind of action or event that affects (i.e. provokes a response) from an agent].

what teh fuck

>>4888032
i wouldn't. these discussions are masturbatory nonsense. i have the voitional capacity to move my arm if i so choose, whether this is the natural endstate of some dark, probabilistic universe or the manifestation of magic pixies doesn't affect me in the slightest.

>> No.4888051

>>4888050
so mad

>> No.4888053

>>4888040
The common sense notion is determinism, not free will.

>> No.4888065

>>4888049
And if every concept is precise then everything is either meaningless or unintelligible. Look at the areas in philosophy in which every term is rigorously defined. You're basically reduced to formal logic and set theory. Vagueness is necessary if we want any knowledge that improves our lives.

>> No.4888066

You have a complicated brain that will die.

>> No.4888069

>>4888051
one day you'll grow out of these pseudo-intellectual circlejerks.

reminder that terms like "free will" are the disease of language wittgenstein was reffering to.

>> No.4888072

>>4888069
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbU4Cb4A4-o

>> No.4888078

>>4888053
This is where the free will argument goes away altogether. You get to keep your common sense determinism, I get to keep my common sense free will. We walk our separate ways or debate something more constructive. Problem (dis)solved Wittgensteinian-therapy style.

>> No.4888084

Free will does not exist, it's as simple as that, and anyone who thinks it does is retarded.

Order is the necessity of being. Free will is antithetical to order. Heck, even if there are some phantasmic forces of good and evil, they too would be subject to order -----unless the mind has left itself open to the random in insane ways, which is just an insane notion, and makes for god punishing randomness with hell when applied as the religions do.

Order arises from arbitrarity, it becomes something when a pattern arises -----we are that pattern, that's all we are -----BY NECESSITY.

>> No.4888089

>>4888078
Denial to reach a conclusion is a solution to you? It's regressive and anti-intellectual. It's literally just choosing to be ignorant.

>> No.4888090

>>4888084
This is feminism.

>> No.4888094

>>4888065
improve our lives materialistically you mean and that isnt a universally accepted improvement in life

>> No.4888097

Every response in this thread is determinism to act like the free will of others is ineffectual.

>> No.4888099

>>4888089
I choose to be ignorant to questions that aren't even well-defined among the people debating them.

>> No.4888100

>>4888094
There is only one pyramid of knowledge, not two.

>> No.4888101

The only chance for free will to exist is at the quantum level. All other forces can be considered in a calculation to make precise predictions (determinism). There's no such thing as random, only convolutions that cloud processes. Free will exists until we can explain all physical phonomena, and by the same token one could say it had existed all along. A card trick is magic to someone can't conceive of the process, its an illusion to anyone who insists there's a way to explain it.

>> No.4888104

>>4888101
Say hi to Oprah for me.

>> No.4888110

I'm gonna do you all a soild
No one knows

>> No.4888115

>>4888110
If we figure it would we could create Heaven on Earth.

>> No.4888120

>>4888089
it isnt a denial to reach a conclusion as much as it is an aversion to attempting to solve a non problem that is more of a misuse of language than anything else

>> No.4888121

What does Ron Paul say about self-determinism?

>> No.4888126

>>4888110
Wrong. See:>>4888084
The common conceptions of god and free will are utter nonsense. Monism/pantheism is about the only supernaturality that bears the brunt of sense.

>> No.4888128
File: 1.14 MB, 2592x751, 45517_html_63b6b3bc.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4888128

>Another free will & determinism discussion
>If our lives are deterministic, then those who argue for free will cannot help themselves for they are determined by something beyond themselves to argue for free will and they are not free to argue otherwise
>If we have free will, then those who argue for determinism are free to do so and nothing beyond themselves, including those who argue with the determinist, can convince otherwise unless that person wills otherwise
>Either case results in the same fruitless discussion about unknowable semantics which lead to the exact same conclusion
>Witty's right, this is a disease of language

>> No.4888130

>>4888100
knowledge isnt organized in a hierarchical structured system

>> No.4888139
File: 2.52 MB, 1789x2429, based.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4888139

Free will is all there as. Long, long ago you chose to pretend you didn't have free will in order to make life more interesting.

