/sci/ - Science & Math

jews

>>15099462
Because your decisions are made before you become aware of them.

>>15099467
elaborate

>>15099470
It's common knowledge

>>15099462
Explain to me why it matters? No, really.

>>15099462
Every contributing factor to the decisions you make are out of your control. From your brain chemistry (which determines your temperament and cognitive function) to the more obvious external influences like your environment/circumstances drive your decisions completely. Your brain is a physical organ. When you feel like you (“you” being your mind) have decided something, you’re correct, it’s just that the entire structure of your brain and by extension your consciousness is determined before you make any given choice.

>>15099482
I asked first

Because "free will" is a made up schizo tier concepts that christcucks use to make themselves feel special.

>>15099467
By who or what?

>>15099482
>>15099485
No srsly, cause it makes me feel less of a fuckup

>>15099482
Not him, but it's driven me into existential crisis because not only I can't truly own any mistake I've made, on an intellectual level I can't feel proud for any littlest or greatest accomplishment I've made either.

Determinism and free will are compatible.

>>15099495
That's not relevant

>>15099508
Yes it is. If you have no idea who is doing what then you're no different then faggots who say "God did it" or pure on shit like white holes. Either figure out who has the control or what process that makes us do else we can just ignore you.

>>15099462
U dont but I do, everyone but me isnt real

>>15099467
Even if that was true your subcontious is still you, everything about you is you

>>15099524
You are quite dumb >>>/trash/

>>15099534
>bro trust me, you don't control your actions
>why
>because bro
Might as well join Islam. Atleast I'll get a cool hat and see women dressed as ninjas.

>>15099484
So if I spend an hour planning what I will do on a day one month from now then during that hour planning I wasn't actually planning at all and was just receiving instructions from my subconscious and subconsciously recording them for later. And then on that day one month from now I will automatically do all the things that my subconscious planned for me

>>15099540
What?

>>15099514
Stonefag is cringe af

>>15099533
If you consider everything in your body to be you, then you have to accept that you decide when you get hungry, when you get sick, etc. So your view is nonsensical.

>>15099544
If I have to plan something for an extended period then none of the numerous choices I made during that period were conscious choices, they were all just already made for me ? So I could just sit there not thinking at all and all the choices would be made for he?

>>15099553
>he?
me

>>15099496
>>15099497
So it's more of a personal thing?

>>15099462
If you define freewill as "my brain is me and makes decisions based on it's complex structure and chemical makeup in response to stimulus from sensory organs of its own freewill" then yes it exists if you mean freewill in the christian sense of a totally free agent capable of doing anything possible then no. You are limited to doing only what you want to do. You can't do anything you truly do not want to do so your agency is limited. Furthermore your brains existence as a physical structure means it can possibly be predicted as if your actions are predetermined and not spontaneously willed.

>>15099562
yes

>>15099467
>Because your decisions are made before you become aware of them.
Imagine being the mongoloidal creature that still buys into that one piece of dumspter research. Imagine having no capacity for self-reflection.

>>15099597
Doesn't matter, it would be the same if the latency was 0 seconds. We are made of the same matter as anything else, you can't have "free will" without invoking souls or other spiritual nonsense.

>>15099597
I was not referring to libet's experiments you retard

>>15099599
>Doesn't matter
It does matter, because it shows that you are driven purely by emotions, and by your desperate desire to reduce everyone into a biological automaton like you to cope with your profound sense of inferiority.

>>15099601
You were refering either to that piece of dumspter research or something in the same vein, because your dross is incoherent in any other context.

>>15099602
Nobody is denying the human capability to self-reflect. Every action is simply pre-determined through cause and effect.

>>15099604
You can cry about being " just a biological automaton" as much as you want but that doesn't make it false.

>>15099607
>Nobody is denying the human capability to self-reflect
I deny your capability to self-reflect.

>>15099553
> If I have to plan something for an extended period then none of the numerous choices I made during that period were conscious choices, they were all just already made for me ?
If you set out to make all those choices before hand, then you still chose, at a prior time. My point wasn’t that you don’t make choices, just that all of the choices you make in life are derived from something ultimately out of your mind. Everything that composes “you” came into existence without you choosing.
>So I could just sit there not thinking at all and all the choices would be made for me?
No, because you couldn’t choose something if you don’t think. However thoughts aren’t something that you independently conjure up from nowhere, they are a result of all of the external stimuli you’ve perceived and your genetics. The problem with “free will” is the implication that your will is free from constraints, like it’s some metaphysical, transcendent thing. I don’t think that’s the case.

>>15099608
Thanks for confirming my point. Your beliefs have nothing to do with rationality.

>>15099614
Not the guy you replied to, but why are you seething so hard about such an inoffensive statement?

>>15099637
>The problem with “free will” is the implication that your will is free from constraints, like it’s some metaphysical, transcendent thing.
That's not a problem with free will. That's a problem with you eternally lashing out against an imaginary transcendental boogeyman because the priest diddled you when you were six.

>>15099637
> out of your mind
* out of your control

>>15099642
Because I just hate the acolytes of biological automatonism and the consequences of their diseased worldview. What kind of answer did you expect?

>>15099467
You are still responsible for your actions

>>15099647
I don’t have a problem with religion, I actually enjoy studying it. I enjoy the idea of transcendental things and of a soul, I just haven’t found a reason to believe in these things.

>>15099657
You've found some kind of reason to obsessively argue a nonsensical, unfalsifiable determinitard dogma, though. Funny that.

>>15099652
You referenced the “consequences” of that worldview. Is the utility of your belief in free will one of the primary reasons you advocate for it? Do you care about truth more than utility or vice versa?

>>15099654
Maybe, but that's a political statement.

>>15099668
>Is the utility of your belief in free will one of the primary reasons you advocate for it?
I don't advocate for anything. Nice attempt to invert reality. It's your programmers who are advocating for automatonism due to its "utility" to them and its detriment to everyone else.

>>15099663
How am I being obsessive or dogmatic? I just made a few posts sharing my opinion on the topic of the thread. I was interested in getting some substantive replies that give me some good insight and maybe bring up things I haven’t thought of yet. I don’t understand why you’re lashing out like this.

>>15099678
>I don’t understand why you’re lashing out like this.
Literally just this: >>15099652. Determinitard beliefs have nothing to do with empricism. It's pure metaphysics, and I think what kind of metaphysics you find subejctively compelling says everything about what kind of person you are.

>>15099675
What? Are you not supporting the idea that free will exists in this thread?

