/sci/ - Science & Math

>Free will and Determinism do not exist.
>Free will is not there, and neither is slavery (Determinism). Dependence and independence are both false words. They should be dropped completely, they should not be used. It is interdependence. I exist in you, you exist in me. That is the way life is: we exist into each other, we people each other. The breath that was in me just a moment before has now moved and has gone into you. Just a moment before I could have said, "This is my breath" - but where is it now? Somebody else's heart is beating through it.
>In your body the blood is flowing; just a few days ago it was flowing as juice in a tree. It became a fruit, now it is flowing in your body. Again you will fall to the earth - dust unto dust, and again a tree will arise; you will become fertilizer. And again a tree will become alive, and a fruit will come and your children's children will eat it. You have eaten your grandparents - you are eating them.
>And this goes on and on. The whole past is eaten by the present. And the whole present will be eaten by the future. Life is interrelated, deeply interrelated. It is just like a net. You are just the crossing point of two threads. You are not; you are just a tie between two passing threads.
>What do you guys think?
The scientific consensus is that free will exists.

>>11109561
>The scientific consensus is that free will exists
Do you think it is your conscious decision whether you want to live with a certain person, or if this could be the best job of your life? No. If you think that free will exists, you are wrong, as wrong as if you think that everything is predestined.

>>11109561
What's your source for that bold claim?

Great post, but I don't think the zoomers here would appreciate it.

>>11109561
Hm.. Nope.

>>11109560
As to free will, a hermetic principle states that the further the creation is from the center, the more it is bound

If there seems to be a paradox here, it's because there is

The personal will is never free, and free will is never person

Paradoxes may be reconciled, beware of half-truths

>>11109560
As to free will, a hermetic principle states that the further the creation is from the center, the more it is bound

If there seems to be a paradox here, it's because there is

The personal will is never free, and free will is never personal

Paradoxes may be reconciled, beware of half-truths

>>11110493
>>>11109560 (OP)
>As to free will, a hermetic principle states that the further the creation is from the center, the more it is bound

Sounds mistranslated from a dead language.
And even if it's not mistranslated, I still guarantee you have misinterpreted it if you attribute freedom as creation and will as the center. Completely non sequitor, unless you would care to explain it without implicit arguments no one is aware of except you.

>>11110406
>What's your source for that bold claim?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will#Believing_in_free_will
>Among philosophers
>A recent 2009 survey has shown that compatibilism is quite a popular stance among those who specialize in philosophy (59%). Belief in libertarianism amounted to 14%, while a lack of belief in free will equaled 12%. More than a half of surveyed people were US Americans.[214]

>Among evolutionary biologists
>79 percent of evolutionary biologists said that they believe in free-will according to a survey conducted in 2007, only 14 percent chose no free will, and 7 percent did not answer the question.[215]

>>11109560
okay.

>>11109560
I now understand what retarded people see when they read my writings. am i the actual retard?

>>11109560
How is that related to determinism or free will? You just explained how all humans, past and futre, are going to or have been recycled in nature.

>>11109560
I exist in you, you exist in me.
thats pretty fucking gay bro.

>>11109560
free will exists
it refers to your consciousness
- before you fall into sin
- after you have been saved from sin
just because you don't know what free will is doesn't mean it doesn't exist

>>11109560

>>11110745
Your source is bad and you should feel bad.

>>11110745
>More than a half of surveyed people were US Americans
>ask dumb people, get dumb answers
Who would have guessed?

>>11109560
that’s amateur baiting.
>>11109561
now this is how you post bait.

>>11110745
well, catholics and sunni muslims believe in compatibilism too, but at least they are upfront about it not making sense, cf. ‘mystery of faith’. for someone secular, compatibilism just does not make sense. if you want contradictory claims to be true at the same time, you don’t usually declare that they are, somehow, compatible; you show how the incompatibility is illusionary or you concede the incompatibility. except for the cherished free will, it would seem.

As long as am free to have any thought that I can formulate with words known to me I consider myself being methaphysically libertarian

>>11109567
>Do you think it is your conscious decision whether you want to live with a certain person, or if this could be the best job of your life?
UH YA WHAT THE FUCK? DO YOU HAVE A HARD TIEM UNDERSTANDING THE CONCEPT OF WEIGHING PROS AND CONS?

>>11112019
No proof of incompatibility - no incompatibility.

>>11112019
>for someone secular, compatibilism just does not make sense
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/NEeW7eSXThPz7o4Ne/thou-art-physics
free will REQUIRES determinism. For *you* to decide, the reasons why the decision was made must be because of YOUR goals, desires, knowledge, ability to reason and other qualities that make up your identity. Stuff happening just because, randomly, for no reason has nothing to do with *you*. If it's some inherently random coinflip, you aren't making a decision.

>>11112078
>free will REQUIRES determinism.
see >>11111267

>>11112437
uh, nice graph you've got there, what's your point? sure I'm aware that there are people who think indeterminist free will makes sense. i made an argument how it does not make sense.

>>11112078
>>for someone secular, compatibilism just does not make sense
>https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/NEeW7eSXThPz7o4Ne/thou-art-physics
>free will REQUIRES determinism. For *you* to decide, the reasons why the decision was made must be because of YOUR goals, desires, knowledge, ability to reason and other qualities that make up your identity. Stuff happening just because, randomly, for no reason has nothing to do with *you*. If it's some inherently random coinflip, you aren't making a decision.
But this is false since I have free will and the universe is not determined.

Free will is a spectrum.

>>11112078
>free will REQUIRES determinism.
And determinism REQUIRES God.

>>11112475
>i made an argument how it does not make sense.
No, you made an argument displaying your pop-sci understandings of determisism and free will.

>>11112517
you still didn't explain what was the point of pointing to the graph. I know of the existent of all these positions, and how some people combine a belief in free will with determinism, disbelief in free will with determinism, belief in free will with indeterminism and disbelief in free will with indeterminism. And then you said "pop-sci", I'm devastated.

>>11112533
>you still didn't explain what was the point of pointing to the graph.
That free will does not 'REQUIRE' determinism, since it's independent of it.

>>11112540
And a graph is an argument for that? The fact that there are people who belief otherwise is an argument?

>>11112548
>And a graph is an argument for that?
Yes, as it presents at least one alternative to deterministic free will (i.e., indeterministic free will).

>>11112553
It presents a name for that belief and not an argument.

>>11112561
>It presents a name for that belief and not an argument.
Correct. The arguments for that belief are in the literature.

>>11110481
Am zoomer. Do appreciate

>>11112487
Universe is not deterministic though.

>>11112734
*is deterministic

>>11112739
>*is deterministic
How so?