[ 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: 274 KB, 800x1200, benstillerfaggot69.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9968602 No.9968602[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

does free will exist

>> No.9968607

>>9968602
Gentle reminder that both Ben Stiller and Sam Harris are more intelligent and successful than you

>> No.9968611

>>9968607
they put in more effort to be successful than i will ever attempt so it doesnt surprise me

>> No.9968613

>>9968602
obviously

>> No.9968615

>>9968602
No it's does't. If you were capable of doing any amount of thinking for yourself you would have realized this when you were very young....

>> No.9968618

>>9968613
Nice argument buddy...

>> No.9968621 [DELETED] 
File: 87 KB, 678x678, spongebobicon.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9968621

dOEs FReE wiLl ExiSt

>> No.9968627

>>9968618
the real question is why people pull definitions for free will out their ass and then act like they have some great insight when it doesn't match how we actually use the word

>> No.9968634

>>9968621
you're a marxist right?

>> No.9968672

>implying compatibilism hasn't been proven to be correct

>> No.9968687

>>9968672
>proving metaphysics

>> No.9968742

In short, I believe it exists as a probabilistic framework that we can influence to some degree. We are still bound by the laws of nature and chaos, but not to such an extreme that it is purely deterministic.

>> No.9968766
File: 89 KB, 906x601, godel's proof.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9968766

>>9968687
>2017
>not objectively proving your metaphysics correct

>> No.9968789

>>9968766
Fuck off! You look like a total pseud pasting that with no context.

Also, that kind of proof shoul've died with Spinoza. God is himself the posibility of that proof. That's why I hate analytic philosophy. It has rigor and may seem thorough, but always misses the ontological aspect of philosophical questions.

>> No.9968802

Yes and no. You're free to make a decision now, but ultimately the universe just cycles through all possible combinations.

>> No.9969084

>From the narrow, restricted viewpoint of the present, you always have infinite choices (= free will), because choice is a mental process we use to imagine and decide upon possible courses of action, and hence can make as many of them as we want — whereas at the level of the universe you only have a single one: the one you'll end up making (= determinism), because the concept universe includes the concept time. Thus does the Overman solve, in a single sentence, problems that have frustrated mankind's greatest thinkers for millennia.

>HBD advocates say "there is no free will because your brain controls you". But my brain IS me. Like saying "there is no free will because you control you". I.e. there IS free will. Retards confused by wordplay.

>> No.9969183

>>9968802
is there a universe where I decide to do x and then I do y instead?

>> No.9969189

>>9968766
>tautologies

>> No.9969193

>>9969183
yes but you can only get there by killing yourself

>> No.9969194

>>9968802
I'm 15 yo and this is deeeeeep man

>> No.9969230

I read Althusser, so I don't think it does.

>> No.9969240

>>9969230

So it wasn't his fault that he strangled his wife?

>> No.9969243

>>9968602
Free from what, exactly?

>> No.9969257

Depends on how you define free will.

>The ability to make choices unhindered by our surroundings, environment, and peers

No

>The ability to make independent choices by filtering and considering possible options given by your environment

Yes

>> No.9969267

>>9969240
he had severe mental illness and spent about half his life in mental hospitals. It seems even the law says people like him are not responsible when they go crazy like that.

>> No.9969749

>>9969257
>The ability to make independent choices by filtering and considering possible options given by your environment
even then your decision is just dependent on your brain chemistry and and all your past experiences. You can do what you want but you can't do what you don't want.

>> No.9969824

>>9968607
How is Ben Stiller intelligent and successful? He actually doesn't have good movies, only forced comedies.

>> No.9969825

>>9969749
>your brain chemistry and and all your past experiences.
You are your brain chemistry and all your past experiences, though. These are not separate from yourself. Dependence on yourself makes no sense.

>> No.9969847

>>9969825
Exactly. So your decisions are not you, they are the playing out of chemical and physical laws. There is no locus of agency outside of this.

>> No.9969850
File: 27 KB, 338x499, 41IA4hp5awL._SX336_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9969850

>>9968766

>coherent formal systems=metaphysics

>> No.9969851

>>9968602
posted this on the other Harris thread that died out

If volitional action comes from unconscious processes, what's the purpose of the conscious mind? Is it just there to observe our body as it moves along space and time? Then it's ultimately useless since it can't inform our behaviour.

Harris makes the claim that your will is never free from the train of cause and effect thus free will doesn't make sense. Yet he also claims that choices matter, that you MUST choose to perform an action (albeit based on a limited number of choices). But how can this be? If you don't have a stake in the next sequence of events, how do you then CHOOSE to do something? You clearly have no choice if it's already decided by forces outside of our conscious mind yet he insists that choice is a real thing.

And if everything is determined, doesn't it necessarily mean that fatalism must also be true? The domino pieces must fall one way mustn't it?

It seems to me that biological determinism has many holes in itself and seems paradoxical. It's still an open question among philosophers and neuroscientists but Harris tells us that it's settled on both fronts and that he's right.

>> No.9969864

>>9969847
>your decisions are not you

but they come from me and no other person besides me is manifesting these chemical and physical laws in such a way

>> No.9969871

>>9969749
>You can do what you want but you can't do what you don't want.

is this meant to be an argument against free will? because it seems like it supports it

>> No.9969884

>>9968602
only once you pass a certain threshold, and even then, it oscillates

>> No.9970067

>>9968602
dubs decides?

>> No.9970075
File: 158 KB, 962x769, ratzinger.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9970075

>>9968602
Yes, but there is only one correct Choice.

>> No.9970078

>>9970075
>God gives you free will
>But he knows what you will choose

?

>> No.9970095

>>9970078
He knows all possible choices you can make, but not the one you will pick.

>> No.9970098

>>9970095
so he isn't omniscient then?

>> No.9970102
File: 28 KB, 298x481, 9780803284371.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9970102

>>9968602
No

>> No.9970106

>>9969824
>he doesnt understand Ben Stillers genius
KEK

>> No.9970119

>>9970078
It's not a two-option choice. There is only one option, and that's God. Either you choose God or you negate the question. Therefore he knows what we choose, because there is only one option, and each of us takes it, usually through some indirect faulty method. Idolatory is still choosing God, but in a way that doesn't sustain itself, that is, in a way that doesn't provide grace.

>> No.9970914

>>9969847
>Exactly. So your decisions are not you
God damn, this is one of the best cases of poor reading comprehension I've ever seen.

>> No.9970950

Does water have free will?

Your body is 70% water

checkmate

>> No.9970984
File: 131 KB, 500x746, mmafda.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9970984

>>9970950

>> No.9971099

>>9968672
>tfw taking a class taught by the dude who created compatibilism
Nice dude but wow what an intense class. As an undergrad who's never been challeneged in my humanities courses, he is such a contrast.