Luckily, we can go back to the start.

>> No.4888143

>>4888128
quantum indeterminacy has killed any sort of argument for determinism now i dont know why people still dont see this

>> No.4888144

>>4888089
Many problems are problems of language. There is no conclusion or solution other than to find new ways to talk about it until the problem goes away. It's not anti-intellectual or ignorant, it's called picking your battles.

>> No.4888145

>>4888130
That's what people who aren't at the top of the pyramid of knowledge generally say.

>> No.4888146

>>4887899
Free will requires being an unmoved mover. We are not unmoved movers, therefore we have no freewill.

>> No.4888149

Assuming free will exists:
You have the freedom to choose within the narrow selection of choices afforded to you by your life experiences (that have literally shaped your brain/mind/both) and social pressure (that have literally shaped your brain/mind/both) and your neurochemistry (that hugely influences every decision you make at every moment)

That is the full extent to which "free will" can exist - that is to say, it cannot. My choices are not freely made if they are contingent on an infinitely complex interaction of events outside of my control (whose influence I can never actually come close to being aware of, let alone truly understand) and a small universe of neuronal interaction. Just like I am not free to choose my job if Big Brother is secretly deciding which five jobs I can choose from and erasing the thought of applying to any other's from my mind.

>> No.4888150

>>4888146
Remember you're thetan.

>> No.4888151

>>4888143
Does this prove free will though?

>> No.4888152

>>4888143
No, it kills any sort of argument for PREdeterminism.

>> No.4888154

>>4888149
Thus, proving free will is just a concept engendered by paranoia of power structures.

>> No.4888158

>>4888151
well since it gets rid of determinism then what is left? free will? no?

>> No.4888161

>>4888143
Schrodinger's wave equation is deterministic. Quantum "indeterminacy" is a matter of the interpretation of certain phenomena like entanglement. But I agree with you. Even if we ignore QM, we still find indeterminacies in general relativity, quantum field theory, quantum gravity... Even Newtonian mechanics has singularities. A total mess for any determinist.

>> No.4888164
File: 20 KB, 200x281, 200px-TheStranger_BookCover3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4888164

>>4888146
Only if you refuse to steer the ship.

>> No.4888165

>>4888143
quantum indeterminacy <> randomness

>> No.4888168

>>4888158
>"random" indeterminism is free will
Pop sci tards, everyone.

>> No.4888169

>>4888164
Folk psychology need not apply.

>> No.4888172

>>4888158
No, the inability to predict behavior of atoms does not imply that our will is not controlled by the natural forces.

>> No.4888174

>>4888161
We find indeterminacy in our models and equations used to describe. Nobody would suggest our understanding of the universe is total, or that our models are perfect.

>> No.4888175

>>4888172
Atomic lifespan is entirely predictable.

>> No.4888180

>>4888174
Proof you do not have free will, because otherwise said people would choose perfection.

>> No.4888182

>>4888175
Okay?

>> No.4888184

>>4888180
What?

>> No.4888185

>>4888174
So basically determinism as of now is an assumption, not something to be obtained from our scientific theories?

>> No.4888188

>>4888182
Continue with your theory based on the inability to predict behavior of atoms, please.

>> No.4888190

>>4888143
Wrong. A clock does not work because random, it works because it is a precisely engineered device. Random necessarily reduces things to much, unless order allows for it to play a part. An illustration of this would be the lotto, the mechanic of someone winning and being given money decided, but who wins being left to chance (or chance on a level that we're more used to dealing with). Applying such arbitraity to mind, however, with the aim of denying human determinacy, is quite fucking stupid, incredibly ordered as the mind is. It's basically to say that a clock works because random. Fuck off Mr. Watchmaker, Random did that, not you! God might play dice, but it is with the very fabric of reality, not the complex structures that rest upon it.

>> No.4888192

>>4888185
A theory is an scientific assumption.