And I really have no idea what larger agenda you’re referencing? What programmers? I’m not interested in philosophy really, and I don’t come across people who discuss these things.
These are just things that I’ve thought about.

>>15099688
> Determinitard beliefs have nothing to do with empricism.
I didn’t claim that they did. This sort of question is difficult to answer empirically.
>It's pure metaphysics, and I think what kind of metaphysics you find subejctively compelling says everything about what kind of person you are.
I don’t know what metaphysics are

>>15099695
>This sort of question is difficult to answer empirically.
It's impossible to answer empirically. When you rub a determinist's nose in all the things that are impossible to predict, the usual response is to conjure up some fantasy universe where an all-knowing god can measure every particle inside the universe without interacting with anything and altering its state and then simulate it with infinite precision inside his giga galaxy brain and prove that, indeed, everything is predetermined. It's laughable.

>>15099691
>Are you not supporting the idea that free will exists in this thread?
>the idea
What specific idea am I supposed to be supporting? There's a million different ways you could develop the intuitions behind "free will" into an intellectual position and a lot of them work independently from whether or not determinitard metaphysics is true.

>>15099700
> the usual response is to conjure up some fantasy universe where an all-knowing god can measure every particle inside the universe without interacting with anything and altering its state and then simulate it with infinite precision inside his giga galaxy brain and prove that, indeed, everything is predetermined.
It’s a hypothetical. The point of it is demonstrate the idea that all the “material” that is behind each decision and each circumstance is always there regardless of if we can currently measure or observe it.

>>15099711
> What specific idea am I supposed to be supporting?
The idea that free will exists.


Also I already told you I don’t know what metaphysics are

>>15099735
>The point of it is demonstrate
You don't demonstrate anything by making up fairytales. Call me back when there's an actual emprical difference between the universe we live in and a universe where determinitard dogma is wrong.

>>15099742
Looks like your programming has no prescripted response to what I actually wrote, so you circle back and repeat yourself, trying to get us back to something your NPC dialogue tree can deal with. lol

>>15099753
>not even trying to engage with the content
Just stop replying if you’re going to be so antagonistic in an internet discussion

>>15099761
LOL. You truly are scum.

>>15099759
Is your belief in free will not an idea? I don’t understand.

>>15099763
Do you disagree with the idea that all the “material” that is behind each decision and each circumstance is always there regardless of if we can currently measure or observe it?

>>15099767
>>15099770
And then this determinitard bot wonders why I no longer bother to engage with its kind.

>>15099782
Determinism is very essential to much of physics, even quantum mechanics.

>>15099787
We've already established that it can't be the case, since the only "empirical" test you can come up with is a thought experiment with imaginary entities that transcend physics.

>>15099788
I don't know what you're talking about. Which thought experiment are you referring to?

>>15099782
>>15099782
I’m sorry, I wasn’t trying to be rude or dismissive. I was just a little annoyed, because I got the impression that you weren’t giving me a fair shake. Can you answer my questions please? The fact that you disagree so vehemently makes me inclined to believe there might be something valuable/substantial behind your beliefs. Do you think that the particles that are behind every decision and each circumstance are always there regardless of if we currently observe or measure them? If so, doesn’t the existence of this material imply predetermination.

>>15099462
Totally free will is contradictory. If you can have your cake and eat it too, both go to a party and stay home to read on the same night, move upwards and downwards at the same time, etc. you cannot make choices. Choices imply a choosing between things, but absolute freedom means no choice excludes anything. Absolute freedom entails an absolute constraint on one's ability to select for and against various options. One's actions have no effect, as absolute freedom implies they can always be reversed, and thus absolute freedom is absolute constraint.

This contradiction is only resolved when freedom sublates constraint and our choices begin to have determinate meaning.

Obviously we are not fully free. I can't open my door in Montana and step into a Paris street, or take flight like a bird. But freedom is only possible in such a constrained process.

>>15099796
>doesn’t the existence of this material imply predetermination.
No. Why would it? Asking something rhetorically doesn't magically make it true and put the burden of proof on your opponent.

>>15099794
You know what? Let me dumb it down for you. If determinism being true is somehow integral to physics, what physical laws would break if it were false?

>>15099496
>my feelings are determined by abstract philosophical positions about intangible things

>>15099804
Also, you are clearly an element of all that exists, the Absolute. What can constrain the Absolute? Nothing, because it is all that becomes. And if the Absolute is unconstrained and free to develop, how can its moments be constrained and unable to develop? The Absolute is the process of becoming, being recognizing its self as self. If the Absolute is free than this freedom must be recognized through the process through which it comes into being, within its moments.

>>15099811
It's not that it's "integral to physics", it's that determinism is what's actually observed. When you throw a ball into the air, the maximum height it reaches is determined by newton's laws. When you measure the spin of a particle along an axis, you always get a definite probability distribution determined by how the particle was prepared, etc.

To anyone capable of free will it is an obvious experience. The only people denying free will are those who don't experience it.

test

>>15099822
>When you throw a ball into the air, the maximum height it reaches is determined by newton's laws
Prove it. Predict me the exact trajectory of a ball using Newton's laws, and then show that it followed the precise trajectory you predicted. lol. I feel like I'm talking to actual middle schoolers.

>>15099467
BASED
PHILOSPHERS BTFO

>>15099822
Anon, he's a schizo just ignore him.

>>15099829
not him but I love your strawmanning, thats what the science kids in 9th grade did before they got beat up by chad and laughed at by stacy

>>15099841
>your strawmanning
What strawmanning? He said the trajectory is determined solely by Newton's laws. He should be able to test this empirically. In reality, of course he can't, because the real world is not your physics classroom and an error factor modeled as randomness is built into any real world model.

>>15099838
Yeah, he may or may not be a schizo, but he's clearly not arguing in good faith.

>>15099838
>>15099841
>>15099843
>elements of the nonhuman horde updooting each other
It's like clockwork.

>>15099806
Please get out of debate mode man, I was just asking an earnest question.


I belive that the existence of this material does imply predetermination. The reason I believe this is becasue if all of the factors (these infinitesimally small particles) exist before a decision is made, I don't think you could say the will behind these decisions are "free". It seems like the will of person is a material, non-transcendental thing, which I think lends credence to the idea that this will is determined before it expresses itself.

