[ 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: 43 KB, 400x388, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5345983 No.5345983 [Reply] [Original]

>2014
>still believing free will exists

>> No.5345987

>2014
>still believing autism exists
i-shiggy-diggy

>> No.5345989

Didn't Sam Harris solve this problem?

>> No.5346005

>2014
>not knowing you can will to power free will

>> No.5346021

So if I shoot myself in the head it wasn't my free will to do so?

>> No.5346022

>>5345983
You missed your frog thread, free-will denier.

>> No.5346029

>>5346022
There are papers on the subject butterbitch.

>> No.5346030
File: 303 KB, 925x925, Shig Supreme.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5346030

>>5345983
>2014
>claiming there's no free will so posting your autism isnt so sad

>> No.5346037

>>5346021
naw the trigger was pulled before you decided to pull it

>> No.5346043

>>5345989
Yes

>> No.5346052

>>5346021
Although most here probably wish you would shoot yourself in the head, you cannot account for whence that will came from.

Read Schopenhauer. You can will yourself to do something, but you can't will yourself to will it (if you don't actually want to shoot yourself in the head, you can't will it and do it).

>> No.5346055

>>5346021
No, causality did.

>> No.5346092

>>5346021
It means someone is trying to kill you!
>>5346029
There's papers written on a lot of things
I'm using my free will to refute any of them

>>5346037
Right, the killer has killed him already. If we find him now we could execute him and save Sagve's life.

>> No.5346094

>>5346055
But human beings are first cause.

>> No.5346103

>>5346052
>2014
>citing some old grumpy faggot from the 1600s

>> No.5346110

>>5345983
This subject isn't even aloud on /sci/ because they are smart enough.

>> No.5346113
File: 185 KB, 1105x1600, Seth.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5346113

>>5346029
>There are papers on the subject butterbitch.
What compels me to care?

>> No.5346121

>>5346110
To know this

>> No.5346128

>>5346113
Your brain.

>> No.5346141

>>5346128
>Your brain.
Nope. Still don't care.

>> No.5346160

>>5346103
>2014
>using ad-hominem arguments

>> No.5346169

>>5346141
U can't know nuthin.

>> No.5346180

>>5346052
>(if you don't actually want to shoot yourself in the head, you can't will it and do it)
YOU CAN'T WANT TO DO SOMETHING THAT YOU DON'T WANT TO DO, THEREFORE YOU CAN'T DO WHAT YOU WANT TO DO

>> No.5346190

>>5346180
That's not what people mean by free will, they're talking about transcending causality.

>> No.5346191

>>5346180
Why would I want to do something I don't want to do?

>> No.5346203

>2014
>still believing unfree will exists
The will to power exists, the idea of it being free or unfree is a matter of human misconception, applying a modifier to something which can't accommodate it, like asking if natural disasters are right or wrong, or what the meaning to life is.

>> No.5346214

>what is social homogamy
>what is the chaos theory
>what is voluntary altruism

OP also fails to realize that a blend free will does exist within the confinement of biological determinism. Furthermore, free will is and always will be relative. Some may have more or less free will than others, depending on how powerful their rational and empathic reasoning is in comparison to their Triune brain.

>> No.5346222

>>5345983
>2014
>believing free will doesn't exist
You don't need to be Kant to know that all possible positions on the issue are wrong by definition.

>> No.5346230
File: 84 KB, 642x1443, 101.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5346230

I used my free will to decide which image to post. I chose to post this image.

>> No.5346235
File: 45 KB, 479x464, OP Is a Legendary Fag.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5346235

>>5346230
I'm going to do that too.

>> No.5346252

>>5345983
free is just a human simplification but will exists nonetheless.

>> No.5346261

>>5346190
That is a big part of what I am saying. Why would someone define free will as transcending causality, other than to win their argument that free will doesn't exist?

Barring some fringes of quantum mechanics that we most likely haven't figured out which way they're causal yet, everything anyone has ever observed has been causal.

The term free will was never meant to imply a lack of causality, because that makes no sense to any human.

>> No.5346262

>>5346230
>>5346235
continue on children

>> No.5346267
File: 363 KB, 584x383, Egg Cell.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5346267

>>5346262
I don't have the will to stop.

>> No.5346281

>>5346262
>others gave well founded arguments in response to OP's ignorance
>intentionally disregards those arguments
>goes for the ad hominems for an easy way out

Pathetic.

>> No.5346506

>>5346261
>Barring some fringes of quantum mechanics that we most likely haven't figured out which way they're causal yet, everything anyone has ever observed has been causal.

