Free Will vs. Determinism

[Anonymous No.10350931]

What's a free will decision that can't be determined by genetics and environment?

[Anonymous No.10350942]

>>10350931
no good data, sorry

[Anonymous No.10350944]

[Anonymous No.10350948]

>>10350931
I choose to eat a pizza rather than a hamburger

[Anonymous No.10350949]

>>10350931
Motivation, ethics/morals, and few more things

[Anonymous No.10350955]

>>10350948
>>10350949
prove it

[Anonymous No.10351207]

>>10350931
Whether you believe in God is neither genetics or environment

[Anonymous No.10351211]

>>10350931
I don't think there are any.

[Anonymous No.10351389]

>>10351207
To what extent to those factors influence that belief? None at all?

[Anonymous No.10351785]

>>10350931
Both things are the same. Genetics and environment is what allows humans to do anything.
The universe is nondeterministic by the way, many-worlds interpretation is a meme.

[Anonymous No.10351870]

>Free Will
LOL

[Anonymous No.10352030]

>>10350948

Nope. This "choice" is determined by previous life experiences and environmental constraints. For example maybe you "choose" the pizza because you had a hamburger yesterday? Or maybe The last hamburger you had made you sick? Or maybe the Pizza is easier to acquire and you're feeling lay?

[Anonymous No.10352036]

*and you're feeling lazy

[Anonymous No.10352227]

>>10351870
this

[Anonymous No.10352321]

I always ask people what does free will look like to you? What would it take for free will to exist

[Anonymous No.10352559]

>>10350948
Dis you chose for pizza or hamburgers to exist In this dimension?

No. Your choice was determined by their existence.

[Anonymous No.10352565]

>>10352321


If I had free will I could will things that did not depend on a previous cause. Basically magic and the ability to will anything freely.

[Anonymous No.10352570]

>>10350931
So if free will doesn't exist does that mean that I was born to be a failure?

[Anonymous No.10352989]

>>10350931
There are three metaphysical categories of reality.
They are:
1.Chance
2.Causality
3.Choice
These three categories are mutually exclusive.
>anyone who demands an explanation of free will in causal terms is begging the question

[Anonymous No.10353008]

>>10350931
>he thinks a choice can be freely willed

[Anonymous No.10353051]

>>10352321
I could understand how a being could be free from influences, or how a being could make decisions, but I cannot understand how a being can make freely willed decisions. All decisions are based on desires, and desires are not freely created by us without originating from something other than “ourselves”

[Anonymous No.10353056]

>>10350931
Free will isn’t real.

[Anonymous No.10353060]

>>10353051
>I could understand how a being could be free from influences,

Literally impossible.

[Anonymous No.10353156]

>>10353060
I think such a being would likely do nothing

[Anonymous No.10353510]

>He believes he can generate consequences without causes
>He believes he has the ability for original genesis of existenting phenomena
Lmao Free Will believers are a joke

[Anonymous No.10353531]

>>10350931
Free will doesn't even make sense as a concept.

https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Free_will_(solution)
http://lesswrong.com/lw/of/dissolving_the_question/

[Anonymous No.10353540]

we have free will, the domain in which we can make choices is limited though

[Anonymous No.10353575]

>>10350931
free will is observationally impossible to distinguish from apparent free will which means that this dilemma is forever byzantine.

[Anonymous No.10353581]

>>10353531
freedom makes sense but it ill understood becaue freedom was never a property of the subject in the first place. It is a property of WHAT IS AROUND IT.

"x is free" means "there aren't bounds that restrict x".
Kevin in jail and Kevin outside jail are the same person, the difference is the walls around the latter, and is clearly not intrinsic.

But all these douche philosophers (who have got their wage from tyrants and people in power for a very long time) have always tried hard to conceal this BECAUSE THEY NEVER WANTED THE SLAVE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT FREEDOM WAS AND HOW THEY WERE DEPRIVED FROM IT.
Freedom is VERY SIMPLE conceptually (how to achieve it isn't but is a separate question).
The very idea of "alienation" is 100% bullshit made to confuse you about the true nature of freedom and make you believe that if you're not free, it is because you do not obey enough to the noble authority of the master and his officially appointed philosopher.

[Anonymous No.10353583]

>>10353581
if vernacular language wasn't that stupid, we wouldn't say "I am free" but instead "my environment is free".

[Anonymous No.10353586]

In a universe where causality exists, no, you have no freedom of choice.

You feel like you do, but that's because of the perspective you have being a self concious self in a system so large you will never be able to see it all or understand it all.

Either you believe causality exists or that science doesnt because you cant have both.

[Anonymous No.10353588]

>>10353586
>Either you believe causality exists or that science doesnt because you cant have both.
Quantum science or even statistics does exists even if you acknowledge that hidden variables doesn't exists. Having increasing entropy means that amount of information is increasing as well, therefore there is an information you can't access until it becomes part of the universe. Deterministic universe would have constant entropy.

[Anonymous No.10353681]

>>10353588
Explain! I dont understand how increasing rate of entropy produces more information. I am dumb.

[Anonymous No.10353695]

>>10353681
The more entropy you have in a system, more information it contains, ie. you need more information to fully describe it.