Something that is more tangible and observable in the real world I can reference is the case of Phineas Gage. After suffering a traumatic brain injury, he started behaving in a completely different way than he usually did. As a result of his physical trauma, his temperment, decision making, and emotions (all things that people often times think are manifestations of their own will) changed drastically. Is Gage (the self) truly responsible for the way he behaved after the injury? If the answer is no because of the condition of his brain (a physical organ), is he even responsible for how he behaved prior to his injury? He didn't choose to have his particular brain. He didn't choose to be born to his family. He didn't to be American. He just is who he is. Everything he does is a consequence of him being him, and that isn't something he chose.

>>15099847
Says the person who can't state their own beliefs. Are you by chance a solipsist?

>>15099548
Yes, you decide those. Also you decide your eye color, what food you like etc.

>>15099637
>Everything that composes “you” came into existence without you choosing.
what if someone is holding two identical cheeseburgers, one in each hand, and they say take one. Then I have a decision to make in that instant where either outcome is the same result but there is an element of choice that isn't a choice I've made before and has no logical right answer but I still need to make a choice. Surely I'm thinking about the situation and then have to tell my hand to move to take a specific thing, it's not like I would subconsciously always take something from someone's right hand

And yeah we do a lot of things on prior experience but we also are at times faced with choices that we haven't come across before and need to weigh up options and maybe ask for further information to make a better choice etc

Sometimes I visit /sci/ in the evening, sometimes in the afternoon and sometimes in the morning. But no matter when I come here, there is always this one butthurt hardcore autist raging at others and posting his basedjak/npc memes while being too insecure to state his own opinion. Holy fuck, please get a life, dude. I imagine you look like pic related.

>>15099567
>Furthermore your brains existence as a physical structure means it can possibly be predicted as if your actions are predetermined and not spontaneously willed.

Phahaha

>>15099853
>can't state their own beliefs
I don't do metaphysics. I'm just here to shit on your beliefs.

>>15099850
>I belive that the existence of this material does imply predetermination
Why?

>The reason I believe this is becasue if all of the factors (these infinitesimally small particles) exist before a decision is made
I don't think there's any need to go to the complexities of the human mind. You're wrong even about rocks.

>>15099822
What if I throw an Sun sized ball into a group the middle of two other stars?

>>15099890
>You're wrong even about rocks.
Can you tell me why I'm wrong?

>>15099886
Do you exist?

>>15099868
He's been doing it for almost a year now I think.

>>15099904
>I belive that the existence of this material does imply predetermination
Why?

>>15099905
Maybe. "I" roughly correspond to some aspects and relationships of reality. I think "I" am good enough approximation for practical purposes. What does that have to do with anything?

>>15099864
>And yeah we do a lot of things on prior experience but we also are at times faced with choices that we haven't come across before and need to weigh up options and maybe ask for further information to make a better choice etc
Whether you had prior experience or not has nothing to do with it. It's basically about how the physical, chemical, biological, etc processes in your body + the information you receive through your senses determine how you will act. Our civilization has developed around being right handed so you are likely right handed and will likely grab the cheese burger with your right hand, or maybe there's a bright light on shining your right side or something which causes you to choose the left.
I think the main issue with people who don't agree with determinism is that they don't understand the scope in which it's applied. Literally anything can affect your decisions. Everything can be traced back to some cause and effect. The smallest cause can generate a butterfly effect that determines a decision your make.

>>15099920
I already told you why I believe that in the post you responded to earlier. Then you responded saying that my reason was wrong even when applied to rocks. I then asked you why you believe that my reason was wrong even about rocks and you replied with this.I don't understand.

>>15099925
>I exist
That's a metaphysical claim.

>>15099842
>Schizo anon discovers Physics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77ZF50ve6rs

>>15099925
>Maybe. "I" roughly correspond to some aspects and relationships of reality. I think "I" am good enough approximation for practical purposes. What does that have to do with anything?

Oh shit. The brainlet is trying to express a belief in the most pussy ass retarded way imaginable. Literally too afraid to give a straight answer in fear that someone will make him look retarted and is inevitably restarted anyways.

>>15099932
It's endlessly funny to see confirmations of the fact that, indeed, you are an NPC operating on a close-ended dialogue tree, because I keep breaking you.

>>15099927
>I already told you why
Then quote the part that specifically answers this question. Protip: a valid answer doesn't involve any tripe about how you think people make decisions, or Phineas Gage.

>>15099944
Your asshurt is palpable. Did I break your dialogue tree, too? Maybe give me a list of options your programming can handle.

>>15099501
Sure, as long as we accept the person as the deterministic agent instead of nebulous concepts such as electrons or protons.

>>15099948
I accept your concession.

>Your asshurt is palpable. Did I break your dialogue tree, too? Maybe give me a list of options your programming can handle.

If you can choose between two things to do in the evening, that means you have free will.
For example, I know that this evening I can either watch a movie or read a book. Neither is impossible.
To the determinist, such thought is unthinkable. One of reading a book or watching a movie is impossible in his mind. Clearly a deranged worldview, possibly the result of a brain damage.

>>15099978
When did you decide? If the brain is you and is physical what lead up to the brain-state where you chose to read a book?

>If the brain is you and is physical what lead up to the brain-state where you chose to read a book?

Determinism is an expression of a very early or disordered mental development. Determinism basically means the denial of the agency of oneself and ascribing the cause of one's own behavior to external things.
A determinist didn't kill a bug because he chose to, he was forced to by his mom and friends. The determinist cannot imagine a past where he didn't kill the bug, that would be impossible, since nothing could ever have been otherwise.
All his misfortunes are blamed for others. He is not responsible for anything. It's all the big bang's fault. He denies the self, and as a result the self ceases to be, since the self has to be acknowledged by itself to exist. This is because the self requires the conscious discrimination between the agency of others and agency of oneself, since that is how one learns to exert influence upon and manipulate the world. As the self is denied, it ceases to be, and the determinist becomes an NPC in a self-fulfilling prophecy. There is nothing else for agents to do than to affirm his beliefs in the lack of agency.

>>15099997
Based and correct opinion. Determinitards are in shambles.

>>15099997
I'm a determinist but indulge in the idea of freewill for it's utility in "allowing me to change my mind".

>>15100008
Wat do you mean allowing you to change your mind? Either physics will push the right buttons in your brain to give you a new opinion or it won't. Nothing to do with you, your will, your imagined rationality or anything. Pure happenstance.

>>15099462
Because you need it explained to you.

>>15099997
>Determinism basically means the denial of the agency of oneself and ascribing the cause of one's own behavior to external things.
I believe in determinism, but I live my day to day life as if free will exists. I hold myself and others accountable because that is the only way to dictate good behavior. When I miss a workout I don't just throw my hands up and say "ah well it wasn't meant to be", I punish myself and make up for it the next day.