Bell's theorem.

>> No.5346549

>>5346506
Non-local doesn't imply non-causal.

>> No.5346562

the problem with free will is that its incompatible with causation, causation is just reduction of observations to a simpler description. it will never make sense to explain the behavior of a complex by citing the causal powers of the complex as a whole, i.e. the only way to explain the actions of a human is to break the human down into its mechanics, in the case of decision-making, this would be a question of physiology, both of the brain and the rest of the nervous system, and the muscles and bones that are moved to carry out decisions

really free will must be divorced from causation altogether if it is to be saved, causation doesn't have anything to do with it. instead free will is a matter of humans being self-conscious of their decisions and the apparent reasoning behind them (not perfectly aware, but we do have an ability to examine why we are doing things, even if we have a penchant for deluding ourselves on this matter). the sensation or appearance of free will comes from examining our decisions and reaffirming them

the point of believing in free will is to say that we are not unfree, at any moment our actions are entirely defined by our will and nothing else, there is no such thing as genuine coercion, only uncomfortable decisions

>> No.5346563
File: 255 KB, 700x700, at a distance.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5346563

>>5346506
Bell's theorem only has to do with LOCAL hidden variables.

It's certainly does not discount hidden causality completely. Only a specific kind.

>> No.5346589

>ITT a bunch of retards fail to grasp causality

>> No.5346614

>>5346562
water flowing through a stream creates extremely complex patterns but it still simple causality

>> No.5346632

>>5346562
>at any moment our actions are entirely defined by our will and nothing else

But we don't choose that will. Hell, we don't even really will anything 'ourselves' in the sense that we are witnessing ourselves. For instance, 'I' didn't formulate these sentences, my brain did. For my brain to forumalte any other sentences in reply to your post I would have to be physically different, which would require changes in causation all the way back to the 'beginning'. In order to do different I would have to be different, and I am not so I can't

>> No.5346636

>>5346614

I don't know if you understood what I meant by complex, a complex is just anything that can be broken down into moving parts, a stream is a complex

You can't explain the motions of a stream by appealing to the stream as a whole, that's an empty explanation "the stream moves like this because that's how this stream moves"

fluid dynamics reduces something like a stream to rebounding and overlapping energy waves moving through the water, etc

>> No.5346651

>>5346632


>But we don't choose that will

right im not denying that, this is why i said free will must be divorced from causation, because as you said, if it's really about "choosing between options" in a physical sense, causation cannot be made compatible with it

it still stands that the will entirely defines action, the will is defined in its own way by a complex process of inherent brain functioning and learned changes, the point is that this will never fails to bring about action, it can only be overruled by a stronger willing intuition, no matter the fact that it is all sourced from independent physical-causal forces

>> No.5346692

>>5346651
fine, but this thread is about whether or not free will exists not how our constrained will operates

>> No.5346850

>>5346692

i dont see how you can separate those two concepts

free will is a psychological phenomena, it doesn't "exist" so much as "subsist" as an idea

>> No.5347014

>2014
>still thinking you choose your beliefs

>> No.5347018

>>5347014
>not knowing what a belief is

>> No.5347025

I decide to call you a faggot, it is my will to do so. What can you do about it, what can anyone do about it? Nothing.

>> No.5347230

>>5345983
If you had free will, you be even more clueless than you're now.

It comes with problems bro.

>> No.5348120

>ITT people sperg over shit that has literally no importance.

Either you don't have free will, and this argument doesn't matter because and there is nothing you can do about it. Or you have always had free will this whole time, so nothing changes.

Its like two blind people arguing over what color something is.

>> No.5348144

>>5347025
What can you do about it? Huh.

>> No.5348147
File: 3.48 MB, 480x292, 1408919317117.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5348147

>>5346262

>> No.5348154

>>5346160
Holy shit, somebody on 4chan using "ad hominem" correctly. Never thought I'd see the day.

>> No.5348193
File: 1.55 MB, 235x240, 1377107719346.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5348193

>mfw free will is a spook.

>> No.5348213

>>5346103
>1600s

You might want to at least learn what centuries someone lived in, before pretending you knwo enough about them to dismiss their ideas.

>> No.5348263
File: 93 KB, 640x480, 1407508196421.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5348263

>>5345983

If I gave up on believing in free will, would I be using free will to not believe in it.

>> No.5348307

>2014
>Still believing practically what you deny in theory

And everyone's STILL going to hold you accountable for your actions. What the fuck, right?