>> No.4888193

>>4888188
I'm not arguing for or against quantum indeterminacy, I'm stating that it does not relate to whether or not we have free will.

>> No.4888198

>>4888190
>philosophizing about the free will of clocks

relevancy?

>> No.4888199

>>4887899
first there is freedom
then there is the will

>> No.4888200

>100 posts in an hour
i haven't looked, but i bet they're all super high quality, right guys?

>> No.4888203

>>4888193
I'm just pointing out that you have the free will to choose your words more carefully.

>> No.4888207

>>4888203
Just like you have the free will to read more carefully.

>> No.4888210

>>4888207
I choose to pick better writers.

>> No.4888213

>mfw I just tried to levitate and failed

My will is firmly chained.

>> No.4888214

>>4888210
Explain where in my post I said "we cannot predict atomic lifespan".

>> No.4888218

>>4888213
once when i was a kid i made the tv go blank using my mind

no joke

>> No.4888219

>>4888192
Yes. This is the reductio ad absurdum of the argument against free will. At the very least it shows that the main premise, determinism, is assumed rather than demonstrated by science.

>> No.4888224

isnt free will and determinism the same thing as intentionality?

>> No.4888228

Intention is mental disposition.

Free will is lack of impulse control.

Determinism is sociopathology.

>> No.4888233

>>4888219
the same could be said of free will

>> No.4888234

Here's a freaky notion for you (or a comforting one; I guess it depends): the universe might blink out of existence at any moment. Its end is not bound to law, nor anything in it either. The anti-universe might arise at any moment and sweep us all away into oblivion.

>> No.4888240

>>4888234
Don't you have a street corner to preach on?

>> No.4888247

>>4888234
Scientists talk of the sun burning out all the time, but yet provide no answer to the problem of induction, and ignore the monsters that lurk in that darkness. These could be yours and the universes last moments.

>> No.4888251

>>4888240
It's science, mate.

>> No.4888257

>>4888247
It's easier to speak of demons you control, I guess.

>> No.4888261

>>4888233
Precisely the point. The problem involves either assuming determinism or assuming free will. The rest of the debate is just pushing around linguistic terms. Are you now convinced that the problem is a non-starter and should be abandoned?

>> No.4888262

>>4888234
[yolo intensifies]

>> No.4888263

>>4888251
The new religion.

>> No.4888265

>>4888257
Meh. I guess there's some sort of educational value in speaking of the sun burning out, too. Some sort of educational value, lol.

>> No.4888267

>>4888251
so said the preachers a while ago
what makes you so sure of the scientists today?

>> No.4888269

>>4888263
Actually I'm more preying on science's inadequacy with my notions. Don't you have a street corner to preach on?

>> No.4888271

They wear white--the priests wear black.

>> No.4888274

>>4888267
The problem of induction is the dismantling of the sciences actually. It's more a metaphysical consideration, I guess. Perhaps I should have said that it's logic instead.

>> No.4888278

>>4888271
>>4888267

>> No.4888280
File: 9 KB, 223x230, intravenous.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4888280

>>4888261

>> No.4888283

>>4888274
Troll.

>> No.4888290

>>4888283
Your mind holds fast in its fears to these petty orderings around.

>> No.4888292

>>4888263
this post was brought to you by the science machines

>> No.4888310

>>4888261
well no im not ludwig and the going away of the problem just wont do it with free will vs determinism

i believe that its a matter of perspective that in fact they both exist but in order to really solve it weve got to solve consciousness first

>> No.4888311

>>4888310
The problem is the idea that there is a problem.

>> No.4888312

The way I see things is that we aren't free. Our mortality is our constraint. I think that it would be only a matter of time before we found a solution to any problem, and with our mortality that time is finite, and thus our "freedom" is limited.

>> No.4888316

>>4888310
>well no im not ludwig and the going away of the problem just wont do it with free will vs determinism
Then you're doomed forever, since there is nothing to solve.

>> No.4888320

>>4888316
Indeed there is: the monstrosity that is religion.