>>15100013
Yeah but it's a useful idea to have inside your predetermined brain. Because acting as if you have a choice is better than not to. Because I pretend to have freewill I'm more likely to break from the well trodden path that I should statistically be following.

>>15100013
To put it a different way freewill is a better "loss function" than fate.

>>15100024
Sorry, I'm not actually going to engage in any discussions against the arbitrary particle arrangement that causes you to spout this view, nor the arbitrary particle arrangement that causes you think that the rationale physics has randomly assigned to you is the actual reason for your opinion.

>>15100023
>I believe in determinism, but I live my day to day life as if free will exists.
So you're a hypocrite.
>I hold myself and others accountable because that is the only way to dictate good behavior
Dictate good behavior? What does that mean? How can you dictate anything when everything that has happened has been determined before or at the big bang. It's not up to you bozo.
>When I miss a workout I don't just throw my hands up and say "ah well it wasn't meant to be", I punish myself and make up for it the next day.
Do you have a reason for punishing yourself or do you do it out of compulsion, like some kind of schizophrenic masochist who cannot control his actions?

>>15100036
>like some kind of schizophrenic masochist who cannot control his actions?
This, but due to circumstances outside of my control, I am forced to deny it to you and to myself. I am extremely intelligent, by the way.

>>15100032
The particle arrangement is hardly arbitrary. A CPU may be made of literally rocks but the arrangement of the particles has a purpose. Not just any rock can perform a binary computation. Similarly a chunk of coal isn't gonna contemplate it's existence.

>>15100036
Why do you believe free will exists? Where is this will derieved from? I've been leaning towards believing in the soul or some sort of metaphysical phenomenon that explains human behavior based purely on my intuition, but I haven't seen any evidence of the existence of something like that. I want to believe. Help me out here.

>>15100048
It clearly is arbitrary. Your particle arrangement happens to correspond to determinitard dogma. Someone else's happens to correspond to its denial. You are a puppet of physics and your particles just so happen to be arranged in a way that forces you to think and claim you spout what you spout because it's true, at the very same time as you claim it's because of physics. I hope something puts you out of your misery soon. Your condition is truly worse than death.

>>15100049
>Why do you believe free will exists?
Same reason why I believe computers exist. Because I have one.
>Where is this will derieved from?
From me.
>I've been leaning towards believing in the soul or some sort of metaphysical phenomenon
You don't need all that supernatural ghost nonsense. It's all natural. Free will is part of then natural world.
You have been misled by rhetoricians who claim that free will means "ghost in the machine" or some other such nonsense. Free will, just like gravity, is a natural phenomenon. The real ghost in the machine are the supposed laws of physics, which nobody has ever written down, which nobody knows how they even look, which supposedly dictates how all the atoms in the world must move, and which precludes the existence of more complicated natural phenomena such as agents being part of the causal vector moving the world forward.

>>15100057
I believe that subjectively we share a common reality that can be modeled by mathematics. I also believe the future will continue to behave like the past and gravity won't suddenly invert I can't prove this but it's necessary for my framework of reality. Particle arrangement is important and not arbitrary. There is a difference between water and hydrogen peroxide and there is a difference between me and a rock.

>>15100063
>>15100049
>>Where is this will derieved from?
>From me.
Actually scratch that, the answer is mainly your brain. Your brain is the biological organ that generates the phenomenon of your agency and your free will. That's perhaps more in line of what you were asking about.

>>15100065
I don't care what you believe, since you are acting like a delusional schizophrenic who simultaneously tells me that his views are due to being a physics puppet circumstantially assigned this view, and that his views are due to some dogshit reasons, which were also circumstantially planted in his head, but are the true reasons because he believes them. I hope someone puts you and othe rmental patients like you out of their misery in the near future.

>>15100063
>free will is like gravity
So what are the equations describing free will?

>>15100076
The behavior of rabbits is part of the natural world, is it not? What are the equations describing the behavior of rabbits?
Perhaps you understand why your question is absurd now.

>>15100076
>>15100079
Also no need to talk about animals, since humans are also a part of the natural world. According to your own standards, you should be able to write down the equations describing the behavior of humans. Please do so.
Then I'll give you the equations describing free will :)

>>15100076
>doesn't understand comparison

>>15100073
Well, I am a very special kind of physics puppet that can find patterns in reality. And I have noticed that almost all natural phenomenon can be modeled mathematically so I'm assuming that the human mind, also being a natural phenomenon, can be modeled mathematically.

>>15100079
>What are the equations describing the behavior of rabbits?
Schrodinger's equations will suffice. Now give me the equation describing free will

>>15100090
Write down the equations please. We have mathjax, you know.

>>15100092
I'm on my phone so it's hard to typeset, but you can literally Google the equation, it's very well known.

>>15100095
Ok then explain how does the equation describe the fact of rabbit behavior that rabbits like to jump instead of crawl.

>>15100096
You'd have to solve the equations to know why.

>>15100101
Ok, then the equation that describes free will is X=Y.

>>15100101
>>15100108
What point are you two trying to make?

>>15100108
That's funny, but I guess it means you don't have an equation for free will after all

>>15100114
He claimed that free will is just like gravity and I was demonstrating why that claim is wrong

>>15100088
>Well, I am a very special kind of physics puppet that can find patterns in reality
So is everyone else who believes the opposite from you. You are in no special privileged position. Your retarded and incorrect views were punched into you by physics. You were born to be wrong and you can't change your mind.

>>15100063
>The real ghost in the machine are the supposed laws of physics, which nobody has ever written down, which nobody knows how they even look, which supposedly dictates how all the atoms in the world must move, and which precludes the existence of more complicated natural phenomena such as agents being part of the causal vector moving the world forward.

Okay, I get it now. The "laws of physics" are not literal laws it's a model of reality that has proven itself consistent. It's not written in some metaphysical book somewhere that all matter attracts. It's just an accurate model of reality.

>>15100126
>but muh model of heckin' reality is accurate
So is a model of reality that rejects your determinitard dogma. It's really funny how you still can't grasp this simple fact.

>>15100129
If you can show me a convincing theory for the existence if freewill I will change my mind.

>>15100135
I broke the bot again. lol. Its dialogue tree literally consists of two or three points it desperately tries to lead back to.

>>15100139
I am an open minded individual. Please just show me a model of reality that is logically consistent and incorporates freewill or even a plausible theory of freewill. If you can't do it then I have no reason to reevaluate my current beliefs.