[Anonymous No.10353814]

>>10353695
There is a finite amount of matter in the universe. Entropy is about the dispersion of that matter until it is evenly distributed and the system is perfectly balanced.

I see no new information being introduced in that. Nor do I see how that disrupts causality. We are determined.

[Anonymous No.10354220]

>>10350931
The concept of free will is flawed no matter which way you look at it. In a deterministic universe we'd literally be nothing more than a bunch of particles reacting in ways that could have been perfectly predicted aeons ago if you but had the computational power to do so. So now people jump on to quantum mechanics as a saving factor. But how does that change anything? Whether our personalities, actions and thoughts - those elusive choices you people keep referring to - are the product of pre-determined reactions, or random actions on sub-atomic level, doesn't change the fact that we are NOT in control of them.

I feel like the whole topic of free will is the modern equivalent of Darwin's theory of evolution. "We can't be descended from some primates, we're divine, and so much better than them!" Just the same, people now just can not see beyond their egoes and admit that they have no free will. Because the thought is too insulting to their inflated egos, too anti-climactic for their tiny little brains.

But none of that changes the obvious: Free will does not exist.

[Anonymous No.10354230]

>>10354220
Free will is no different from the issue with "god is in the gaps". You could say "free will is in the gaps" too, and like god, those gaps keep getting ever smaller. Each year shows us more and more evidence that our successes or failures in life are not by choice, they're the consequence of nature and nurture, and random events. People don't choose to be poor, or evil, or have a mental illness, or to be powerful, intelligent, wise, handsome, intuitive, strong-willed.. or anything else for that matter. Who you are today, and the choices you would make today, are always based on what you were yesterday, and what has happened since then. And take enough yesterdays, and you'll reach a point where you were nothing but a clueless infant who but did what they were told, and what their nature demanded of them.

There is no way around this.

[Anonymous No.10354232]

>>10353814
>There is a finite amount of matter in the universe
citation needed

[Anonymous No.10354255]

>>10354230
There is a way around this. You've made a hidden assumption that the past has any causal relationship to the future. That may be probable to some extent. But at the deepest levels there is uncertainty. Namely heisenberg uncertainty. Now I don't take it as far as Michio Kaku saying therefore we have free will. But it does have implications on the nature of causality.

Normally we think of present initial conditions moving to future states, but who knows maybe there is a better model which marks backwards.

[Anonymous No.10354260]

>>10354255
Also samefag here, this is not a gap argument as heisenberg uncertainty is a provable statement in itself. Rather than arguments from ignorance like a gap argument

[Anonymous No.10354313]

>>10353531
>Since free will is about as easy as a philosophical problem in reductionism can get, while still appearing "impossible" to at least some philosophers, it makes a good exercise for aspiring reductionists, which they should try on their own - see the main page on free will.

>These posts should not be read until having made a very serious effort on your own.

This beat me.

[Anonymous No.10354339]

>>10354260
That doesn't change anything. Then we're back into the realm of QM and randomness. Even if the arrow of time didn't exist and there would be no causality the way we understand it, as Sam Harris (iirc) put it, there's still the question of whether or not we can call something free will if we're not even aware of where that will comes from? If the cause of your will, your decisions, your motives, are unknown to you, is that truly free will?

I know Occam's Razor isn't too popular here, but I'd go with that all the same. Free will does not *need* to exist. In fact, everything we know points to the simplest explanation being that it really doesn't. We have to make some pretty outrageous assumptions and grasp at a whole mess of straws to be able to say that it did. Which brings us back to the simple question of which is more likely: That free will doesn't exist? Or that there's a whole universe of hidden dimensions, dualistic properties, divine meanings and causality-breaking ideas, all so that free will could exist after all?

[Anonymous No.10354465]

There is none.

[Anonymous No.10354618]

>>10350931
The awareness of determinism by genetics and environment and the decision to ignore them.

[Anonymous No.10354631]

>>10350931
it's impossible to test for free will or make predictions based on it, and it adds nothing to explaining the mind. that means free will is a scientifically useless concept

[Anonymous No.10354712]

>>10354631
It is possible to prove all our decisions are determined, and it has been done.

Subjects were asked yes/no questions while getting IRM and encephalogram. They had to press a button when they decided what to answer.

Encephalograms allowed scientist to predict what the subject would answer before the moment they press the button (when they are conscious of their choice) minus the latency reaction time.

[Anonymous No.10354850]

The scientific consensus is that free will exists.

[Anonymous No.10354929]

>>10351207
how is this not environment?

[Anonymous No.10355095]

>>10352565
but you do. it's called art

[Anonymous No.10355100]

>>10351207
Except we seem genetically predisposed to religious thought across all cultures

[Anonymous No.10355116]

>>10354220
>Whether our personalities, actions and thoughts - those elusive choices you people keep referring to - are the product of pre-determined reactions, or random actions on sub-atomic level, doesn't change the fact that we are NOT in control of them.
but it seems we can and that we transcended the simple material plane so to speak and became something meta. which is basically the question of what life is and how something dead can come to life and eventually self aware.

[Anonymous No.10355612]

>>10354631
>it adds nothing to explaining the mind. that means free will is a scientifically useless concept
you are a retarded sophomore undergrad.