>> No.4888321

If there is a Hell, there's a special place in it for the posturing drawers of false equivalences.

>> No.4888324

>>4888320
Religion is the monstrosity that is philosophy.

>> No.4888330

>>4888320
Religion is the result of not knowing that there is nothing to solve.

>> No.4888331

>>4888321
I wish I could say the same for bad writing.

>> No.4888333

>>4888324
Incorrect. Philosophy is but soul, religion is the praying on ignorance for control.

>> No.4888334

>>4888316
well no its not so much as a how do i fit the jigsaw pieces together as much as it is trying to find all of the pieces first

>> No.4888337

>>4888330
Religion is the result of knowing there is nothing to solve and making money off of people's not knowing there is nothing to solve.

>> No.4888340

>>4888333
preying* haha

>> No.4888341
File: 1.46 MB, 1732x2162, sam-harris.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4888341

>>4888139

What?

>> No.4888342

>>4888333
nice dub trips
but the soul doesnt exist outwith religion and bad philosophy

>> No.4888344

>>4888334
Trying to find all the pieces means you're doomed if there isn't a puzzle in the first place.

>> No.4888345

>>4888331
>I wish I could say the same

It's a conditional statement, so there's actually nothing stopping you. Try it.

>> No.4888349

>>4888345
Go to hell.

>> No.4888351

I, personally, believe free will exists. If tomorrow the world unanimously confirmed that it didn't exist, I would shrug my shoulders and carry on as if it did as would every other sane human being on the planet. People oft-say that free will is an illusion, if that's true it's a damn palpable one.

However, this thread is evidence enough of the existence of free will in a way. All of the recent threads on free will prior to this one were not successful discussions in the slightest - nobody was convinced to the contrary of their belief. And yet, you've made this very thread. A decision you have made that has clearly not been determined by the failure of the previous threads. I guarantee that advocates of free will and determinism will continue to make these threads, and nothing will be achieved still.

>> No.4888355

>>4888342
The soul is but desire, mate. It is the human essence. We need not god to be real ---indeed, when people imagine themselves in heaven it is but their surroundings that have changed.

>> No.4888356

>>4888355
>rape is soul

got it

>> No.4888357

>>4888349

Baaw.

>> No.4888358

>>4888344
but there is a puzzle if we create the puzzle and that is how we can make sense of the world

>> No.4888365

>>4888358
Puzzle = religion

science = philosophy

>> No.4888369

>>4888351
>All of the recent threads on free will prior to this one were not successful discussions in the slightest - nobody was convinced to the contrary of their belief. And yet, you've made this very thread. A decision you have made that has clearly not been determined by the failure of the previous threads.

Aside from being... dubious in basic concept, this is utterly contradictory. The failure of those threads shouldn't prompt us to expect that no more will be created: their SUCCESS would do that, wouldn't it? I mean, there'd be no need.

>> No.4888371

>>4888356
It's human. Soul is nothing else but human.

>> No.4888373

you have the free will to chose either freedom or determinism but you cannot from determinism have the free will to chose either

>> No.4888376

>>4888371
Then the soul dies.

>> No.4888382

entropy will tell us

>> No.4888383

>>4888369
How did Einstein define insanity again?

>> No.4888386
File: 68 KB, 505x509, Skinner_box_scheme_01.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4888386

> I guarantee that advocates of free will and determinism will continue to make these threads, and nothing will be achieved still.

So, what you're saying is that they can't help themselves, right? Posting on the board because of the instant gratification of drama that ensues?

>> No.4888387

>>4888376
Yes, I imagine so. That makes no less of us while we're here, though. It's a pretty word.

>> No.4888388

The point of zombies, vampires, etc is to mock the notion of free will.

>> No.4888389

>>4888383

I believe it was as 'One of a large number of things that have no bearing on the issue of free will.'

>> No.4888391

>>4888388
No it isn't.

>> No.4888392

>>4888383
Forgetting what he said.

>> No.4888394

>>4888371

Does my dog have a soul?

>> No.4888397

>>4888389
Ha, touché.