>>15100144
You are not an idividual, you have no mind, and your program is hardwired into you. Even when I rub your nose in the insane nature of your replies, you just go right ahead and repeat the last one. lo

>>15100145
I thought you believed in freewill? If you believe in freewill then I must have it and you must have reasons for believing it. I would like to know. Maybe my own knowledge is incomplete and my internal model of reality isn't as accurate as it could be. Genuinely I just want to expand my knowledge.

>>15100152
And it does it again. It can't control itself.

>>15100153
I just am not convinced that
freewill: "the capacity to make choices undetermined by past events."
Is real but, maybe you know something I don't or maybe have a different definition.

It's a metaphysical concept and not a scientific concept so you can believe what you want to believe

>>15099462
Because we are living in a simulation all our decisions and circumstances are predetermined.

You just have to hope you are part of the lucky dims.

>>15100159
Notice how your programming is stuck in a loop? I didn't say anything about free will. Why do you repeat the same generic talking point about free will over and over? lol

>>15100063
>>15100066
Ah ok, I understand what you mean. I agree with you using that definition of free will, it’s just that most people have a different conception of what free will means? Their idea of free will IS like the “ghost in the shell”.

>>15100180
Because we are talking about freewill??? That's the entire point of the thread. I want to know why you believe freewill rather than the alternative which makes more sense logically based on what I know.

>>15100192
How does believing that you cannot choose one of going to the movie tomorrow evening or going to see your friends tomorrow evening, more logical? To me it's more logical that both of these are possible.

>>15100205
>>15100192
To clarify, denying free will means asserting that one of these is necessarily not possible. Or as another example, according to you, one of these is not possible:
1) That your next post will contain the expression "free will"
2) That your next post will not contain the expression "free will".
To me, it's obvious that both are possible, and it is confirmed by my experience of being able to choose between different possibilities.

>>15100208
So freewill is just the possibility to make a choice out of a finite set of possible choices. Now my post does contain the word "freewill" and I agree it was possible for me to purposely not include the word. But I think that set of choices poorly represents the issue. Try these instead.

1) You can take all your money out of your bank account/s and burn it all.
2) You can not do 1.

I argue that it isn't possible for you to chose option 1.

>>15100192
>Because we are talking about freewill???
But I didn't talk to you about free will, drone. I talked to you about something moronic you said, which you couldn't respond to, hence your desperation to get back to your NPC dialogue tree. lol

>>15100229
> I argue that it isn't possible for you to chose option 1.
You’d be wrong

>>15100237
>So is a model of reality that rejects your determinitard dogma. It's really funny how you still can't grasp this simple fact.
This is the first thing you said to me. And I just want to know what model of reality is compatible with freewill or at least incompatible with determinism.

>>15100245
>This is the first thing you said to me
Yep, and it doesn't include the words "free will" nor imply them.

>>15100242
It isn't possible for you to burn all your money because you don't want to.

>>15100248
What does it imply then? If determinism is false then what is implied? And you never told me about this model of reality that isn't compatible with determinism

>>15100250
>it isn’t possible to kill yourself because you don’t want to die

>>15100256
Exactly, there are choices that are not possible for you to make.

>>15100254
>What does it imply then?
It implies that babby's determinitard model being consistent with reality doesn't mean anything. Anyone can invent imaginary and unfalsifiable metaphysical claims and attach them to a working model.

>>15099585
Kinda sad anon.

>>15100270
I think determinism would be falsified by having any system or particle defy predictability when all variables are taken into account. But that hasn't happened yet. Superdeterminism however is probably unfalsifiable.

Because I'm a psychologist, and I have free will, and you have to hand over the big $$$$$ bucks if you want it.

>>15100279
>you would heckin' see that it's deterministic in the fantasy universe where my impossible premise holds
Mental illness.

>>15100289
You've made to major claims here.

>you would heckin' see that it's deterministic in the fantasy universe.
You don't believe we can model reality. Which, unless your a solipsist that doesn't trust their own sensory input is wrong.

>where my impossible premise holds
Determinism is impossible. How?

Also I'm eager to see your response to >>15100260.

>>15100302
Looks like I broke the bot again. It keeps responding to imaginary characters and claims that no one made.

>>15100256
There are choices that are not possible for you to make. This refutes your definition of freewill.
>>15100339
I'm starting to think you might be a bot.

>>15100392
You can keep winning imaginary reddit debates in your subjective little NPC world, but antisemitism is getting more and more prominent by the day. :^)

>>15100406
Now I can see why your so dense and stupid. Another victim of the /pol/tard hivemind.

>>15100428
>the kike immediately exposes itself
Like a literal bot.

>>15100434
Continue being a victim of the Jews for the rest of your life. Continue to be an ignorant post-modernist stuck in a schizophrenic framework of reality. Also, why are you talking to a bot?

>>15100444
Why did you have JIDF memes saved on your computer?

>>15100465
Have you ever took a moment to stop and think about how your entire world view is built on the "left". Like you are just the other side of the same mentally ill coin.

>>15100475
Why did you have JIDF memes saved on your computer? How did I know that vaguely mentioning antisemitism will make you lash out like that?

>180 replies later
>still not a single logical argument against free will
>only determinitards screeching dogmatically

>>15100489
Take your meds, /pol/ schizo. Go back to your /pol/ hivemind where you can discuss how you have free will, how the Jews control the banks and the media and other antisemitic delusions.

>>15100480
Because I'm apart of the JIDF and I want to eat babies and turn your children into transexuals.

>>15100504
How did I know you will lash out at the slightest mention?

>>15099462
Free will is a straightforward contraction as nothing can become its own cause, but it's also wrong to say "will" is deterministic as none of the wills in the body are indifferent: compare a machine that has run out of oil to a man that has run out of food.

>>15100539
>nothing can become its own cause
The universe did though

>>15100539
>Free will is a straightforward contraction
Why are drones so desperate to believe this?

>>15100547
At least we get paid to post here. Shouldn't you be at work goyim.

Why is self-determinacy such a hard filter for midwits? Does it really take a Langian genius IQ to understand the concept?

>>15100539
*contradiction

>>15100547
Read further, friend.

>>15100551
I read the whole thing and I thought it's quite noteworthy how especially desperate you denial of "free will" is in the context of the rest of your post.

>>15100489

>>15099484 made a pretty good point

>>15100550
He is not smart, IQ is an irrelevant concept (and that's assuming his supposed score is real)

>>15100569
>angry midwit noises

>>15100550
Pure self-determination is the intuitive conclusion you would come to as a being with unitary apperception, but the reality is a constant battle of wills in the body with only the most dominant commanding the others. The most domineering will misinterprets obedience for necessity of effect, so it comes to believe its will alone is a "cause".

>>15099484
I used to think that way, but then I asked the question.

If I can negotiate a presence in the wider universe, surely my free will can as well. If atoms, particles can negotiate their existence away from the universe, then so too can I. If my chemistry can, then so must I as well.

That's not to suggest a universe defying entity controls the body and makes supernatural moves, but that I'm not just a universe, not just a part, but an active part that can exert the will through the body's active control in relation to the passive forces around the body.

So not saying "free will" vs universe, but rather free will as part of the universe, within a framework that allows partitioning of the universe into parts.

>>15099484
then why does the illusion of free will exist at all? Who is being tricked by it? What even is (You)?

>>15100591
>then why does the illusion of free will exist at all?
nta but perhaps it's just to aid your navigation, survival, and thriving in the world. No animal could survive if it was constantly disturbed by its own biological processes and external forces. You have to gloss over that noise and act as though you are the center of everything, even if it's not strictly true.

>>15099462
i do what i want niggers

>>15100599
But it seems that from an evolutionary pov, free will and all the consequent problems&questions of responsibility, blaming oneself for mistakes/missed opportunities and so on are just a disadvantage and we would be better off as insect-like drones completely focused on maximum group efficiency.

>>15100591
Survival of the body. To localized itself in the chaos and maximize return on investment.

>>15100638
I honestly don't know why that's the case, it's an interesting question. I'm biased as human in assuming that it's simply not possible for higher forms of life to be anything else than independent.

>>15099462
>ctrl-f
>cellular automata
>zero references found

Casuals. Hit the books.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyZUzakG3bE

I dont have free will. Honestly it sounds really weird that you have it. You should see a doctor.

>>15099467
Are you sure about that? You can, after all, observe yourself making that decision, so you can then make a decision based on this observation, and so on and so in, ad infinitum. This process converges rapidly so that we can truncate it and expect to have known the decision before it was made (one final time)

Thus with true free will as an infinitely recursive self introspection, we have at apperoximation of it.

>>15100764
2 minutes in and I'm hooked. This is beautiful. Thank you anon.

>>15099462
free will is the ability to have done otherwise.

for any given decision, you only ever do one thing. there is no sign of the imagined alternatives being physically real. just because you can imagine them happening, does not make them real in any actual, or even potential sense.

therefore, you don't have free will.

>>15100764
>wolfram not mentioned
who's the real casual?

>>15099462
Stop asking whether you have free will, and start asking the real questions, like why you get no bitches

>>15100550
self-determinacy doesn't exist. look at mtf trans people trying to make themselves into women. it doesn't work buddy.

I thought true randomness exists and is the reason for well "existence" in the first place. Wouldn't that mean free will is also possible

>>15101433
no.

in a sense, randomness does exist, in and and every theory. in the sense that, one always begins with something that just true without any prior explanation. it is a brute fact. why is it a brute fact? well, randomly is. this may be the sense of random you are referring to already? i don't know. but it doesn't permit free will in the libertarian sense.

>>15099462
You cannot choose your likes and dislikes. You are always going to choose to pursue what you like.
>But I can do things I don't like
Sure, but only because you sometimes prefer to do that. You can not choose your preferences.

>>15100786

>>15101633
>preferences
>real

>>15100786
>You can, after all, observe yourself making that decision
You only observe the decision after it has been made for you and tell yourself that you're the one who made it.

>>15101645
And ? that does nothing to refute my point, it's just wording it differently to try and trick me.

>>15099462
If you don't have free will control over you're life then who does? When we're planning our lives, we give ourselves options. Different possible outcomes yet it usually has a common theme based on what we are coming to learn, your free will is a tool to help you accomplish that. We get confused because it does have a common theme but we do have the freedom to choose from the different options we set for ourselves in this life. So some people will say we don't have it, some people will say we do have it but it's a bit of both.

>>15099462
You do have it, it's the option to choose from the different possible outcomes for your life through each decision we make.

>>15101307
Just pull yourself up by the bootstraps

>>15099540
the things that lead you to decide to plan that hour (and how) were out of your control

>>15100591
it hasn't been biologically necessary for living creatures to understand that they dont have free will; it just doesnt matter evolutionarily
you are your brain, the part of you thats reading this is your conscious, which is the sum of several subsystems all coming together

You feel like you have free will because you can decide "I will pick up this cup" then do it. But the things that lead to your thoughts and decisions are not up to you. Try this: decide that raw potatoes are your favorite food, then go eat one and enjoy it. You can't, it's not up to you. Decide that you are attracted to men now. You can't (unless you're gay, in which case be attracted to women). If you stop and think about this long enough, you'll realize that none of your opinions, preferences, personality, etc are up to you, and if they're not, then you're not "choosing" to act the way you do. You might decide to start acting different, but the circumstances that lead to you deciding to do so were not up to you. It feels like you have free will but you really don't.

>>15099462
At the end of the day, the core of "free will" is the realization that trying to reason about a conscious, self-reflecting being's actions in terms of either determinism or randomness is completely meaningless. Both halves of that dichotomy have zero explanatory or predictive value, both are untestable, both violate intuition and both amount to some kind of schizophrenic double-think where the denier's behavior, values and everyday reasoning stands it total contradiction to their pseudointellectual wanksterism.

>>15099462
Quantum determinist point of view: because your mental processes are the result of processes that are going to definitely end up a certain way, like if you threw a ball and knew where it was going to land with physics.

>>15099462
You have if you have small brain. Big brain only do correct decisions and thus no free will. If you can do bad decision willingfully you have not enough brain power to get the big picture. So you can do bad, but it's basically a logic fault

>>15099462
this makes no sense, why i the pepe moving in the picture? is he on top of a train and shooting from there? that's so hard to do accurately

Because the root of qualia in the suffering incarnate hasn't been removed generally enough. This genre of suffering's liberation is the being entire, the whole individual, as a free sovereign spirit of existence or the universe. The universe autonomous at once and hence unobtainable materialistically, unless one were to do further excavations or regressions, and what is that diatribe, except amongst other spirits of influence. Really. Truthism out of ego, really? And alienation out of physicalism? Yea. Really. I guess machines hardcoded probabilities within calculated psychoanalytic roots, it is our resistance through art that frees us, an intellectual burden of consumption and the empty mind, or stimulated artificial suggestibility under the burden of commerce and aggression. Maybe someone wants to fixate on devastation. Devastation in desolace. That is our worrisome fear alone, the anxiety of not escalating and raising the threat prowling or creeping, so remaining detached in their firm grasp. Because we wander and are lost in lonely confusion, we have unclarity of our will. We do not things, remaining convolved floating intoxicated blissfully, and that contents our shadow, amongst their primal resolve to satisfy, hence, we're satisfied with not taking control of the thing we desire.