>> No.4888400

>>4888394
Yes. Less of the childishness though. When I say "soul" I'm but appreciating human essence as beautiful, not furthering it into eternity.

>> No.4888403

Free will is the result of determinism attempting to force itself through consciousness. You can choose when to stop the metaphorical wheel in your mind -- to convert the overflowing yang into simple yin and manifest your decision. But due to the way things coalesce in our reality, your will is only truly free at the point of perception. The point where you recognise your decisions and begin to cycle through them.

>> No.4888406

The spine determines free will, not the brain.

>> No.4888409

im going to agree with >>4888261 in the sense that what problem does it cause to not solve the problem to any other problem? nothing. its a completely isolated problem that creates the problem itself without a way out. so yes it could be seen as a non starter and should just be abandoned since there is nothing we can do about it

>> No.4888412

>>4888388
no its to make money

>> No.4888413

OP tried really hard, too. About as rigorous as you can get without degenerating into 'If an Agent A at Time T performs an Action P with outcome Q' stuff.

>> No.4888437

its due to causality

>> No.4888441

>>4888437

Which kind of causality? There's at least six.

>> No.4888446

>>4888441
Eating is the only causality.

>> No.4888450

>>4888441
contemporary

>> No.4888480

The purpose of drugs is to give you perspective on your lack of free will.

>> No.4888481

>>4888450

That's not one of them.

>Let's have a philosophy thread!
>posters show they read no philosophy
>run, Run, RUN!

>> No.4888486

>>4888481
This is a science thread.

>> No.4888492

>>4888486

So what?

>> No.4888506

How do "philosophers" make the jump from "quantum physics disproves determinism" (it doesn't, by the way) to "I can believe whatever bullshit I want!" Even if radical indeterminism is true it just means every is the result of random chance; it doesn't somehow make libertarianism viable

>> No.4888508
File: 96 KB, 478x498, 1393831421145.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4888508

>>4888400
>essence

>> No.4888514

>>4888486
Science is built on the presuppositions of philosophy.

>> No.4888536

>>4888506
It's the avoidance of pain.

>> No.4888563

>>4888506

I hear whispers and rumours of a way to seat free will in quantum indeterminacy, but I've never witnessed the results myself.

>> No.4888593

>>4888506
Uh, you'll be hard pressed to find a single philosopher in the academy who does that.

>> No.4888595

>>4887899
Define "external".

>> No.4888629

>>4888595

"Spatio-temporally separate from the action the agent performs in choosing".

>> No.4889240

bmup

>> No.4889253

1. If you assume you have free will, and you do, then you can use it to direct your life; thus a huge gain.
2. If you assume you don't have free will, and you do, then you are wasting the only thing over which you have any choice; thus a huge loss.
3. If you assume you have free will, and you don't, there is no loss or gain since you had no choice in the matter.
4. If you assume you don't have free will, and you don't, there is no loss or gain since you had no choice in the matter.

What's important is that you think you do.

>> No.4889263

>>4889253
>not conveniently using determinism to do exactly as you please

>> No.4889269

>>4889263
That's literally implying that you're taking control of a situation with an argument that says you have no control over your situation.

>> No.4889282

>>4887899

>No appeal to ethos

lel

>> No.4889307

>>4889253
How do you think determinists live their lives?

are you people retarded?

>> No.4889640

>>4888006
epigenetics retard

>> No.4891584

>>4887899
I remember when I was like 17, played Chrono Cross and other stuff (I think I watched NGE as well) and thought about free will/determinism for about 3 days straight and then I realized its bullshit and if no one had talked about this properly (properly I mean coming to an actual, critically-received conclusion/truth, that the majority can agree with), no good will come out of me thinking about it.

I guess my conclusion at the time was that the only people that don't have "free will" are slaves, and everyone else is a slave to circumstance (aka God)

>> No.4891941

I have never seen a single good argument for free will. This is because proponents are merely plebs that fear determinism.

>> No.4891964

>>4887930
What if I'm a determinist and as a result acted in accordance with my pre-determined belief of how free will works?