There is no desire, except desire of desire? That can be sad, but leads to creative creations, which, leads me to believe there is statistically dominable creations. Anyone who creates, shows their true will. What does true will have to do with freedom? Depends what we attribute to freedom as opposed to determination or over-determination. I think it's a matter of growing up and realizing we can determine somethings, like whether or not to open our eyes in a dire circumstance, maybe. Sometimes, we really do need suicide, unable to live or wish for anything, unable to change our inner will to align the self orientation to higher powers. Perhaps it is that will, is the demarcating line between freedom and determination. Hence it's convoluted manner, one with the other, in opposing signs, with respect to dominable forces. Maybe it is that you don't have much freedom, wiggle room, or control, and this is your unconscious projection questioning humans, in a transitory state of growth or translation of neurotic tendencies. Perhaps something to consider. I have little control myself, the thing does, and I am also neurotic. So,...?

>>15101804
The camera is zooming in fast

>>15101817
>>15101818
>/r/im_12_and_i_just_discovered_alan_watts

>>15101804
POV: you are a determinist beast lunging frantically at Free Will Pepe, but he has foreseen your predictable behavior while you could not foresee his, so he swiftly dispatches you with his pistol.

>>15099479
It was revealed to me in a dream.

>>15099814
He doesnt have a choice, he don't have free will. I also didnt choose to make this reply. Im a god damned automaton

>>15102053
Welcome to the club kek

>>15102053
>>15102060
your all npcs. im an npc too.

>>15099462
The thoughts of all men arise from the darkness. If you are the movement of your soul, and the cause of that movement precedes you, then how could you ever call your thoughts your own? How could you be anything other than a slave to the darkness that comes before?

>>15102144
Pretty funny to watch midwits stuck in a loop with this simple-minded cause and effect model that obviously breaks as soon as you try to analyze any nontrivial system.

>>15102151
You don't get it

watch Donnie Darko, if you can handle it

>>15102153
I understand your kiddie shower thoughts. They're completely trivial.

>>15102187
Mr. Kreuger! I'm such a big fan!

>>15102234
>How could you be anything other than a slave to the darkness that comes before???
Maybe I should try to speak your language. How do you say it back on reddit? I'm 14 and this is deep? Either way, your line of thought is a nonstarter because there are no objective causes of effects. You're subjectively dividing a continuum.

>>15102246
> there are no objective causes of effects. You're subjectively dividing a continuum.
There is an objective cause for posting such cringe though. The cause is overconsumption of onions.

>>15102415
You can chimp out but you can't prove me wrong. Seethe.

>>15099978
>Neither is impossible.
Only one will happen. The one that happens was the only one that was ever going to happen. So the other choice was impossible. You just didn't know it ahead of time.

>>15099997
>A determinist didn't kill a bug because he chose to, he was forced to by his mom and friends.
He chose to do it. But the choice was not made consciously. The choice he made was always going to be made that way. In that way it was forced by the preceding state of the universe.

>>15102246
you seem to be upset

>>15099825
Everyone experiences it as an illusion. You merely think that you have free will.

>>15102475
You seem homosexual and aroused.

>>15099850
>After suffering a traumatic brain injury, he started behaving in a completely different way
well no shit? you'll behave differently after cutting off some fingers or a leg, too. of course you would think and value/judge things differently if a big part of your brain gets fucked beyond repair.

>>15099850
Based genuine discussion haver.

>>15102548
Yeah, its not up to you, that's the point.

>>15099548
Are you retarded, we are talking about decisions that eventually become conscious, the conscious self always arise from the unconscious

>>15102681
You can train yourself to resist instinctual impulses to extreme levels. Buddhist monks can induce states of profound self-deprivation to the point where they mummify while still alive. If you were solely a finite state machine powered by biological impulses, acts of self-denial like that wouldn't be possible.

>>15099850
>Is Gage (the self) truly responsible for the way he behaved after the injury?
Yes, he is, who else?

>>15099567
>You are limited to doing only what you want to do.
What? No, you can also do things that you don't want to do, but you're not going to do them

>>15099465
fpbp

>>15099822
How is this proving anything? He is saying that you can't actually now for sure that knowing all the properties of a system let you predict the next state, because we can't verify it, and your answer is "well, more or less, if you know the velocity and the direction you get the height"

>>15102465
You're still making a choice, your nervous system is making a choice integrating signals from itself and the rest of the body, it's evaluating which one of the two. It's a choice

>>15100024
>it's a useful idea to have inside your predetermined brain. Because acting as if you have a choice is better than not to.
But you can't decide how to act, in your deterministic view, can you? How is the idea useful?

>>15102792
>you can't actually now for sure that knowing all the properties of a system let you predict the next state, because we can't verify it
It's actually worse than that, because measuring all the relevant variables is incoherent even as a purely theoretical premise, assuming you have to do the measuring from inside the system. You can't measure anything without interacting with it and thus changing it.

>>15101770
>Try this: decide that raw potatoes are your favorite food, then go eat one and enjoy it. You can't, it's not up to you.
This only proves that there are things we can't change about ourselves, it s like saying
>decide you are black
> ah, you can't, see? No free will

>>15101846
What? I don't know anything about him except that he's Buddhist, like me...? I don't even know if that's so. You were just mocking for it's own sake, right? I'm more of a Freudian than a a Buddhist, anyways. w/e? Good luck with your op. Do a barrel roll into a lake.

>>15101770
>Try this: decide that raw potatoes are your favorite food
That's really stupid, you choose your actions, not your personality, or desires, or emotions

>>15102875
>>15103431
as others in the thread have said, "You don't get it."

>>15103431
>you choose your actions, not your personality, or desires, or emotions
Except your actions are dependant on your personality, desire and emotions lol.

Humans simply became aware of their own inherent lack of free will as a byproduct of becoming optimized through evolution to communicate for hunting n shit. The fact that humans study other humans and can determine their outcomes basically confirms it.
Someone with a brain is limited by what their brain can do. If its an adhd brain then they cant just switch it off, and same goes for anything else.
I think doubters just fail to understand the argument since humans have the capacity to understand this but it's built in that they have a notion of being free in their actions.

>>15102818
>But you can't decide how to act, in your deterministic view, can you? How is the idea useful?
Because humans have operated fine without it for thousands of years. Maybe in another thousand humans will operate better when they fully understand that they're automatons, but as of right now we're allowed to believe as we see fit

>>15102803
a determined choice, but a choice nonetheless

Lack of free will is backed up by literally every natural science, the only "proof" freewilltards have is that "well my brain tells me I make decisions out of free will!"

>>15099462
You do but if you do terrible things can happen to you

>>15099462
A thead with more than 30 replies on sci thats a anomaly

People who are caught in sin don't have free will, but it isn't a science or math topic.
Free will is reserved for sin and other behavioral topics.
If you want to talk about your behavior and sin and how they're related, it's pretty obvious, isn't it?
Now, what makes it hard to change behavior, that's science.
Addiction, for example.
However, the question is: if you're caught in "addiction" would you be better off admitting that it's sin, and the doctors can't help you, or would you be better off asking the scientists for advice on motivating cardiovascular activity and improving your fighting skill
in other words
do you go to church
or do you go to the sparring room
and do you claim that fighting in the sparring room is "science" that is more powerful than God?

>>15099462
>there is no such thing as a universe wherein Julius Caesar didn't cross the Rhine
>ergo this wasn't a decision that he made but a pre-determined event
determinism doesn't contradict free will

>>15105415
You got caught in sin, addicted, you went to God, God said
>cardio and fighting, train like Rocky
So you went to the scientists and they gave you a schedule that would improve your muscle mass and the dojo guy has to get you to do the discipline thing where you take in this whole social fighting thing
You don't have free will because you aren't doing the one thing that has the best chance to save you from sin right now.
Obviously if you have free will then you aren't stuck in sin, and vice versa, it means the same thing, two phrases for the same meaning.

>>15099462
time and space my friend
time and space is gonna eat your free will ... now is past always

>>15099462
Explain why you do. Exactly. Things that can't be tested are worthless to discuss honestly.

>>15099462
I don't need to. If you genuinely believe in free will you're a retard.

>>15102246
>You're subjectively dividing a continuum.
Woah now, that's dangerously close to an opinion. I thought you avoided that shit like the plague.

>>15106096
OP ... read this again and again until you understand what i say just understand

>>15106940
It's a factual observation and it makes you seethe.

>>15102674
I'm not surprised that you didn't get the point, but I am disappointed. I'll try to think of a better example.

>>15099467
No they are not. You are probably talking about libet type experiments which I guarantee you have never read the literature on. Libet himself never even claimed such a thing by the way.

>>15106984
I am neither surprised nor disappointed that you didn't get his point.

>>15100065
I am not that anon but do you have any evidence of a particular particle arrangement producing a particular thought in a way that can be verified? Why do you believe that particular particles cause thoughts? How do 'particle arrangements' beam the actual mental experience into the observer? And how can two different people understand the same concept such as 'cat'. Are you saying that there is an identical particle arrangements in the brains of two people having a discussion that correspond to a universal cat concept? Do you have any evidence of this? Does me saying 'cat' cause your brain to change 'particle arrangements' in order for you to understand what I am talking about?

>>15099470
The decision to fight or flee, when faced with danger, depends on whether or not the ancestor that made you survived by fighting or fleeing. Extrapolate to infinity conditions. By the time you're conscious of the fact you're conscious, your future is already ongoing. All future decisions will come from a specific perspective(ego) which will make decisions in a predictable fashion as well. For example, a narcissist will never consider themselves to be second. It's fun to pretend, but in a deterministic universe, it's not possible to have free will.

>>15107021
So have you considered seeing a professional about your clinical narcissism?

>>15107023
Interesting.
If that example stated that an insecure person will never openly admit to being weak would you then assume I am insecure because you're unaware empathy exists so you can't possibly imagine putting yourself in someone else's shoes?

>>15107029
There's this one particular poster on this board that mentions narcissism in every thread for no reason. I think it's you and I'm wondering if you're getting help.

>>15100164
Yes. And within this post of yours is the reason that physicalist theories of mind can't account for consciousness and why the data stream which is presented to the observer, ie the physical world, is not the source of the observer/consciousness. There should be no 'meta' anything in a physicalist model and certainly no metaphysical.

>>15107031
I am not. that anon Should I worry about you getting some help given that you think you can identify specific anons off of one interaction? Remember the feeling of grass?

What I don't like about OP is this moronic suggestion that we have to evaluate absolutely everying we come across on the basis of whether or not it is sin, i.e. the absolute worst possible outcome for behavior, death, a being, &c.
This is morbid and nihilistic.
Frying ants is sin.
If you like frying ants with a magnifying glass, then you're caught in sin.
If you like frying ants for delicious ant cakes because you live in Africa and you're a NIGGER, then you're a hungry motherfukka and who gives a FUCK if it is sin because it's gonna get digested by your guts inside ya body and it's gonna cum out ya asshole in big brown poops if ya do it right honey, ya hear?

>>15107035
>passive-aggressive reddit quips
Go back.

>>15107053
>Absolutely fucking destroyed
>s-stop quipping
>r-rr-eddit
Why'd you @ me then, retard? Am I to believe that was genuine concern and not an attempt to trigger some anon you came across before? Suck my dick.

>>15107045
take your fucking meds, lol

>>15107058
You:
>i heckin' destroyed you!!
>i BTFO you so fucking hard and you WILL acknowledge it!!

Also you:
>a narcissist will never consider themselves to be second

You are free to do what you will.
You are not free to will what you will.

>>15107064
then youre not free

>>15107064
So?

>>15107066
Right.
>>15107067
So you're not free.

>>15107063
>I don't need a coherent argument, I just need two points in time.
How much of my time do you think I am going to give you?

>>15107070
Doesn't follow. The distinction you're trying to draw between "you" and "your will" is a purely linguistic construct, not an objective truth.

>>15107073
All of it, because your narcissist compels you to keep addressing me. As you've noted yourself, "people" like you genuinely have no free will.

We cannot explain it because it is a gift from God

>>15103450
>My argument was shit and easily disprovable, but I'm not going to admit it

>>15103783
But you said that's it's helpful, now you're saying something different. Anyway, the question remains, why do you act as if it existed?

>>15108599
NTA but since you asked how determinism is useful, you should look up how newtonian mechanics is used in engineering

>>15103570
Not necessarily only on those, my point was just that that was a retarded argument, since no one who believes you have free will to choose your actions believes that you have free will to Chios your emotions

>>15108610
I asked how freewill was useful, cab you even read?